By Paola Arias (Banca de las Oportunidades), Marco Carrasco (MIMPLab), Oscar Carrillo (OEFALab), Luisa Cuellar (ICBFLab), Guillermo Delgado (IPA), Luis Espejo (Indecopi), Alexandra Heredia (IPA), Juan Hernández-Agramonte (IPA), Will Sims (IPA), and Mateo Valderrama (IPA)

“It is very interesting to see so many people sharing the same dream.” - Dante Guerrero, Indecopi

In December 2024, leaders from seven Embedded Evidence Labs (Labs) gathered in Lima, Peru, for the fourth Cross Country Labs Exchange organized by IPA. Labs from Peru and Colombia, representing diverse sectors such as gender, environment, security, early childhood development, education, financial inclusion, and consumer protection, came together to share lessons learned and enrich their experiences.

A video recap of the Latin America Cross-Country Learning Exchange event hosted by IPA in December 2024 

The "dream" these officials share (and that we share with them) is leveraging evidence to improve public policies. To make this a reality, they design, test, and drive institutional transformations through Government Innovation Labs. In collaboration with them, we have developed this blog to share the insights gained during the event, aiming to support other teams in institutional transformations that bring evidence into policy.

A group photo from the Latin America Cross-Country Learning Exchange event hosted by IPA in December 2024 

The Mechanisms, Strategies, and Challenges Faced by Labs Are Similar Across Different Policy Sectors

Previous exchanges have shown that Labs within the same sector, such as education, can take different forms in different countries, adapting to their respective institutional and political contexts. This time, the Labs represented seven different sectors across various countries. However, the event highlighted that the mechanisms and strategies used by Labs to promote evidence use, as well as the challenges related to their institutionalization and mission fulfillment, share commonalities across sectors and contexts. This ability to generalize the model creates opportunities for officials to build networks of Labs, facilitating comparative lessons that can be effectively applied to their own contexts.

Internalizing the Timing of the Government

Government agencies operate on different timelines for carrying out their processes, and a Lab’s success largely depends on understanding and aligning with these timelines. Some of these processes are cyclical and follow predefined calendars, such as budget cycles, where funding for the following year is usually determined in the last quarter of the current year. Planning a Lab’s innovation cycle to align with budgetary planning can be key to securing the necessary resources for implementation and scaling.

Other institutional timelines are less predictable, such as political timelines, in which high-ranking officials or agency directors must quickly respond to urgent challenges, sometimes delaying long-term initiatives that address structural issues. These timelines do not always align with those of Labs, whose projects often have longer-term horizons. During the exchange, participants highlighted strategies to balance the need to respond to urgent challenges while maintaining a long-term strategic vision. One approach is to identify intermediate deliverables within longer projects to address pressing needs or to combine long-term projects with shorter, faster initiatives that respond to immediate demands. This dual strategy helps Labs meet urgent government needs while staying focused on broader innovation goals.

Building Networks to Navigate Shifting Priorities

Government agencies undergo frequent leadership changes, especially after elections or when new officials, such as ministers, are appointed. These new leaders often bring different priorities, requiring Labs to explore how their evidence-based projects can align with shifting policy agendas. A key lesson shared by the Labs was the importance of building networks both inside and outside the agency, at both political and technical levels. For example, gaining the trust and commitment of technical staff, who are less affected by political cycles, can be crucial for ensuring project continuity. Their support can help align ongoing projects with new leadership priorities. Additionally, Labs should adopt a proactive approach, continuously promoting the value of their work to various stakeholders within government agencies. This includes identifying and capitalizing on policy windows of opportunity to inform decision-making with evidence and maintain their relevance in an ever-changing institutional landscape.

Overcoming Institutional Inertia Through Systemic and Cultural Change

Labs aim to transform how public policy is designed and implemented, often within institutions that have long-standing traditions and bureaucratic processes. A key challenge is breaking institutional inertia to introduce new ways of working. These changes require addressing multiple institutional dimensions, including structures, capabilities, resources, and organizational culture. A notable approach is that of ICBFLab in Colombia, which tackles change at two levels: Supporting implementation units by partnering with them, involving their members, directly addressing their needs, and generating incremental improvements—allowing teams to see firsthand how evidence use can become part of their daily work. Driving broader institutional change by transforming agency processes to integrate evidence-based decision-making into the organizational structure. For example, the Lab is working with the Planning Directorate to revise internal manuals, guidelines, and procedures to institutionalize evidence use within ICBF’s operations. By aligning internal processes with evidence-based decision-making, these efforts ensure that the shift toward evidence use becomes sustainable within the agency’s structure.

Labs Learn, Adapt, and Improve Their Own Design

Labs "take their own medicine" by continuously learning and adapting to improve their effectiveness and respond to evolving environments. To do so, some Labs use Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) plans, such as those supported by IPA, to assess their progress against their theory of change. Several teams shared how they have adjusted their strategies based on insights gained. For example, MineduLab, which traditionally relies on causal and quantitative tools, has incorporated qualitative methods into its 2025 work cycle, gathering insights directly from end users.

Additionally, Labs discussed the potential use of predictive algorithms and artificial intelligence to enhance and target public policies, as well as to streamline services—reducing the burden on government agencies and making it easier to implement evidence-based solutions. A notable case was that of Indecopi Lab, which used artificial intelligence models to monitor unauthorized calls or telephone "spam." These models enabled the transcription of thousands of audio recordings in a fraction of the time it would take a human team.

Conclusion

The Cross Country Learning Exchange provided valuable insights into the challenges and strategies for implementing Government Innovation Labs, including the generalization of the model, the importance of timing and networks, and the need to combine systemic and project-level strategies to overcome institutional inertia. The event also highlighted the presence of a network of government officials capable of influencing their institutions, leading institutional changes that integrate data and evidence into decision-making. This network represents a unique opportunity for national and international stakeholders to promote the use of evidence in government. At IPA, alongside global partners, we are committed to fostering more spaces that strengthen these networks. As a first step, we will launch a "community of practice" where Government Innovation Labs across Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) can learn from one another, enhancing their effectiveness in promoting evidence use in government.