Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Increasing development impact niarobi nov 2016 final

86 views

Published on

Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly facilitated 2 days of training on
the nature of innovation as a wider process than research
that innovation takes different forms; different ways of organizing innovation each with its own set of tools; the rationale for using multi-stakeholder platforms for innovation, including innovation platforms; how & when to use innovation platforms, including what works well and typical challenges; the important of considering MEL during Project Design; the range of tools used for different aspects of monitoring evaluation and learning.
how to develop the activities, output, outcome, impact logic of projects; and how to select relevant tools for different MEL tasks

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Increasing development impact niarobi nov 2016 final

  1. 1. Increasing development impact IDIAR Course CSIRO AGRICULTURE AND FOOD BUSINESS UNIT & LAND AND WATER BUSINESS UNIT Michaela Cosijn (International Development Research Scientist) & Jennifer Kelly (Senior Innovation Broker) 2-3 November 2016
  2. 2. Day 1 Innovation and impact at scale Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly2 |
  3. 3. Objectives Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly3 | Understand … i. the nature of innovation as a wider process than research ii. that innovation takes different forms iii. that there are different ways of organizing innovation each with its own set of tools iv. the rationale for using multi-stakeholder platforms for innovation, including innovation platforms v. how & when to use innovation platforms, including what works well and typical challenges
  4. 4. Session 1 Partnerships and platforms: Different ways of organizing agricultural innovation Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly4 |
  5. 5. But first … What is innovation? • It is the creative use of new or existing ideas, technologies or ways of doing things in response to social and economic needs and opportunities. Innovation can only thrive in a sound institutional environment. • It is not research or technology, but might involve both. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly5 |
  6. 6. Innovation vs innovations • Invention or innovations is about the creation of new knowledge new to the world, usually by research organisations, but also by artisans and others • Innovation on the other hand, is about the use of the knowledge. • For example, the knowledge is novel for a farmer, firm, neighbour and/or competitor, but not necessarily new globally Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly5 |
  7. 7. So what does innovation look like - Types of innovation? • Technological innovation: farmers adopting a new crop variety, a new agronomic practice, or animal feeding regime. • Organizational innovation: farmers work collectively to market produce. • Institutional innovation: researchers form new partnerships with farmers and companies to deliver solutions that give income and profits 7 | Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly
  8. 8. Types of innovation continued • Business innovation: companies develop new products and service or new ways of delivering these that create profit and other value. • Value chain innovation: Value chain actors use new ways to procure, add value or market products. • Policy innovation: regulations, rules and incentives that add value to social and economic activity. Food standards, pesticide approvals, new ways of financing farming and business investment. 8 | Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly
  9. 9. Why is this important … Why do I need to know about innovation I am a researcher and interested in research / creating knowledge? Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly5 |
  10. 10. Changing approaches to investing in innovation capacity Early 1980s and beyond - •Bricks and mortar. The period before the mid-1980s emphasized expanding public sector research by investing in physical infrastructure, equipment, and human resource development. In many cases the investments created centralized national agricultural research systems (NARS). Late 1980s •Management systems. From the late 1980s the emphasis shifted to improving the management of existing public sector research organizations through better planning, improved financial management, greater accountability, and increasing the relevance of programs to clients Mid- to Late1990s •Down to the grassroots. In the mid- to late 1990s, the instability and inefficiency evident in many public research organizations led to an emphasis on development of pluralistic agricultural knowledge and information systems (AKISs) with greater client participation and financing. Current •Innovation systems. More recently, the Bank’s approach has moved towards the concept of “agricultural innovation systems” (AIS) and focuses on strengthening the broad spectrum of science and technology activity of organizations, enterprises, and individuals that demand and supply knowledge and technologies and the rules and mechanisms by which these different agents interact. Source: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank (2006). Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems 8 | Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly
  11. 11. Changing conditions … Research organisations have / are experiencing … • Research funders expecting results / outcome orientated projects • Poor uptake of technology and weak demand-orientation research The agriculture sector more broadly is facing an… • Increasingly complex food & nutritional security needs, environment requirements, poverty reduction, and changing consumer demands • New players and more prominence for the private sector • Improved understanding of how ideas and technology come into use 9 | Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly
  12. 12. Research into Use (RIU) - Findings by Hall (2011) • As few as 1-2% of 1600 research projects failed to result in innovation and impact if they relied solely on technology transfer or new technology as the starting point • Implementation leads to new research questions which are often about political and institutional contexts • Research plays a different role at different times on the innovation trajectory. • Research use is part of a wider process of innovation 11 | Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly
  13. 13. Research into Use (RIU) - Findings by Hall (2011) • Innovation emerges from networks of interacting players and associated policy and institutional developments that support chains of actors • RIU needs development of innovation capacity. • Involves linking different organisations, tackling policy bottlenecks and creating policy and institutional conditions that enable innovation process and make them more responsive to economic, social and environmental ambitions of society 12 | Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly
  14. 14. So what does this mean …? There is a “knowledge market failure” in creating conditions where different stakeholders can: • Exchange information. • Identify new solutions and opportunities. • Align activities • Address systems challenges beyond the scale of their current activities (e.g. farmers, small businesses) 10 | Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly
  15. 15. How to address this failure? 15 | • Depends on the nature of the problem or opportunity being addressed. • Development and testing of new maize varieties:  Simple product development, markets and policy systems exist few stakeholders.  Finance issues with scale out.  More like a partnership or simple research and farmer seed company innovation platform. • Creating aflatoxin free food systems in East Africa:  Highly complex, requires technical change, new market and policy systems, behavioral change among many and diverse stakeholders.  More like a combination of partnerships, alliances, farm level and policy level platforms. Requires a range of multi-stakeholder process over many years. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly
  16. 16. But what can I do? There are broadly 2 views for organizing for innovation:  A technology transfer pipeline view  A “systems” views involves different types of innovation coupled together through a network of actors (individuals or groups) that interact to produce, share and use knowledge 16 | Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly Neither is universally correct There is no blueprint for innovation. Each approach needs to be tailored to task at hand.
  17. 17. 17 • Agricultural Research Partnerships Agricultural innovation delivery partnerships National Agri-food systems innovation partnerships Global development innovation partnerships Agricultural research organizations collaborate to develop new knowledge on discreet technical dimensions of prioritized problems and opportunities. Agricultural research organizations collaborate in agricultural production and agribusiness innovation that delivers new products and services that create value for farmers and companies. Agricultural research organizations participate in the efforts of public policy and private sector to catalyse innovation in agri-food systems that creates social, economic, and environmental value in line with national development plans. Agricultural research organizations participate in efforts of national and global public and private sector stakeholders to catalyse innovation in economic and social systems to achieve social, economic, and environmental development targets set by the SDGs. Mode 1: Mode 3:Mode 2: Mode 4: Solutions Local Impacts Food Systems Impact Pervasive change Solutions Local Impacts Food Systems Impact Long term enduring impacts at global scale Long term, but enduring impacts at value chain or national scales Quick wins, but restricted to scale of project, mission or commercial opportunity Dependent on linkages to other delivery, innovation and societal change processes Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly Source: ISPC, 2015. Strategic study of good practice in AR4D partnership. Rome, Italy. CGIAR Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC), viii + 39pp + annex 49pp Trends in organising for innovation
  18. 18. Which mode of Innovation Platforms fit ? Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly5 | Agricultural Research Partnerships Agricultural innovation delivery partnerships National Agri-food systems innovation partnerships Global development innovation partnerships Mode 1: Mode 3:Mode 2: Mode 4: Solutions Local Impacts Food Systems Impact Pervasive change Solutions Local Impacts Food Systems Impact
  19. 19. What is your experience with innovation multi-stakeholder partnership / platforms? - who is involved? - benefits? - challenges? - how could it be done differently? Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly19 |
  20. 20. What is an Innovation Platforms (IPs) It is a partnership innovation mechanism It is a • space where actors can come together and interact including diagnosing problems, identify opportunities and find ways to achieve their goals • space for learning and creating change An IP may act as a mechanism for designing and implementing activities, or a mechanism for coordinate activities designed by individual members Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly21 |
  21. 21. An Innovation Platform (IP) is not ... • A fixed method, approach or specific process • It has to include changes of skills, mindsets and attitudes, organisational practices and cultures of partners, as well as the ways in which the partners interact as part of the wider “innovation system” • An everlasting interaction that needs to be facilitated by researchers = an IP can be dissolved if issues are addressed … • A solution looking for a problem Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly21 |
  22. 22. What an IP involves? 1. Bring together different ideas and resources from different sources 2. Aligning related activities, e.g. research and farming, policy making and business objectives 3. Creating conditions (systems) for using ideas: changing markets and business systems; changing the way organisations and individuals work; changing policy setting; creating new connections in the system. 22 | Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly
  23. 23. What an IP involves continued Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly23 | • Vertically Iinkages – across policy levels • Horizontally linkages - with other platforms at the same level) Source: Tucker, J., Schut, M. and Klerkx, L.. 2013. Linking action at different levels through innovation platforms. Innovation platforms practice brief 9, Nov 2013
  24. 24. 7 Stages of an IP Source: Homann-Kee Tui, S., Adekunle, A., Lundy, M., Tucker, J., Birachi , E., Schut, M., Klerkx, L., Ballantyne, P.Alan Duncan, A. , adilhon, J. and Paul Mundy, P.(2013) What are innovation platforms? Innovation platforms practice brief 1, November 2013 Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly24 |
  25. 25. Brainstorm • Why establish an innovation platform? Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly25 |
  26. 26. Why have an IP? • Capacity development • Identify need-based capacity building of actors • Dialogue • Reflection • Cross-learning • Allows innovation research • Identification of research issues (demand-driven) • Disseminate research outputs • Action research and learning by platform members • Better communication & decision-making • Facilitate upward communication – creating spaces for weaker partners to have a voice & ability to negotiate • Better informed decision-making • Facilitate dialogue and understanding amongst stakeholders Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly26 |
  27. 27. Why have an IP continued Creates ownership, buy-in and motivation • Identify and create shared goals and interests in the value chain actors, opportunities, common problems and bottlenecks, and solutions • Use understanding of value chain to identify upgrading / scaling options – including technical, organizational, institutional, service delivery and policy innovations • Define activities and actions and, roles and responsibilities of various actors in implementation of agreed options for value chain improvement Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly27 |
  28. 28. Why have an IP continued • Allows for enhanced impact  improved market functioning, agricultural productivity etc  Implementation and scale up if interventions are successful. • Allows for processes for monitoring actions for upgrading / scaling • Create spaces for long-term learning processes from experiences through iterative action-reflection-learning cycles that support innovation They are particularly useful in complex systems with multi- stakeholders e.g. agriculture, environmental Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly28 |
  29. 29. How research can contribute to IP’s Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly29 | Source: Lema, Z. and Schut, M. (2013) Research and innovation platforms. Innovation platforms practice brief 3, November 2013 Network building Developing adaptive capacity for innovation Addressing institutional constraints and power asymmetries between stakeholders Reflective monitoring, evaluation and strategic adjustment Facilitating joint knowledge production and learning Knowledge sharing Process documentation Internal and external communication Action research and joint monitoring and evaluation Translating and packaging of research outcomes Production of authoritative, objective and value-free knowledge Baseline studies, impact evaluation Traditional Research Knowledge management and joint action research Create an enabling environment for innovation
  30. 30. Researchers as an Innovation Brokers • Researchers are often seen as neutral • They be external or internal • Researchers often understand the whole picture and interact with all stakeholders • Play a number of roles - capacity building, facilitation, carrying risk, seeding ideas, inspiration, active collaboration, building relationships, facilitates learning & exchange & action Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly30 |
  31. 31. Questions Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly31 |
  32. 32. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly32 | Morning coffee break
  33. 33. Session 2 An Innovation Platform in Practice: The Case of IMGoats Innovation Platforms in Mozambique & India Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly33 |
  34. 34. Acknowledgements Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly
  35. 35. The IMGoats project Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly • Funded by EC through IFAD • Started January 2011 and ended June 2013 (30 months) • International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) was the research institution coordinating the project. • CARE (NGO) implemented in Mozambique building on an existing project funded by CIDA • Bharatiya Agro Industry Foundation (BAIF) (NGO) implemented in India Its aim was to transform small holder goat production and marketing to a sound and profitable enterprise and model that taps into a growing market. Innovation Platforms were the key innovation mechanism used 35 |
  36. 36. Project locations Need map of Indian sites Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly36 |
  37. 37. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly37 | Topic Udaipur district, Rajasthan State – India* Inhassoro district, Inhambane Province – Mozambique Population density 196/km2 11/km2 Participating households 1000 524 Literacy levels 58.62% 51% Average annual rainfall 600mm 600-800mm Livelihoods Small land and livestock holdings (subsistence agriculture); wage labour important source of income Small land and livestock holdings (subsistence agriculture); crop production main occupation; cattle numbers very low Main crops Maize, wheat, barley, chickpea, rape and mustard Maize, groundnuts, beans, cassava, millet Average goat herd size 6.2 (range 1-16) 8.4 (range 1-30) Marketing practices During main festive period (October to December) and ad hoc throughout the year to meet household demands During festive period (December) and ad hoc throughout the year to meet household demands Nearest goat market 50Km (Udaipur) 200Km (Massinga) Main goat value chain constraints Lack of improved bucks; limited access to animal health services; low number of goats available for sale; limited knowledge about improved husbandry practices Low number of goats; limited access to animal health services; lack of organization of producers; lack of infrastructure; limited knowledge about improved husbandry Practices Main value chain actors Producers; CAHWs; local traders/butchers; long distance traders; local pharmacist; Animal Husbandry Department; BAIF; research (ILRI, veterinary college)** Producers; CAHWs; local traders/butchers; local retailers; District (SDAE) and Provincial (SPP) Veterinary Services; CARE; research (ILRI)**
  38. 38. Purpose of the IPs Overarching purpose Establishment of Innovation Platforms for reducing poverty and increasing food security in dryland areas of India and Mozambique to increase incomes and food security in a sustainable manner by enhancing pro-poor small ruminant value chains in India and Mozambique Key aspects: • Increasing production of goats – both quality (health & weight) and quantity • Increasing access to markets Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly38 |
  39. 39. IMGoats IPs supported innovation for … Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly39 | Producers – poor quality & quantity of goats, few buyers Buyers – no secure suppliers Innovation platform Solution: improve production & market construction Producers receive better prices & invest in production. Buyers access good animals.
  40. 40. Types of innovation the IP supported include … • In Mozambique • Technological – Animal production – Improved kraals – Improved animal husbandry – Improved animal production techniques including Animal husbandry service delivered by CAHAW • Organisational – Retailers supply veterinary inputs to CAHAW • Institutional – Introduction of use of weighing scales and live weight pricing to guarantee fair price • A combo Tech / Org and Institutional – 12 Communal pastures focusing on • Guidelines / training on sustainable management based on local situation • Legal demarcation of the area in process by government • Community management (ie water, herding, security and fire management Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly40 | • In India • Technological – Animal health service delivery by CAHAW – Alternative feeds and new feeding techniques – Better breading practices (eg improved make goats availability, castrating inferior male goats, etc) • Organisational – Aggregation of animals by CAHWs for selling – Organisation of goat fairs and exploration of new markets – Organisation of health camps for vaccination • Institutional – Linkages with government, agricultural training institute through a series of trainings on good practice – New ways of collaborating between CAHWs and veterinary services for faecal sample testing, including a linkage with the regional disease diagnostic laboratory
  41. 41. Other key areas of innovation process in both countries Institutional • Coordination in implementation with government to ensure sustainability Organisational • Group formation and strengthening (elections, accountability, advantages of working in groups) - Mainstreaming • Focus on gender and vulnerable households (FHH, PLWHA) • Environmental assessment Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly41 |
  42. 42. Exercise: Role Play Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly42 |
  43. 43. Exercise: Instructions 1. Form groups of 7-8 2. At least one person in your group has been assigned a role, each with a specific agenda which is unknown to the other characters. 3. Spend 5-10 minutes individually reminding yourselves about the case we discussed before lunch and reading the handouts (characters for the role play) 4. When all the members of your group have finished reading their roles the person assigned as the project leader will start the role play by inviting your characters to a meeting to set up the IP. 5. You will have 45 minutes for the role play. 6. At the end of the 45 minutes we will break and debrief as a larger group. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly43 |
  44. 44. Exercise: Role Play characters and tips A representatives from - The Government - The NGO - The private sector - Trader - Retailer - The Farmers & Paravets - The research organsiation Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly44 | What your group needs to set up / Agree on ... − Purpose of IP − Members of IP − How often IP will meet? − Who will lead the IP? − What are the key challenges that will be addressed
  45. 45. What worked well? What challenges did you encounter? How did you overcome them? What lessons would you take forward? Exercise: Debrief Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly45 |
  46. 46. IP Formation • The IP formation process was inclusive; including producer groups • Project partners conceptualised vision & objectives, challenges & opportunities; • Potential tasks identified • Assessment of knowledge/skills among producers and CAHWs was thoroughly explored • Roles of some VC actors in the innovation process were insufficiently explored. • Problem identification was participatory with a focus on production and marketing -> linked to key constraints. • Project partners lead in facilitation and management; mechanisms were established to hand-over • Project funded initial resources. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly46 |
  47. 47. IP Management • Participation varied across the VC actors. • Information flow from platform to producer groups was good, but weak inversely • CAHWs formed an important link with producers. • The IP tapped into the knowledge/skills of some VC actors, especially India; • Problem solving followed a systematic innovation process (technological, organizational, and institutional elements); • Some interventions were highly predictable, others not (flexible planning); • In Mozambique, there was a stronger reflection on the IP as an institutional innovation itself. The key management structure was secretariat. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly47 |
  48. 48. IP Management • Capacity building through training and exposure/exchange visits (focus was on producers and CAHWs) • IP meetings = capacity building through systematic reflection. • Innovation brokering included multiple diverse tasks; • Facilitation was gradually handed over to local actors, but project partners continued to play an important role. • IPs were (human) resource intensive; including: • extra efforts to get endorsement and support from community leaders and producer groups • creating strategic linkages with government agencies. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly48 |
  49. 49. Actors in the IPs and their changing roles Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly49 |
  50. 50. Agricultural innovation platforms challenges • Usually established as community level IPs • Disconnected from platforms and other groups at higher scales • Impacts are at local scales and often restricted to project cycle funding • Emphasis where impact needs to happen and this is a key operational interface • Without any link to higher-level groupings: Little scope for tackling overarching policy and institutional constraints or aligning with longer-term (and wider-scale) development goals and plans. 50 | “Pilots never fail, but never scale” WHY? Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly
  51. 51. General challenges and lessons learnt • Buy-in & trust for success • Inclusion and representation (women, private sector, contextual factors – language, illiteracy) • Incentives for participation (demand for goats, existing networks) • Dynamic nature of participation • Power dynamics • Generating tangible benefits • Capacity building is key • Creating experiential learning (CAHW, cross-visits) • Building skills in management structure & facilitation • Reflection & discussions • Building skills with in NGO’s • Private sector skill development – neglected! – assumed skills were there… Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly51 | Challenges are evolutionary, continuous, always changing, and integrated.
  52. 52. • Technical innovation • not ‘new’ but supported by organisational changes (producer groups, communal grazing areas, health camps) & existing institutions (legislation, fairs) • Facilitation and management • IP’s are complex and sometimes political • As a result, they can be costly and time-consuming to implement • Who should facilitate • When to start and end an IP • Who should finance what? Key message – Short cuts are risky – IP’s are mechanisms for promoting systems thinking not only forums for technology transfer and dissemination General challenges and lessons learnt continued Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly52 |
  53. 53. M&E can be difficult 3 aspects to monitor – • activities • process changes (knowledge, attitude and practice) • impacts on the poor • time lags between activities and impact hard to measure (e.g. Capacity building, communication benefit, complexity of stakeholders, complexity of measuring behaviour changes) Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly General challenges and lessons learnt continued 53 |
  54. 54. Questions Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly54 |
  55. 55. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly55 | Lunch break
  56. 56. Session 3 Partnering: Tips and tricks Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly56 |
  57. 57. Key aspects • No single partnership is like any other. • All partnerships are highly context--‐specific and reflect the surrounding circumstances. • Sometimes it is necessary to settle for a ‘good enough’ partnership • Until the local conditions change. • [This is not an excuse for sloppy partnering!] • Often the partnership itself can help to influence and bring about change.
  58. 58. Challenges to partnerships
  59. 59. Challenges to partnerships
  60. 60. Challenges to partnerships
  61. 61. Why do we need the 3 core principles
  62. 62. What makes successful partnerships … each sector plays its appropriate part and contributes from core competencies and strengths
  63. 63. Good partnership practice • WORKING FROM FACTS • BREAK-THROUGH NOT BREAK-DOWN • REQUESTING VS. COMPLAINING • CREATING QUALITY PARTNERING CONVERSATIONS • MANAGING MEETINGS WELL • KEEPING RECORDS • CREATING A LEARNING CULTURE • SETTING GROUND RULES
  64. 64. • REMEMBER • Golden rule l - BUILD ON SHARED VALUES (because successful partnerships are values-driven) • Golden rule 2 - BE CREATIVE (because every partnership is unique) • Golden rule 3 - BE COURAGEOUS (because all partnerships involve risk)
  65. 65. Exercise: What would you do ? Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly65 |
  66. 66. Exercise: Scenario Three organisations (a development donor, a research organisation and a research funder) form an innovation partnership to link national and international research expertise with a view to improve impacts and outcomes from agriculture and food security programs. The partners did this by working together to create a National Agri-food systems innovation partnership /platform that could: 1) strengthen the analytical and evidence base for the designing food security interventions, 2) promote the use of effective research and development methods (emphasizing multidisciplinary and systems approaches), and 3) improve links between research and development practice The partners had previously worked together in individual partnership, but this was the first time they had attempted to work together in a tripartite partnership Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly66 |
  67. 67. Exercise: Scenario Six months into the partnership, the world changed …. An election changed the government resulting in reduced total funding for international development. This in term impacted the partnership and the individual partners, including - development of a new international development strategy that created a void in the policy direction - number and scale of food security projects were reduced, - the focus changed from capacity building and partnering at a national level to a project level and - all three partner organisations restructuring, which resulted in changes of key personal in the partnership Despite these changes the project continued to operate according to the plan it developed before the changes despite the fact that the objectives of the partnership were becoming less aligned / priority with the objectives / priorities of the individual partner organisations. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly67 |
  68. 68. Exercise: Scenario … Until the twelve month mark, when an independent review was commissioned to review the progress of the initiative. The findings were not positive … The independent reviewer highlighted a number of challenges, including: - the need to change the direction of the partnership to be in line with the new policy which was developed - a dysfunctional management structure, including conflicting priorities and misaligned objectives between the partnership and the partner organisations, and - a non-tradition mix of skills needed for a non traditional research project. On receipt of the review findings the partnership steering committee met to discuss option for going forward. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly68 |
  69. 69. Exercise: Discussion If you were the steering committee what would you do ???? - How would you get the partnership back on track and focus on impact? Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly69 |
  70. 70. Debrief: What the Steering Committee did ... The partnership went to marriage counselling … not really but the SC did engaged an independent partnership broker to facilitate a workshop with all partnership and develop a partnership agreement. The agreement included - understanding joint and individual objectives - developing values and behaviours to work together - identified and developed a plan to manage risks - identified what each organisation contributed (resources … beyond cash) to the partnership Outcome … trust the process … the partnership developed stronger relationships, including trust, mutual respect and each partner gained a stronger understanding of the other partners organisational requirements (key ingredients for success)
  71. 71. Partnering tools Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly71 |
  72. 72. The Partnership Cycle
  73. 73. Partnership agreements and reviews
  74. 74. Resource Mapping - Identify and Value Contributions from Partners
  75. 75. Risk Management Types of Risks • Reputation impact - all organisations and institutions value this • Loss of autonomy - working in collaboration inevitably means • Conflicts of interest - whether at strategic or operational levels, • Drain on resources - partnerships typically require a heavy ‘front • Implementation challenges - once a partnership is established Risk Matrix
  76. 76. So in conclusion … When they work well partnerships have the potential to do great things … but there is no magic pill to make them work well … they need guidance and attention. Somethings that can help include … Ensuring that : • there are clear decision-making protocols / procedures agreed and in place • do not over burden the partnership with governance • most day-to-day decisions are carried by individuals or small groups on behalf of the partnership • only major decisions (for example, of policy or expenditure) are brought to the partners as a whole group • there is regular, easily accessible and succinct information-sharing between the partners Asking for help • Resolve conflicts as quickly as possible and preferably internally • Use independent facilitators to help with objectivity • There are resources dedicated to brokering / managing the partnership
  77. 77. Questions Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly77 |
  78. 78. Useful Resources Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly78 |
  79. 79. Useful Resources ILRI IP resources - Series of 12 briefs on IP’s https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/33667/browse?value=IN NOVATION+SYSTEMS&type=ilrisubject KARI/ACIAR IP http://aciar.gov.au/aifsc/sites/default/files/images/innovation_guide.pdf Wageningen UR critical issues for reflection https://www.wageningenur.nl/en/Publication- details.htm?publicationId=publication-way-343535383133 Partnership Brokering Association (PBA) https://www.partnershipbrokers.org Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly79 |
  80. 80. Papers & Reports Andy Hall (2011). Putting agricultural research into use: Lessons from contested visions of innovation. UNU merit Working paper Series no #2011-076 http://portal.unu.edu/calendar/?go=event.page&id=4244 Kees Swaans et al (2014). Operationalizing inclusive innovation: lessons from innovation platformss in livestock value chains in India and Mozambique http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2014.925246 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank (2006). Enhancing Agricultural Innovation: How to Go Beyond the Strengthening of Research Systems http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/Enhancing_Ag_Innovation.pdf World Bank, 2012. Agricultural Innovation Systems: A Investment Sourcebook http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/335807-1330620492317/9780821386842.pdf ISPC, 2015. Strategic study of good practice in AR4D partnership. Rome, Italy. CGIAR Independent Science and Partnership Council (ISPC)  Coming soon Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly80 |
  81. 81. Day 2 Designing & managing projects for impact at scale Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly81 |
  82. 82. Objectives of today Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly82 | Understanding 1. the important of considering MEL during Project Design 2. the range of tools used for different aspects of monitoring evaluation and learning. 3. how to develop the activities, output, outcome, impact logic of projects 4. how to select relevant tools for different MEL tasks
  83. 83. Session 1 Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning: Introduction Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly83 |
  84. 84. What is the MEL System about? 84 • What: Describing the change (planned & actual) Why: Explain the change (the logic) Is it good enough: Evaluative part (targets) DATA DIALOGUE Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly
  85. 85. • Inputs: resources used to implement the activities. Eg $, people, equipment, etc • Activity: Actions implemented by the project, including research. • Output: New information, ideas, technologies created by the project. • Outcome: describes the changes in behaviour of farmers, traders, policy makers and other actors. • Purpose: describes the development challenge that the project is contributing to resolving. Also known as impact. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly Before we delve into the detail lets recap on some key terms … 85 |
  86. 86. • Results chain / impact pathway / project logic / Theory of Change: articulates and illustrates how & why the planned components of project or programs will deliver its outputs and desired changes (ie outcome (behavioral) and impact (economic, social and environmental). • Indicator / KPI / measure: a metric used to monitor and assess progress and success against the planned outcomes and impacts • Milestone: a significant stage or event in the project. Helps to track progress against planned activities & outputs. • Baseline: a quantitative and/or qualitative performance assessment of a project or program starting point. • Target: A aspirational goal set against an indicator to indicate success. Ideally a target should be Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound (SMART) • Assumption: describes what has been accepted as true or certain to happen to justify the causal linkages described in a results chain / impact pathway / etc Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly More key terms … 86 |
  87. 87. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly More key terms … 87 |
  88. 88. A typical journey …. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly88 |
  89. 89. • Articulating planned changes and the logic underpinning how these changes will resulting from planned activities (short, medium and long term changes). • Organising & communicating information • periodically to enable decision makers to make evidence based judgments and adjust plans as necessary. • to funders/donors and other stakeholders about the projects contribution to the planned outcomes and purpose (impact) for accountability. • about generic lessons from the implementation of projects/ clusters of projects that can inform project and program practice in the future. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly M&E&L helps to navigate this journey by … 89 |
  90. 90. You have 10 minutes to discuss in groups of three some of the challenges you have experienced. Write on cards your top two challenges (one per card). We will then ask you to report your top two challenges back to the group for discussion. Exercise: What are your challenges? 90 | Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly
  91. 91. Typical MEL challenges? • Technology adoption and impacts: – selecting indicators and data collection methods • Tracking effectiveness of collaboration: – Quality or quantity? Scope, Relevance? • Tracking capacity development to innovate at multiple levels • How stakeholders and systems respond: – Unpredictable and unexpected. But project needs this information to keep on track. • Resources • Dedicated resources for MEL can often be overlooked at the planning time Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly91 |
  92. 92. Different MEL Tools & approaches for different purposes Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly92 |
  93. 93. You have 5 minutes to think about the following questions. Use your note pads to capture your thoughts. After 5 minutes of individual reflection we are going to discuss as a group. Question 1: What tools do you use? Question 2: Do you use them for accountability or learning purposes? Question 3: Would you recommend any particular tool, if so why? Question 5: Would you not recommend any particular tool, if so why? Exercise: What tools do you currently use & why? 93 | Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly Design Implementation Review
  94. 94. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly94 | Source: CSIRO (2014) Impact Framework Impact pathway
  95. 95. Problem trees 95 | Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly
  96. 96. 19. Increased planting area for cassava 21. Increased net incomes of existing cassava farmers Cassava Results Chain DRAFT (June 2016) 14. Clusters buy more cassava (due to improved productivity)from farmers & process into chips 2. UNEJ & PT BCM establish new clusters, coops, organic fertilizer production facilities, sheep pens involving target cassava & sheep farmers 1. UNEJ and PT BCM provide TA to coops & clusters on all aspects of business model 13. Decreased cassava input costs via organic fertilizer substitution for existing cassava farmers) 22. Increased net income for new cassava farmers (improvedprofitability compared to former crops) 10. Farmers adopt improved practices for cassava production 6. UNEJ & PT BCM disseminate improved production practices to key cassava farmers in coops 5. Coops provide loans, inputs, organic fertilizer,sheep and TA to cassava & sheep farmers 8. Key cassava farmers disseminate improved production practices to other farmers 9. Sheep farmers adopt fattening practices for sheep 20. Increased net incomes of sheep farmers 18.Share of increased local coop profits from sheep & organic fertilizer flows back to farmers 4. Capacity building by ARISA (Partnership, Technical, Gender, Ethics, Market Developmentand others TBD) to UNEJ & PT BCM 7. More effective partnership between PT BCM & UNEJ, improved technologies, improved outreach and sustainability of income increases, and international-quality research publications 15. Stronger linkages among clusters, farmers, coops, PT BCM 12. Sheep farmers sell sheep to investors/NGO via coops 16. Other farmers outside the system copy best practices for cassava production or other elements of integrated farming system 3. UNEJ engages with government actors 11. Increased government policy and/or financial support 23. Improvedscale-out and sustainabilityof business model 17.Share of increased coop profits from sheep re- invested into expanding sheep farming scheme KEY red lines – institutional changes green lines – DCED copying = = impacts = intermediaryoutcomes (behavioral changes by market actors) = activities/directoutputs expected by project partners/ARISA Results chains / logic models 96 | Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly
  97. 97. Indicators 97 | INDICATOR ASSUMPTIONS MEANS OF VERIFICATION Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly
  98. 98. Activity plans and milestones 98 • Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly
  99. 99. Internal activity reporting Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly99 •
  100. 100. Rubrics 100 | Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly
  101. 101. Most Significant Change (MSC) 101 | Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly
  102. 102. 102 |Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly It is a process standard for donor projects that work with the private sector. It includes a criteria for compliance criteria for each component and a compliance audit function. It is updated every few years to maintain relevance. DCED Standard Based on Jim Tanburn (DCED) Key components include: • Articulating the Results Chain or programme logic • Defining indicators of change based on the logic • Measuring changes in indicators, applying good practice • Estimating attributable changes • Capturing wider changes in the system or market • Tracking associated programme costs • Reporting results in a responsible way • Managing the system for results measurement
  103. 103. Outcome mapping (OM) Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly103 | • It focuses on understanding outcomes or the results that emerge from the initiatives activities towards the longer term economic, environmental, political and demographic changes • It provides tools that can be used standalone or in combination with other ME&L systems to identifies, plan, monitor & evaluate behavior changes in individual, groups or organisation's that the project works with. • It is a participatory process – involves all actors in M&E • Good for projects that:  Monitor behavior change of stakeholders / partners  require capacity building work  involve knowledge and decision-making processes,  where technical concerns can obscure the development challenges  complex issues
  104. 104. Technology adoption tracking tools Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly104 • Provides quantitative and/or qualitative information to the project and donors about the difference a project has made at the scientific and community level … Focuses on the uptake of the science. Can include tools like: • Baseline surveys and end of project / post project surveys • Rapid appraisals and ad hoc studies – valuable for keeping an eye on progress and getting feeds back on weather the project activities are leading to expected results.
  105. 105. Institutional History (IH) • A narrative that records key points about how institutional arrangements – new ways of working – have evolved over time and have created and contributed to more effective ways to achieve project or programme goals. • An IH is generated and recorded in a collaborative way by scientists, farmers and other stakeholders. • A key intention behind institutional histories is to introduce institutional factors into the legitimate narrative of success and failure in research organizations Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly105 |
  106. 106. Reviews and external evaluations 106 | • Relevance: The extent to which the aid activity is suited to the priorities and policies of the target group, recipient and donor. • Effectiveness: A measure of the extent to which an aid activity attains its objectives. • Efficiency: Efficiency measures the outputs - qualitative and quantitative - in relation to the inputs. This generally requires comparing alternative approaches to achieving the same outputs, to see whether the most efficient process has been adopted. • Impact: The positive and negative changes produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. This involves the main impacts and effects resulting from the activity on the local social, economic, environmental and other development indicators. • Sustainability: Sustainability is concerned with measuring whether the benefits of an activity are likely to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly
  107. 107. So in summary what do we know … Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly107 | There is no silver bullet and design and MEL are not separate functions … they inform each other
  108. 108. Morning coffee break Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly108 |
  109. 109. Session 2: Developing a project logic / impact pathway / results chain Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly109 |
  110. 110. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly110 | Source: CSIRO (2014) Impact Framework Impact pathway
  111. 111. Example scenario • Program purpose : Growth, development and innovation of food systems in Indonesia • Actors / Partners : Researchers, farmers, private sector • Assumptions : • If farmers apply new knowledge or existing knowledge in a new / novel way (innovation), they will improve productivity and household incomes, which will in turn lead to economic growth and development in the food system in Indonesia • The market / private sector is functioning relatively well and has capacity to connect / partner with public researchers and farmers • Policy makers both national and local will are connected and responsive to farmer and market needs and will ensure the policy and regulatory environment enables growth and economic development in the agri-food sector in Indonesia Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly111 | • Projects to increase incomes of farmers in: • Cassava • Sugar • Beef • Geography :
  112. 112. Some ground rules used to develop the impact pathways • The program and the supporting project needed to develop an impact pathway • The impact pathway logic was used to articulated and agree how the project’s purpose (impact) contributed to the program purpose. e.g. Improving the welfare of smallholder cassava farmers in the southern part of East Java through integrated cassava system (from production to processing) • All projects outcomes needed to contribute to the programs purpose, including: • Adoption of technology/policy/standards + capacity development • Researchers, farmers, private sector, government, NGO, etc. working in new ways that deliver solutions. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly112 | Tip: Don’t start with the planned research. Start with the problem you want to solve.
  113. 113. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly113 | Example program logic Source: Adapted from CSIRO 2015 ARISA Program Design Document Impact Smallholder farmers in East Indonesia have increased productivity and household incomes Inclusive growth and productivity in the agri-food sector in East Indonesia
  114. 114. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly114 | Example project logic Source: Adapted from CSIRO 2015 ARISA Program Design Document
  115. 115. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly115 | Example Approach - how the partnerships were set up to implement these projects and program Source: Adapted from CSIRO 2015 ARISA Program Design Document
  116. 116. Exercise: Developing an Impact Pathway Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly116 | 1. Break into your IP groups (the one you formed yesterday for the IMGoats project) 2. Your task is to develop a impact pathway for your IP 3. Use the information in the handout as background information for your impact logic. You will have 30 minutes 4. At the end of the 30 minute you will have 5 minutes to present your results chain 5. We will then your discuss lessons, insights, etc as a group
  117. 117. Exercise: Questions to considerations ..? 1. What problem am I helping solve? (impact) 2. Who is the client? 3. Who is the beneficiary? 4. Who do I need to work with & What is their role? 5. What product or service do they want? (outputs) 6. When do they want it by? 7. What people, $, equipment do I need (inputs) 8. What will the beneficiary do different if I successfully deliver the product or service? (outcome / behavioural change) 9. What do I need to do to deliver the product / service? (activities) 10. What approach would you use for developing a logic? Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly117 |
  118. 118. Exercise: Tips Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly118 | 1. Start with the end in mind Think about what problems you agreed to work on and if successful what you want to see changed end of the project Think about what you logically need to do as a group or individually to achieve these changes 2. Be a clear and specific as possible when writing your results This helps to build agreement and avoid confusion later down the track 3. There is no right or wrong outcome or logic – your aim is fit for purpose The important things to focus on are : 1) does the proposed logic make sense and 2) do the stakeholders agree 4. Remember your logic Impact, outcomes, outputs, activities, inputs 5. Remember your desired impact is not in your control … focus on how you think you can contribute and influence changes that will support the desired impact being achieved 6.
  119. 119. Now that everyone has presented their impact pathways: What did you observed about everyone’s impact pathways? What did you find the hardest part in developing it? Was the process useful, and if so how was it useful? Exercise: Debrief Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly119 |
  120. 120. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly120 | Lunch break
  121. 121. Case Study: Managing an Innovation Platform – What MEL info do we need? Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly121 |
  122. 122. Key aspects to managing and IP So now that we have formed our IP and developed an impact pathway ... Now what??? • What information do we need to monitor to show we are on track, learning and able to make decisions? • Who does this? • When does it need to happen? • How do we communicate this information to the different IP actors? Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly122 |
  123. 123. Role of the IP facilitator / broker Each actor may have the same, similar and/or different information needs for learning and accountability purposes. The facilitator needs to help the group - find the common ground in terms of information needs … something that works for the IP and the individual organisations - Establish a monitoring systems that is feasible, efficient and useful - Ensure accountability and responsibilities are clear for collecting, analysing and reporting monitoring results - Agree on timing for periodical monitoring data collection, reporting and decision making Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly123 | TIP: You don’t need to know every thing at the start … info needs can evolve over time.
  124. 124. Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly124 | Monitoring project logics Source: Adapted from CSIRO 2015 ARISA Program Design Document
  125. 125. Example: What information do we need to manage the IP? Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly125 |
  126. 126. Session 3 Exercise: Role Play Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly126 |
  127. 127. Exercise: Monitoring the IP we set up on yesterday? ROLE PLAY: Develop a draft MEL plan for the IP Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly127 | 1. Reform the groups that set up the IP yesterday 2. In your groups take on the same role you played yesterday 3. You will have 30 minutes to develop an M&E plan – think about the questions on the next slide
  128. 128. Exercise: Characters and discussion questions A representatives from - Government - NGO - Farmer representative(s) - Paravets - Private Sector - Trader and retailer - Research institution (Broker) Questions for consideration - What information do you need to know if the platform is working and if co-created activities are working as expected? - Why do you need it? - When do you need it and how often? - Where will you source the information from? - What tools will you use? Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly128 |
  129. 129. Questions for group debrief … What did you find most challenging from each actors perspective? What helped you come to a consensus if you go to one? What limited the consensus making? What lessons would you take forward? Exercise: Group debrief Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly129 |
  130. 130. Questions Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly130 |
  131. 131. Useful Resources Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly131 |
  132. 132. Resources • Online resource portals for MEL practitioners • Better Evaluation http://betterevaluation.org • Online community of practices • Eval Partners http://www.mymande.org/evalpartners • S.Stone-Jovichi (2015) The journey to fit for purpose: The development of a MEL system for a complex project. Practice Note Series by Food Systems Innovation • www.foodsysteminnovation.org.au • The Donor Committee for Enterprise Development (DCED) Standard • http://www.enterprise-development.org/measuring-results-the-dced-standard/ 132 | Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly
  133. 133. Michaela Cosijn International Development Research Scientist Land and Water t +61 7 3833 5579 e Michaela.cosijn@csiro. w www.csiro.au Jennifer Kelly Senior Innovation Broker Agriculture and Food t +61 2 6218 3474 e Jennifer.kelly@csiro.au w www.csiro.au Thank you

×