R-LABSHealthcare + Housing Innovation Cluster
Participate
← All missions

Mission 10 · Scale and Replication

Care Model Licensing + IP

Stage: ExploringR-LABS Solution Accelerator

Explore how proven service models, care approaches, operating playbooks, and implementation methods could be documented, validated, licensed, or replicated in new settings.

Join This MissionExplore the First Proof of Value
Care Model Licensing + IP illustrative image

The challenge

Successful local models rarely spread, because the know-how is undocumented and permissions are unclear.

Who experiences it

Communities that could benefit from models proven elsewhere.

Why current systems fall short

Know-how, permissions, and implementation support are not packaged.

Why it crosses sectors

Originators, adopters, funders, and evaluators all need a fair arrangement.

If it stays unresolved

Good models stay local while problems repeat elsewhere.

The opportunity

A respectful replication framework developed with originating organizations.

What is already known

Some local models report strong results.

Demonstrated elsewhere

Licensed replication is common in other service sectors.

What R-LABS proposes to test

Develop a replication framework with one originator.

What still requires validation

Permissions, fidelity, and value sharing (To be validated).

The coalition

Who needs to be at the table

Roles are proposed. No organization is implied to have agreed to participate. Select “This could be us” on any role to carry it into the participation form.

Healthcare systems

Proposed role
Why it matters
Health systems see the downstream cost of unstable housing and fragmented care first.
Could contribute
Clinical leadership, a defined patient cohort definition, operational insight, and a pilot host setting.
Could gain
A tested pathway that may improve patient flow and outcomes, with shared evaluation.
Next practical step
Nominate a sponsor to join a 60-minute problem-definition session.

Community organizations

Proposed role
Why it matters
Community organizations hold trust, local knowledge, and service delivery capacity.
Could contribute
Wraparound services, outreach, local insight, and community engagement.
Could gain
A recognised role and resourcing within a coordinated model.
Next practical step
Share the services and populations you currently support.

Researchers and evaluators

Proposed role
Why it matters
Independent evaluation separates what works from what simply sounds good.
Could contribute
Evaluation design, baseline methods, literature review, and outcome measurement.
Could gain
Applied research partnerships and access to real-world implementation settings.
Next practical step
Propose an evaluation approach or relevant prior work.

Investors and capital providers

Proposed role
Why it matters
Missions need patient, blended capital that matches risk to the stage of evidence.
Could contribute
Feasibility funding, grants, impact or project capital, and structuring expertise.
Could gain
Early visibility into a curated, evidence-led pipeline.
Next practical step
Indicate the stage and type of capital you could explore.

Housing providers and operators

Proposed role
Why it matters
Operators turn buildings into stable homes and know what support models are sustainable.
Could contribute
Operating expertise, tenant-support models, portfolio sites, and realistic cost assumptions.
Could gain
Access to aligned partners, funding pathways, and integrated service partners.
Next practical step
Share non-confidential portfolio context and operating constraints.

Select one or more roles above

Continue to participation →

First proof of value

Identify one candidate model, engage its originating organization, clarify intellectual property and permissions, and develop a replication framework.

Proposed plan, not a guaranteed schedule
  1. 1

    Define the problem and target population

  2. 2

    Identify the host organization and local context

  3. 3

    Assemble the minimum viable coalition

  4. 4

    Establish a baseline and evidence plan

  5. 5

    Design and cost a bounded pilot

  6. 6

    Agree on a go / no-go decision

Proposed scope
One candidate model, with its originating organization.
Required participants
  • Host organization
  • Lead sponsor
  • Evaluation partner
  • R-LABS Solution Accelerator
Key assumptions
  • A host is willing to share non-confidential context
  • A bounded use case can be defined
  • Baseline data is accessible through approved channels
Data or evidence needed
  • Current-state baseline
  • Comparable models elsewhere
  • Stakeholder interviews
Deliverables
  • Problem definition
  • Coalition charter
  • Costed pilot design
  • Evaluation plan
Indicative timeframe
Proposed: 90 days of discovery and design
Success measures
  • Agreed problem statement
  • Committed minimum viable coalition
  • Costed and fundable pilot design
Decision gate
Coalition decides go / no-go on a bounded pilot.

Economics explorer

Test the assumptions

Every input is an editable, illustrative assumption, not verified project data. Replace with local information as it becomes available.
Illustrative assumptions only
Editable assumptions

Baseline utilization

2,000 bed days / yr

Modelled change

0 bed days / yr

Gross avoided-cost estimate

$0

Pilot + first-year cost

$0

Expected change defaults to 0% because no validated effect exists yet. Gross avoided cost is not equivalent to cash savings realized by any organization.

Moonshot

Proven approaches, everywhere they are needed

Scale proven approaches across Canada while respecting originating organizations, local contexts, and the rights of existing owners.

Target requires coalition agreement.

Participation pathways

Choose a concrete next step

Host a pilot→Provide a potential site or asset→Join as a healthcare partner→Contribute data or research→Develop or operate housing→Contribute technology or expertise→Explore funding or investment→Explore replication or IP permissions→Discuss another contribution→
Join This MissionDiscuss a Pilot