Deciphering the DNA of innovation platforms

  • 1,033 views
Uploaded on

Presented by Iddo Dror and Zelalem Lema at the CGIAR Research Program on the Humidtropics Capacity Development Workshop, Nairobi, Kenya, 29 April–2 May 2014 …

Presented by Iddo Dror and Zelalem Lema at the CGIAR Research Program on the Humidtropics Capacity Development Workshop, Nairobi, Kenya, 29 April–2 May 2014


More in: Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,033
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
26

Actions

Shares
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
2

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Deciphering the DNA of innovation platforms Dr. Iddo Dror – Head of Capacity Development (ILRI) Zelalem Lema – Research Officer on Innovation System in Agriculture (ILRI) CGIAR Research Program on the Humidtropics / Capacity Development Workshop Nairobi, Kenya / 29 April – 2 May 2014
  • 2. On the menu today… • The Humidtropics innovation practice briefs - covering the major aspects and elements of innovation platforms • Critical issues for reflection when designing and implementing Research for Development in Innovation Platforms
  • 3. Boogaard et al propose 5 themes and 11 reflection issues around innovation platforms
  • 4. The 12 Innovation Platform Practice Briefs
  • 5. The Humidtropics take on platforms • Distinction between R4D platforms and innovation platforms
  • 6. The Humidtropics take on platforms (2)
  • 7. What are innovation platforms? Who uses innovation platforms? How do innovation platforms work? What kind of process is typical in IPs? What are some of the main benefits and constraints? In small groups, take 10-15 minutes and discuss:
  • 8. Typical innovation platform cycle
  • 9. Innovation platform phases according to various authors • Generally speaking, these are quite similar to the model we just covered. Source: Boogaard et al p.6
  • 10. Dynamic Processes Changing focus Changing membership Changing responsibilities
  • 11. Benefits of innovation platforms • facilitate dialogue and understanding • enable partners to identify the bottlenecks hindering innovation • create motivation and a feeling of ownership • facilitate upward communication • lead to better-informed decisions • contribute to capacity development • make innovative research possible • enhance impact
  • 12. What is the most enticing benefit of IPs as far as you are concerned? A. Facilitate dialogue B. Identify bottlenecks C. Motivation & ownership D. Upward communication E. Better-informed decisions F. ↑ Capacity development G. Enable innovative research H. Enhance impact
  • 13. Typical constraints • Progress and success depends on the full buy-in of the members • Tangible outputs are needed to sustain the members’ interest and commitment • can be difficult and costly to implement • require a long-term perspective • can be difficult to monitor and evaluate innovation platforms in a systematic way
  • 14. What is the most crippling constraint of IPs as far as you are concerned? A. Dependence on full buy-in B. Need for ongoing tangible outputs C. Difficult & costly to implement D. Long term perspective E. Difficult to M&E F. Power dynamics Dependence on fullbuy-in Need forongoingtangibl... Difficult& costlyto im p... Longterm perspective Difficultto M & E Pow erdynam ics 25% 20% 5% 10%10% 30%
  • 15. Composition and initiation of platforms 1. Representation and composition 2. Common objective 3. Relevant research questions
  • 16. Representation and composition • Build on existing networks or create new ones? How did you handle this in your platform?
  • 17. Common objective An innovation platform often needs a common objective in order to function effectively. Setting a common vision objective of an innovation platform does not happen ‘naturally’, but is value-driven, and usually achieved through visioning and foresight exercises.
  • 18. Relevant research questions • Important to involve all stakeholders and give them opportunities to articulate their demands - create “safe spaces”. • Research questions often hidden in multi- stakeholder negotiation processes. • Participatory methods can be useful to identify stakeholders’ needs.
  • 19. Role of researchers in the composition and initiation of platforms theme: • support stakeholder mapping, • make choices and the underlying assumptions of selection on power and equity explicit. • undertake capacity development to ensure a common understanding on innovation platforms • platform objective is often defined within a project proposal, before stakeholders have been consulted. This bears a risk of dominance by researchers and project management, unless they make underlying project assumptions explicit to platform members. • what to do when the platform objective differs from the (initial) project vision and research agenda. • Supporting stakeholders in expressing their needs and translating these needs into relevant research questions
  • 20. Key questions on composition and initiation of platforms theme: 1. Does the innovation platform build on existing networks or will new networks be created? 2. Who selects representatives? And how? Is diversity among constituencies, e.g. farmers, taken into account? 3. When innovation champions are included, on what grounds and with what purpose? 4. How and by whom is the objective of the platform defined? 5. Have stakeholders’ ideas been included in the vision? 6. What to do when the platform objective differs from the (initial) project vision? 7. Are stakeholders are sufficiently empowered to articulate their demands? 8. How and by whom are research questions identified? How to deal with demands that lie outside the project and research scope? 9. How, where and by whom is research conducted? 10. When and how are research findings made available? How will you use this in your platform?
  • 21. More information / resources on composition and initiation of platforms* • Guidance Note on How to Do Stakeholder Analysis of Aid Projects and Programmes (ODA 1995) • Social Analysis Sourcebook (World Bank 2003) • Multi-stakeholder Processes Resource Portal. Stakeholder Analysis (WUR CDI) • Rapid Appraisal • Knowledge co-creation portal. Multi-stakeholder processes. Tools - Interests and Roles (WUR) • Handbook for Participatory Action Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (Chevalier and Buckles 2013) • Insights into Participatory Video: A Handbook for the Field (Lunch & Lunch 2006) • Multi-stakeholder Resource Portal. Visioning tool (WUR CDI) • Knowledge co-creation portal. Multi-stakeholder processes. Tools – Visioning (WUR) * Will be available, along with all course materials, in a dedicated dropbox folder.
  • 22. Coordination and facilitation Process facilitation Knowledge co-creation
  • 23. Process Facilitation • Effective facilitation of the platform contributes to an enabling environment which can improve the quality of interactions between stakeholders • Operational aspects will be discussed in more detail in the “Facilitating innovation platforms” Brief (#10)
  • 24. Knowledge co-creation • Innovation system thinking builds on the idea that innovations do not only originate from science alone, but that these are based on knowledge from multiple sources • Innovation platforms offer great opportunities for knowledge co-creation by researchers and other stakeholders. How is this unfolding in your platform?
  • 25. • how do you see facilitation as a key for the success of IP’s? • Is facilitation easy? Who? • Maintain everyone’s interest and commitment is vital- how individual roles -> common goal- > benefit all • IPs needed because players involved are not communicating in the first place • Trust and mutual respect – new and ongoing partnership • Flexibility to manage changes Facilitating Innovation platforms:
  • 26. • Critical reflection issues: • Who should facilitate IPs? - Insider or outsider ? - Researchers? Cases in Ethiopia: RiPPLE, ILRI Projects (NBDC, Africa RISING, Humidtropics) - Research organizations initiate IPs for projects - Topics try to address around projects (flexibility) Facilitating Innovation platforms (2):
  • 27. Facilitators can provide the following functions: Facilitation -> knowledge brokering • Establish-equal representation • Identify issues- common & benefits all • Manage meetings-facilitate discussions, full participation of all.. • Support activities outside meetings: joint action, • Manage communications: trust • Deal with conflict and power: manage different interest • Monitor, document and report: process documentation, learning • Facilitate and advocate for institutional change • Develop capacity: TNA: three most important success factors for a well performing IPs: • Most of you have mentioned factors related to functions of facilitators • IPs are as well performing as facilitators
  • 28. Role of researchers in the coordination and facilitation theme: • The main question for researchers is if they should facilitate the platform – or not. If they do, researchers should address neutrality of the facilitation, and their own shifting role(s). • researchers – as well as other stakeholders in the Innovation platforms – can also address the importance of knowledge co-creation with other stakeholders, and ensure tacit local knowledge is articulated and taken on board. • Social learning is an important aspect of knowledge co-creation. Researchers can contribute to social learning by sharing information and (preliminary) research results in the platform • Failures are important sources for learning. Researchers may need to play a leading role in supporting (self-) reflection among platform members, particularly in contexts where critical analysis is not the norm.
  • 29. Key questions on coordination and facilitation theme: 1. Who facilitates the Innovation platform? an ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’? 2. Can – or should – researchers facilitate the Innovation platform? 3. If researchers fulfil ‘innovation broker’ roles, are these sufficiently rewarded and recognized by research organizations? 4. Is local knowledge recognized within the platform as an important contributor to innovations? 5. What participatory methods are used to elicit local knowledge? 6. How does the platform support and enhance social learning among stakeholders? 7. How are failures dealt with within the platform? 8. How is reflection stimulated within the platform? How will you use this in your platform?
  • 30. More information / resources on coordination and facilitation theme* • ‘Operational field guide for developing and managing local agricultural innovation platforms’ (Makini et al. 2013) • Putting heads together: Agricultural innovation platforms in practice (Nederlof et al. 2011) • Multi-stakeholder Processes Resource Portal. Facilitation Skills (WUR CDI) • The Brokering Guidebook (Tennyson 2003) • Multi-Stakeholder Processes • Multi-stakeholder Resource Portal. Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) (WUR CDI) • ‘Participatory Learning and Action. A trainer’s guide’ (Pretty et al. 1995) • ‘Learning alliances: an approach for building multi-stakeholder innovation systems’ (Lundy et al. 2005) * Will be available, along with all course materials, in a dedicated dropbox folder.
  • 31. Power and conflict Power asymmetries Conflicts, negotiations and trust
  • 32. Power asymmetries • Power-relations exist, and can play a role, in every phase of the platform process. It is important to recognize these power dynamics and their effects • System innovations often require a change in power relations between stakeholders and associated institutions (which often entails conflicts). • Gender relations are often characterized by strong power dynamics and therefore should receive explicit attention in innovation processes
  • 33. Why are power and representation important? • More powerful members may dominate • Group diversity is not reflected • Not all knowledge is used
  • 34. Which is the biggest perceived power/ representation risk in your platform? A. Powerful members dominate B. Diversity not reflected C. Not all knowledge is used Pow erfulm em bersdom i...Diversitynotreflected Notallknow ledgeisused 0% 0%0%
  • 35. Dealing with power and representation • Participatory rural appraisal • Participatory video • Roleplaying • Skilled facilitators • Evidence from research • Links between different levels • Bypassing the platform
  • 36. Which of the following have you used* in your platform to address power dynamics? A. PRA B. Participatory video C. Role-play D. Skilled facilitators E. Research Evidence F. Links between levels G. Bypassing platform PRA Participatoryvideo Role-play Skilled facilitators Research Evidence Linksbetw een levels Bypassingplatform 0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0% *Select ALL that apply
  • 37. Conflicts, negotiations and trust • Innovation platforms are likely to be arenas of struggle because they bring people together with different interests with the aim of finding joint solutions. • There are three broad types of frictions: (1) difficulties in maintaining an agreement or compromise after it has been secured, (2) problems in securing an agreement, and (3) failure to tackle the most significant problems in the first place. • Negotiation (often outside of formal meetings) can help resolve conflicts and unleash innovation processes.
  • 38. Role of researchers in the power and conflict theme: • Researchers can supporting platform members in expressing their views and ideas through the use of creative participatory methods • Researchers should remember that they are also part of power structures • Researchers can help identify interdependency and/or create institutional space for negotiations. This may involve capacity development and/or advocacy. • In situations where a lot of conflicting interests exist, research findings can easily become contested. It is then helpful for researchers to have a trusted relationship with other stakeholders and organizations. However, trust needs to be built, which is why an active and frequent presence of researchers in the Innovation platform is important.
  • 39. Key questions on power and conflict theme: 1. Are existing power structures within the platform explicitly addressed and dealt with? 2. Is sufficient attention paid to gender dynamics and the power of scientific experts ? 3. Are partnerships between (research) organizations sufficiently flexible and bottom-up to successfully support innovation processes? 4. If existing power dynamics in the way research is currently done hamper successful innovations, to what extent can research be re-structured? 5. Are conflicts recognized and effectively dealt with within the platform? 6. Do stakeholders recognize their mutual interdependency to solve a problem? 7. Is there sufficient institutional space and support, e.g. among the government, to use platform results? 8. Is there sufficient time and space for researchers to build a trusted relationship with other stakeholders? How will you use this in your platform?
  • 40. More information / resources on power and conflict theme* • Knowledge co-creation portal. Multi-stakeholder processes. Tools- Power (WUR) • Power cube. Understanding power for social change (IDS) • Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability—Beyond Deadlock and Conflict (Hemmati 2002) • Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving in (Fisher and Ury 1981) • Knowledge co-creation portal. Multi-stakeholder processes. Tools - Conflict styles (WUR) • ‘Breaking the impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes’ (Susskind and Cruikshank 1987) * Will be available, along with all course materials, in a dedicated dropbox folder.
  • 41. Resources, incentives and timeframe Incentives and motivation Changing conditions and flexibility Resources and sustainability
  • 42. Incentives and motivation • Nature of platform matters – a focus on NRM would be quite different from VCD – and this may influence expectations & incentives. • It can be challenging to actively engage stakeholders in the Innovation platform and to keep them actively involved over time, especially if incentives for participation can be rather unclear to stakeholders. • Financial incentives can be tricky (“project” versus “program” mentality). Alignment and internal motivation should be sought.
  • 43. Changing conditions and flexibility • Innovation processes are non-linear, dynamic, diverse, highly context-specific and characterized by coincidence, uncertainty and unpredictability. The process of innovation platforms therefore requires continuous adaptations to changing conditions • Changes may occur in several key areas (see below) and should be welcomed and embraced – they are a normal part of the process! • priorities of stakeholders • the focus and objective of the platform • membership of the platform; • roles and responsibilities of platform members • platform activities • research strategy and research questions • etc.
  • 44. Resources and sustainability • Innovation processes are intensive in terms of financial as well as human resources required. They also have a rather long ‘pay-off’ time, particularly when large networks are involved. • A frequently posed question is whether Innovation platforms are “sustainable”. • Participatory processes during the program critical, as engaged stakeholders more likely to continue beyond initial project support. How are you addressing this in your platform?
  • 45. Role of researchers in the resources, incentives and timeframe theme: • Researchers can help to provide insight into stakeholders’ expectations, clarify underlying principles of Innovation platforms and reveal possible benefits for stakeholders. • Researchers should clarify (and minimize / optimize) the amount of time stakeholders are required to invest in the platform. If stakeholders are expected to invest their time without seeing (direct) benefits, their commitment is likely to be low . • Researchers should have an open and flexible research strategy from the outset. • Researchers – as well as other stakeholders and program partners – need to be flexible, e.g. through adaptive management. • Researchers can provide clarification towards expectations of donors, partner organizations and stakeholders with regard to the time frames.
  • 46. Key questions on resources, incentives and timeframe theme: 1. What are incentives for participation in the platform? Are these in line with stakeholders expectations? 2. Are stakeholders given the opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to research? 3. Is the expected time-investment of stakeholders sufficiently clarified? 4. Is the research strategy sufficiently open and flexible to respond to changing conditions? 5. Do donors and other program partners agree on a rather open project planning? 6. Do researchers in the platform have sufficient mandate to promptly respond to changing conditions? 7. Are platforms expected to continue operating after the program? If so, in what format and where do resources come from? 8. Should Innovation platforms be sustainable? If so, when is a platform considered sustainable? 9. Where do resources come from? Who controls them? 10. Are stakeholders internally motivated to join the platform? How will you use this in your platform?
  • 47. Monitoring and Evaluation • Innovation platforms’ validity and contributions to effective research for development and achieving development outcomes needs to be demonstrated. • Innovation processes are complex, can only be partially planned and often remain largely unintended, which make it challenging to measure them. • Innovation processes are characterized by an interplay of many factors, which makes it difficult to attribute changes to a specific cause. • These challenges however should not stop us from attempting to capture their effectiveness.
  • 48. Monitoring innovation platforms • Why monitor? • What to monitor? • Who monitors? • What process monitoring tools / approaches are you familiar with? In small groups, take 10-15 minutes and discuss:
  • 49. What to monitor • Activities that aim to resolve a problem or take advantage of an opportunity • Process outputs, including changes in knowledge, attitudes and practices of the platform members What did you think about Case 1 (ImGoats)?
  • 50. Process monitoring tools • Outcome mapping • Most significant change • Network analysis • Participatory impact pathways • Digital storytelling / participatory video • Farmer field days and learning fairs Which others do you use?
  • 51. Which of the following have you used* for monitoring in your platform? A. Outcome mapping B. Most significant change C. Network Analysis D. Participatory impact pathways E. Digital storytelling / participatory video F. Farmer field days / learning fairs Outcom e m apping M ostsignificantchange Netw ork Analysis Participatoryim pactpa... Digitalstorytelling /part... Farm erfield days/learn... 0% 0% 0%0%0%0% *Select ALL that apply
  • 52. Impact of innovation platforms • What are some of the difficulties in assessing the impact of innovation platforms? • How can platforms achieve impacts? In small groups, take 5 minutes and discuss:
  • 53. How can platforms achieve impacts? • By providing information and resources to platform members • Through research • By negotiation and persuasion • Through lobbying and advocacy
  • 54. Why is demonstrating impact difficult? • Achieving impact is difficult. The problems that innovation platforms attempt to solve tend to be complex. • Some impacts are difficult to measure. Many impacts of innovation platforms, such as ‘innovation capacity’ are intangible and hard to quantify. • Measuring (non-financial) benefits can be tricky. Many benefits are unforeseen or are side benefits difficult to grasp. • Innovation platforms are long-term endeavors – impacts may only be reached beyond the initial project duration
  • 55. Role of researchers in the monitoring and evaluation theme: • Researchers can introduce methods that are more suitable to the complex nature of innovation platforms, such as outcome mapping, most significant change, social network analysis, participatory impact pathways, etc. • Researchers should develop additional and/or new (quantitative) indicators that capture system innovations, institutional change and innovation capacity. • It is also important to conduct a diagnostic study of the institutional context at the beginning in order to have a baseline to which changes can be assessed in later stages of the project. • a learning framework (with space for reflection) that recognizes the complexity and intangibility of innovation processes is needed. The framework should also recognize failures and learn from them. • Participatory M&E is favorable because it offers stakeholders the opportunity to learn from each other and to provide their view on the process. It is also helpful to reflect on platform activities and create feedback loops. • Process documentation can provide valuable insights in innovation processes, but it can also be quite time-consuming
  • 56. Key questions on monitoring and evaluation theme: 1. How is effectiveness of Innovation platforms measured? 2. What indicators and methods are available to measure system innovations, institutional change, and innovation capacity? What new indicators should be developed? 3. Is the institutional context included in baseline studies? 4. Do the selected M&E method(s) allow for capturing unintended outcomes? 5. Is a learning framework included that recognizes the complexity and intangibility of innovation processes? 6. Is the M&E process participatory? I.e. are stakeholders actively involved in monitoring and evaluating the Innovation platform process? How will you use this in your platform? 7. Is there sufficient space and support within the platform and (research) organizations to recognize and learn from failures?
  • 57. More information / resources on monitoring and evaluation theme* • Handbook for Participatory Action Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (Chevalier and Buckles 2013) • Participatory Evaluation (Better Evaluation) • Outcome mapping (Better Evaluation) • Reflexive Monitoring in Action (Van Mierlo et al. 2010b) • Knowledge co-creation portal. Multi-stakeholder processes. Tools - Institutional Analysis (WUR) • Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Innovation Systems (RAAIS) (Schut et al. in press; Schut et al. in prep) • ‘Learning alliances: an approach for building multi-stakeholder innovation systems’ (Lundy et al. 2005) * Will be available, along with all course materials, in a dedicated dropbox folder.
  • 58. Still want more M&E? …then you’re in luck !!! We’ll have a whole day looking at Reflexive Monitoring on Friday
  • 59. Brief 2
  • 60. You are the head of your country’s Department of Livestock, and the Prime Minister has tasked you with setting up a new policy to develop your country’s dairy production. Where do you start? How can IPs contribute to shaping national policies?
  • 61. Engaging with policymakers Setting sector standards Facilitating policy implementation Creating national platforms Key elements
  • 62. Take 5 minutes to review the three cases in Brief 2. Discuss whether these mechanisms would be valid in your platforms, and how you would adapt & implement similar processes. Be ready to share back with the plenary In your groups…
  • 63. Brief 3
  • 64. (Potential) role of research(ers) in innovation platforms: - Current thinking: “re-conceptualizing of roles and contribution of researchers in development projects - Paradigm shift Linear thinking –> innovation system thinking (TT -> FRS -> AKIS -> AIS) - Institutional context: make decision and influence the credibility, legitimacy and relevance of research in IPs - Changing roles of researchers are recognizing by the: – Researcher themselves – Policy makers, farmers and development practitioners - How research can contribute to development impact?
  • 65. CGIAR research council suggests five roles of CGIAR centres: 2006 Primary research function Secondary research role at strategic/ applied level Catalytic role Facilitative/ enabling function Advocacy
  • 66. In Innovation platforms research can help: To reduce uncertainty To develop common departure points necessary for coordination and collective action To improve relations and understanding among stakeholders by joint fact-finding To generate unexpected feedback and eye-openers for the system
  • 67. Research support IPs in three ways: practice brief 3: 1. Traditional research: – Authoritative, objective and value-free knowledge – Base line study, impact and evaluation 2. Knowledge management and action research - - Knowledge in to use - Backstop them to generate knowledge- CapDev 3. Enabling Environment for innovation – Fund, input, capacity development
  • 68. Cases in Mozambique and Ethiopia Case 1: government initiated IP to develop sustainable biofuels policy Wageningen University: - • inventory of biofuels activity (traditional research) • Facilitating and documenting platform meetings (kge mgt) • Fundraising and lobbying (enabling environment) Case 2: Africa RISING project in Ethiopia - ILRI and CG centers - Diagnostic activities in all the project sites (PCA, livelihood, etc) to reduce uncertainty - Develop common departure points for joint action
  • 69. IPs support research process/cycle: NBDC case - Topic – land degradation, soil erosion and free grazing - Prototypes – innovation fund for pilot intervention on farm and grazing lands - Training- for farmers (technologies and new practices) - Testing, adaptation and improvement – pilot on different fodder verities - Document- it worked well - Analyzed- how soil fertility improved - Published, disseminate, new research questions
  • 70. Issues Fodder interventions have been selected by stakeholders in all three sites to address these issues NBDC Site Main Issue Related Issues Fogera Unrestricted grazing Land degradation Diga Land degradation Termite infestation * Jeldu Soil erosion Deforestation
  • 71. Innovation platforms for agricultural value chain development • How are IP for VC different from traditional IP? • How do different types of platform members benefit? • What different types of VC IP can you think of? In small groups, take 5-10 minutes and discuss:
  • 72. Uniqueness of innovation platforms that focus on value chain development • many of their members come from the private sector. Profit motivations tend to dominate • Platform members (may) compete with each other. What are the implications of this?
  • 73. Types of innovation platforms that deal with value chains. • Farmer-based • Value-chain-based • Accidental
  • 74. Which type of value chain innovation platform is depicted in the previous cartoon? A. Farmer-based B. Value-chain based C. Accidental D. None of the above Farm er-basedValue-chain based AccidentalNoneofthe above 0% 0%0%0%
  • 75. Communication in innovation platforms • What are some of the internal and external communications activities you carry out in your platform? • What are the roles of communications in innovation platforms? How would these differ in field sites / action sites / action areas? In small groups, take 5 minutes and discuss:
  • 76. Three roles of communication • Engagement and dialogue – Facilitated meetings and events – Study tours and exchanges – Role plays and games – Networking • Documentation and outreach – Internet and web-based tools – Documents, newsletters and publications – Video and photographs – Resource centres – Radio, phone, text messages, media • Learning – Participatory video – Most significant change stories – After action reviews – Learning games – Story telling – Journals
  • 77. Which of the following have you used* for communications in your platform? A. Facilitated meetings B. Study tours C. Role play and games D. Newsletters & publications E. Video & photographs F. Digital storytelling / participatory video G. Most significant change stories Facilitated m eetingsStudytours Roleplayand gam es New sletters& publications Video & photographs Digitalstorytelling /part... M ostsignificantchange s... 0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0% *Select ALL that apply
  • 78. Developing innovation capacity through innovation platforms • In the cooking pot example, where does innovation capacity develop? • In your platforms, what signs of innovation capacity do you observe? In small groups, take 5 – 10 minutes and discuss:
  • 79. Innovation Capacity – what is it and how do you foster it? • Like the cooking process in the pot… • Participants have to interact well; the facilitation has to be suitable, and all those involved must have the patience to let the process unfold • Paying attention to the process and to learning by the group is central to developing a sustained capacity to innovate, as is appropriate training to develop relevant capacities locally.
  • 80. Which type of value chain innovation platform is depicted in the Babure innovation platform in Uganda? A. Farmer-based B. Value-chain based C. Accidental D. None of the above Farm er-basedValue-chain based AccidentalNoneofthe above 0% 0%0%0%
  • 81. Linking action at different levels through innovation platforms • What kind of linkages are described in the brief? Are you practicing some or all of these in Humidtropics? • What are some of the benefits associated with linking action at different levels through innovation platforms? In small groups, take 5 minutes and discuss:
  • 82. Benefits associated with linking action at different levels through innovation platforms • Scaling out successful innovations. • Empowering local actors to influence policy • Fostering dialogue in policymaking • Developing value chains • Increasing legitimacy and learning How linked are your platforms?
  • 83. What linkages does your platform currently have to other platforms? A. None – we’re still focusing internally B. Horizontal linkages (to platform at similar level) C. Vertical Linkages (to platform at different levels) D. Both horizontal and vertical links None– w e’re stillfocusin... Horizontallinkages(to pl... VerticalLinkages(to pla... Both horizontaland vertic.. 0% 0%0%0%
  • 84. IPs to support Natural Resource Management • Who is working directly on IP that focus on NRM?
  • 85. Innovation Platforms in NBDC • Baseline survey revealed low level of participation of relevant stakeholders during planning, implementation and M & E of land and water management strategies • Extension approaches are observed to be top- down – Mere Technology push and blanket quota system
  • 86. Why Innovation Platforms? Or...
  • 87. IPs to support Natural Resource Management • Why IPs for NRM? Examples from Fogera NBDC IP in Ethiopia • Scale: erosion (up and down stream) • Complexity: issue is complex (social, economic and biological and environmental) • Conflict: herders and farmers compete on land • Cost: some needs high investment • Information: not easily available • Incentives: – Pay today benefit in the future – Pay today and someone else benefit – Pay today, watch others get a free ride
  • 88. Annex Answers to the questions posed during to session to participants
  • 89. Session Name: Humidtropics CapDev workshop_DROR_30-April-2014 Date Created: 4/30/2014 8:24:55 AM Active Participants: 25 of 25 Average Score: 36.00% Questions: 10 Results by Question 1. H_M_D_R_P_C_ (Multiple Choice) Responses Percent Count I D J I U A 6.25% 1 I O E H E V 18.75% 3 T O S I U I ( c ) 56.25% 9 T U U U A N 18.75% 3 Totals 100% 16 4/30/2014 Page 1 of 6
  • 90. 2. What is the most enticing benefit of IPs as far as you are concerned? (Multiple Choice) Responses Percent Count Facilitate dialogue 28.57% 6 Identify bottlenecks 4.76% 1 Motivation & ownership 14.29% 3 Upward communication 0% 0 Better-informed decisions 19.05% 4 ↑ Capacity development 4.76% 1 Enable innovative research 14.29% 3 Enhance impact 14.29% 3 Totals 100% 21 4/30/2014 Page 2 of 6
  • 91. 3. What is the most crippling constraint of IPs as far as you are concerned? (Multiple Choice) 4. Percentage of females in your platform (Multiple Choice) Responses Percent Count Dependence on full buy-in 25% 5 Need for ongoing tangible outputs 20% 4 Difficult & costly to implement 30% 6 Long term perspective 10% 2 Difficult to M&E 10% 2 Power dynamics 5% 1 Totals 100% 20 Responses Percent Count 50% or more 10% 2 30-49% 10% 2 20-29% 10% 2 Less than 20% 30% 6 No platforms yet 40% 8 Totals 100% 20 4/30/2014 Page 3 of 6
  • 92. 5. Platform facilitator is (Multiple Choice) 6. Which is the biggest perceived power/ representation risk in your platform? (Priority Ranking) Responses Percent Count Male 76.92% 10 Female 7.69% 1 Undecided 15.38% 2 Totals 100% 13 Responses Percent Weighted Count Powerful members dominate 56.25% 90 Diversity not reflected 12.5% 20 Not all knowledge is used 31.25% 50 Totals 100% 160 4/30/2014 Page 4 of 6
  • 93. 7. Which of the following have you used* in your platform to address power dynamics? (Multiple Choice - Multiple Response) 8. Where should we continue the rest of the afternoon session? (Multiple Choice) Responses Percent Count PRA 21.88% 7 Participatory video 9.38% 3 Role-play 12.5% 4 Skilled facilitators 31.25% 10 Research Evidence 12.5% 4 Links between levels 6.25% 2 Bypassing platform 6.25% 2 Totals 100% 32 Responses Percent Count Inside. We’re already here... 62.5% 10 Outside. It’s a glorious day... 37.5% 6 I was told there will be no math on this course. 0% 0 Totals 100% 16 4/30/2014 Page 5 of 6
  • 94. 9. Which type of value chain innovation platform is depicted in the previous cartoon? (Multiple Choice) 10. Which type of value chain innovation platform is depicted in the Babure innovation platform in Uganda? (Multiple Choice) Responses Percent Count Farmer-based 25% 4 Value-chain based 56.25% 9 Accidental 12.5% 2 None of the above 6.25% 1 Totals 100% 16 Responses Percent Count Farmer-based 20% 3 Value-chain based 33.33% 5 Accidental 46.67% 7 None of the above 0% 0 Totals 100% 15 4/30/2014 Page 6 of 6