Presentation given by Dr. Iddo Dror and Zelalem Lema of ILRI during a Humidtropics Capacity Development Workshop on Innovation Platforms, held in Nairobi, Kenya, in April-May 2014.

1. Deciphering
the
DNA
of
Innova3on
Pla6orms
Dr.
Iddo
Dror
–
Head
of
Capacity
Development
(ILRI)
Zelalem
Lema
–
Research
Officer
on
Innova@on
System
in
Agriculture
(ILRI)
Nairobi,
Kenya
/
29
April
–
2
May
2014
CGIAR
Research
Program
on
Integrated
Systems
for
the
Humid
Tropics
Capacity
Development
Workshop

2. On
the
menu
today…
• The
Humidtropics
innovaOon
pracOce
briefs
-­‐
covering
the
major
aspects
and
elements
of
innovaOon
plaRorms
• CriOcal
issues
for
reflecOon
when
designing
and
implemenOng
Research
for
Development
in
InnovaOon
PlaRorms

3. Boogaard
et
al
propose
5
themes
and
11
reflecOon
issues
around
innovaOon
plaRorms

4. The
12
InnovaOon
PlaRorm
PracOce
Briefs

5. Humidtropics
take
on
plaRorms
• DisOncOon
between
R4D
plaRorms
and
innovaOon
plaRorms

6. Humidtropics
take
on
plaRorms
(2)

7. What
are
innovaOon
plaRorms?
Who
uses
innovaOon
plaRorms?
How
do
innovaOon
plaRorms
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
innovaOon
plaRorm
cycle

9. InnovaOon
plaRorm
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
responsibiliOes

11. Benefits
of
innovaOon
plaRorms
• facilitate
dialogue
and
understanding
• enable
partners
to
idenOfy
the
bo_lenecks
hindering
innovaOon
• create
moOvaOon
and
a
feeling
of
ownership
• facilitate
upward
communicaOon
• lead
to
be_er-­‐informed
decisions
• contribute
to
capacity
development
• make
innovaOve
research
possible
• enhance
impact

12. What
is
the
most
enOcing
benefit
of
IPs
as
far
as
you
are
concerned?
A. Facilitate
dialogue
B. IdenOfy
bo_lenecks
C. MoOvaOon
&
ownership
D. Upward
communicaOon
E. Be_er-­‐informed
decisions
F. ↑
Capacity
development
G. Enable
innovaOve
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
perspecOve
• can
be
difficult
to
monitor
and
evaluate
innovaOon
plaRorms
in
a
systemaOc
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
perspecOve
E. Difficult
to
M&E
F. Power
dynamics
Dependence
on
full
buy-­‐in
Need
for
ongoing
tangibl...
Difficult
&
costly
to
im
p...
Long
term
perspective
Difficult
to
M
&
E
Pow
er
dynam
ics
25%
20%
5%
10%10%
30%

15. ComposiOon
and
iniOaOon
of
plaRorms
1. RepresentaOon
and
composiOon
2. Common
objecOve
3. Relevant
research
quesOons

16. RepresentaOon
and
composiOon
• Build
on
exisOng
networks
or
create
new
ones?
How
did
you
handle
this
in
your
plaRorm?

17. Common
objecOve
An
innovaOon
plaRorm
ojen
needs
a
common
objecOve
in
order
to
funcOon
effecOvely.
Selng
a
common
vision
objecOve
of
an
innovaOon
plaRorm
does
not
happen
‘naturally’,
but
is
value-­‐driven,
and
usually
achieved
through
visioning
and
foresight
exercises.

18. Relevant
research
quesOons
• Important
to
involve
all
stakeholders
and
give
them
opportuniOes
to
arOculate
their
demands
-­‐
create
“safe
spaces”.
• Research
quesOons
ojen
hidden
in
mulO-­‐
stakeholder
negoOaOon
processes.
• ParOcipatory
methods
can
be
useful
to
idenOfy
stakeholders’
needs.

19. Role
of
researchers
in
the
composiOon
and
iniOaOon
of
plaRorms
theme:
• support
stakeholder
mapping,
• make
choices
and
the
underlying
assumpOons
of
selecOon
on
power
and
equity
explicit.
• undertake
capacity
development
to
ensure
a
common
understanding
on
innovaOon
plaRorms
• plaRorm
objecOve
is
ojen
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
assumpOons
explicit
to
plaRorm
members.
• what
to
do
when
the
plaRorm
objecOve
differs
from
the
(iniOal)
project
vision
and
research
agenda.
• SupporOng
stakeholders
in
expressing
their
needs
and
translaOng
these
needs
into
relevant
research
quesOons

20. Key
quesOons
on
composiOon
and
iniOaOon
of
plaRorms
theme:
1. Does
the
innovaOon
plaRorm
build
on
exisOng
networks
or
will
new
networks
be
created?
2. Who
selects
representaOves?
And
how?
Is
diversity
among
consOtuencies,
e.g.
farmers,
taken
into
account?
3. When
innovaOon
champions
are
included,
on
what
grounds
and
with
what
purpose?
4. How
and
by
whom
is
the
objecOve
of
the
plaRorm
defined?
5. Have
stakeholders’
ideas
been
included
in
the
vision?
6. What
to
do
when
the
plaRorm
objecOve
differs
from
the
(iniOal)
project
vision?
7. Are
stakeholders
are
sufficiently
empowered
to
arOculate
their
demands?
8. How
and
by
whom
are
research
quesOons
idenOfied?
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
plaRorm?

21. More
informaOon
/
resources
on
composiOon
and
iniOaOon
of
plaRorms
• Guidance
Note
on
How
to
Do
Stakeholder
Analysis
of
Aid
Projects
and
Programmes
(ODA
1995)
• Social
Analysis
Sourcebook
(World
Bank
2003)
• MulO-­‐stakeholder
Processes
Resource
Portal.
Stakeholder
Analysis
(WUR
CDI)
• Rapid
Appraisal
• Knowledge
co-­‐creaOon
portal.
MulO-­‐stakeholder
processes.
Tools
-­‐
Interests
and
Roles
(WUR)
• Handbook
for
ParOcipatory
AcOon
Research,
Monitoring
and
EvaluaOon
(Chevalier
and
Buckles
2013)
• Insights
into
ParOcipatory
Video:
A
Handbook
for
the
Field
(Lunch
&
Lunch
2006)
• MulO-­‐stakeholder
Resource
Portal.
Visioning
tool
(WUR
CDI)
• Knowledge
co-­‐creaOon
portal.
MulO-­‐stakeholder
processes.
Tools
–
Visioning
(WUR)

22. CoordinaOon
and
facilitaOon
Process
facilita3on
Knowledge
co-­‐crea3on

23. Process
FacilitaOon
• EffecOve
facilitaOon
of
the
plaRorm
contributes
to
an
enabling
environment
which
can
improve
the
quality
of
interacOons
between
stakeholders
• OperaOonal
aspects
will
be
discussed
in
more
detail
in
the
“FacilitaOng
innovaOon
plaRorms”
Brief
(#10)

24. Knowledge
co-­‐creaOon
• InnovaOon
system
thinking
builds
on
the
idea
that
innovaOons
do
not
only
originate
from
science
alone,
but
that
these
are
based
on
knowledge
from
mulOple
sources
• InnovaOon
plaRorms
offer
great
opportuniOes
for
knowledge
co-­‐creaOon
by
researchers
and
other
stakeholders.
How
is
this
unfolding
in
your
plaRorm?

25.
• how
do
you
see
facilitaOon
as
a
key
for
the
success
of
IP’s?
• Is
facilitaOon
easy?
Who?
• Maintain
everyone’s
interest
and
commitment
is
vital-­‐
how
individual
roles
-­‐>
common
goal-­‐
>
benefit
all
• IPs
needed
because
players
involved
are
not
communicaOng
in
the
first
place
• Trust
and
mutual
respect
–
new
and
ongoing
partnership
• Flexibility
to
manage
changes
FacilitaOng
InnovaOon
plaRorms:

26.
• CriOcal
reflecOon
issues:
• Who
should
facilitate
IPs?
-­‐ Insider
or
outsider
?
-­‐ Researchers?
Cases
in
Ethiopia:
RiPPLE,
ILRI
Projects
(NBDC,
Africa
RISING),
Humidtropics
-­‐
Research
organizaOons
iniOate
IPs
for
projects
-­‐
Topics
try
to
address
around
projects
(flexibility)
FacilitaOng
InnovaOon
plaRorms
(2):

27. Facilitators
can
provide
the
following
funcOons:
Facilita3on
-­‐>
knowledge
brokering
• Establish-­‐equal
representaOon
• Iden3fy
issues-­‐
common
&
benefits
all
• Manage
mee3ngs-­‐facilitate
discussions,
full
parOcipaOon
of
all..
• Support
ac3vi3es
outside
mee3ngs:
joint
acOon,
• Manage
communica3ons:
trust
• Deal
with
conflict
and
power:
manage
different
interest
• Monitor,
document
and
report:
process
documentaOon,
learning
• Facilitate
and
advocate
for
ins3tu3onal
change
• Develop
capacity:
TNA:
three
most
important
success
factors
for
a
well
performing
IPs:
• Most
of
you
have
menOoned
factors
related
to
funcOons
of
facilitators
• IPs
are
as
well
performing
as
facilitators

28. Role
of
researchers
in
the
coordinaOon
and
facilitaOon
theme:
• The
main
quesOon
for
researchers
is
if
they
should
facilitate
the
plaRorm
–
or
not.
If
they
do,
researchers
should
address
neutrality
of
the
facilitaOon,
and
their
own
shijing
role(s).
• researchers
–
as
well
as
other
stakeholders
in
the
InnovaOon
plaRorms
–
can
also
address
the
importance
of
knowledge
co-­‐creaOon
with
other
stakeholders,
and
ensure
tacit
local
knowledge
is
arOculated
and
taken
on
board.
• Social
learning
is
an
important
aspect
of
knowledge
co-­‐creaOon.
Researchers
can
contribute
to
social
learning
by
sharing
informaOon
and
(preliminary)
research
results
in
the
plaRorm
• Failures
are
important
sources
for
learning.
Researchers
may
need
to
play
a
leading
role
in
supporOng
(self-­‐)
reflecOon
among
plaRorm
members,
parOcularly
in
contexts
where
criOcal
analysis
is
not
the
norm.

29. Key
quesOons
on
coordinaOon
and
facilitaOon
theme:
1. Who
facilitates
the
InnovaOon
plaRorm?
an
‘insider’
or
‘outsider’?
2. Can
–
or
should
–
researchers
facilitate
the
InnovaOon
plaRorm?
3. If
researchers
fulfil
‘innovaOon
broker’
roles,
are
these
sufficiently
rewarded
and
recognized
by
research
organizaOons?
4. Is
local
knowledge
recognized
within
the
plaRorm
as
an
important
contributor
to
innovaOons?
5. What
parOcipatory
methods
are
used
to
elicit
local
knowledge?
6. How
does
the
plaRorm
support
and
enhance
social
learning
among
stakeholders?
7. How
are
failures
dealt
with
within
the
plaRorm?
8. How
is
reflecOon
sOmulated
within
the
plaRorm?
How
will
you
use
this
in
your
plaRorm?

30. More
informaOon
/
resources
on
coordinaOon
and
facilitaOon
theme
• ‘OperaOonal
field
guide
for
developing
and
managing
local
agricultural
innovaOon
plaRorms’
(Makini
et
al.
2013)
• Pulng
heads
together:
Agricultural
innovaOon
plaRorms
in
pracOce
(Nederlof
et
al.
2011)
• MulO-­‐stakeholder
Processes
Resource
Portal.
FacilitaOon
Skills
(WUR
CDI)
• The
Brokering
Guidebook
(Tennyson
2003)
• MulO-­‐Stakeholder
Processes
• MulO-­‐stakeholder
Resource
Portal.
ParOcipatory
Learning
and
AcOon
(PLA)
(WUR
CDI)
• ‘ParOcipatory
Learning
and
AcOon.
A
trainer’s
guide’
(Pre_y
et
al.
1995)
•
‘Learning
alliances:
an
approach
for
building
mulO-­‐stakeholder
innovaOon
systems’
(Lundy
et
al.
2005)

31. Power
and
conflict
Power
asymmetries
Conflicts,
nego3a3ons
and
trust

32. Power
asymmetries
• Power-­‐relaOons
exist,
and
can
play
a
role,
in
every
phase
of
the
plaRorm
process.
It
is
important
to
recognize
these
power
dynamics
and
their
effects
• System
innovaOons
ojen
require
a
change
in
power
relaOons
between
stakeholders
and
associated
insOtuOons
(which
ojen
entails
conflicts).
• Gender
relaOons
are
ojen
characterized
by
strong
power
dynamics
and
therefore
should
receive
explicit
a_enOon
in
innovaOon
processes

33. Why
are
power
and
representaOon
important?
• More
powerful
members
may
dominate
• Group
diversity
is
not
reflected
• Not
all
knowledge
is
used

34. Which
is
the
biggest
perceived
power/
representaOon
risk
in
your
plaRorm?
A. Powerful
members
dominate
B. Diversity
not
reflected
C. Not
all
knowledge
is
used
Pow
erful
m
em
bers
dom
i...Diversity
not
reflected
Not
all
know
ledge
is
used
0% 0%0%

35. Dealing
with
power
and
representaOon
• ParOcipatory
rural
appraisal
• ParOcipatory
video
• Roleplaying
• Skilled
facilitators
• Evidence
from
research
• Links
between
different
levels
• Bypassing
the
plaRorm

36. Which
of
the
following
have
you
used*
in
your
plaRorm
to
address
power
dynamics?
A. PRA
B. ParOcipatory
video
C. Role-­‐play
D. Skilled
facilitators
E. Research
Evidence
F. Links
between
levels
G. Bypassing
plaRorm
PRA
Participatory
video
Role-­‐play
Skilled
facilitators
Research
Evidence
Links
betw
een
levels
Bypassing
platform
0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%
*Select
ALL
that
apply

37. Conflicts,
negoOaOons
and
trust
• InnovaOon
plaRorms
are
likely
to
be
arenas
of
struggle
because
they
bring
people
together
with
different
interests
with
the
aim
of
finding
joint
soluOons.
• There
are
three
broad
types
of
fricOons:
(1)
difficulOes
in
maintaining
an
agreement
or
compromise
ajer
it
has
been
secured,
(2)
problems
in
securing
an
agreement,
and
(3)
failure
to
tackle
the
most
significant
problems
in
the
first
place.
• NegoOaOon
(ojen
outside
of
formal
meeOngs)
can
help
resolve
conflicts
and
unleash
innovaOon
processes.

38. Role
of
researchers
in
the
power
and
conflict
theme:
• Researchers
can
supporOng
plaRorm
members
in
expressing
their
views
and
ideas
through
the
use
of
creaOve
parOcipatory
methods
• Researchers
should
remember
that
they
are
also
part
of
power
structures
• Researchers
can
help
idenOfy
interdependency
and/or
create
insOtuOonal
space
for
negoOaOons.
This
may
involve
capacity
development
and/or
advocacy.
• In
situaOons
where
a
lot
of
conflicOng
interests
exist,
research
findings
can
easily
become
contested.
It
is
then
helpful
for
researchers
to
have
a
trusted
relaOonship
with
other
stakeholders
and
organizaOons.
However,
trust
needs
to
be
built,
which
is
why
an
acOve
and
frequent
presence
of
researchers
in
the
InnovaOon
plaRorm
is
important.

39. Key
quesOons
on
power
and
conflict
theme:
1. Are
exisOng
power
structures
within
the
plaRorm
explicitly
addressed
and
dealt
with?
2. Is
sufficient
a_enOon
paid
to
gender
dynamics
and
the
power
of
scienOfic
experts
?
3. Are
partnerships
between
(research)
organizaOons
sufficiently
flexible
and
bo_om-­‐up
to
successfully
support
innovaOon
processes?
4. If
exisOng
power
dynamics
in
the
way
research
is
currently
done
hamper
successful
innovaOons,
to
what
extent
can
research
be
re-­‐structured?
5. Are
conflicts
recognized
and
effecOvely
dealt
with
within
the
plaRorm?
6. Do
stakeholders
recognize
their
mutual
interdependency
to
solve
a
problem?
7. Is
there
sufficient
insOtuOonal
space
and
support,
e.g.
among
the
government,
to
use
plaRorm
results?
8. Is
there
sufficient
Ome
and
space
for
researchers
to
build
a
trusted
relaOonship
with
other
stakeholders?
How
will
you
use
this
in
your
plaRorm?

40. More
informaOon
/
resources
on
power
and
conflict
theme
• Knowledge
co-­‐creaOon
portal.
MulO-­‐stakeholder
processes.
Tools-­‐
Power
(WUR)
• Power
cube.
Understanding
power
for
social
change
(IDS)
• MulO-­‐Stakeholder
Processes
for
Governance
and
Sustainability—Beyond
Deadlock
and
Conflict
(HemmaO
2002)
• Gelng
to
Yes:
NegoOaOng
Agreement
Without
Giving
in
(Fisher
and
Ury
1981)
• Knowledge
co-­‐creaOon
portal.
MulO-­‐stakeholder
processes.
Tools
-­‐
Conflict
styles
(WUR)
• ‘Breaking
the
impasse:
Consensual
Approaches
to
Resolving
Public
Disputes’
(Susskind
and
Cruikshank
1987)

41. Resources,
incenOves
and
Omeframe
Incen3ves
and
mo3va3on
Changing
condi3ons
and
flexibility
Resources
and
sustainability

42. IncenOves
and
moOvaOon
• Nature
of
plaRorm
ma_ers
–
a
focus
on
NRM
would
be
quite
different
from
VCD
–
and
this
may
influence
expectaOons
&
incenOves.
• It
can
be
challenging
to
acOvely
engage
stakeholders
in
the
InnovaOon
plaRorm
and
to
keep
them
acOvely
involved
over
Ome,
especially
if
incenOves
for
parOcipaOon
can
be
rather
unclear
to
stakeholders.
• Financial
incenOves
can
be
tricky
(“project”
versus
“program”
mentality).
Alignment
and
internal
moOvaOon
should
be
sought.

43. Changing
condiOons
and
flexibility
• InnovaOon
processes
are
non-­‐linear,
dynamic,
diverse,
highly
context-­‐specific
and
characterized
by
coincidence,
uncertainty
and
unpredictability.
The
process
of
innovaOon
plaRorms
therefore
requires
conOnuous
adaptaOons
to
changing
condiOons
• Changes
may
occur
in
several
key
areas
(see
below)
and
should
be
welcomed
and
embraced
–
they
are
a
normal
part
of
the
process!
• prioriOes
of
stakeholders
• the
focus
and
objecOve
of
the
plaRorm
• membership
of
the
plaRorm;
• roles
and
responsibiliOes
of
plaRorm
members
• plaRorm
acOviOes
• research
strategy
and
research
quesOons
• etc.

44. Resources
and
sustainability
• InnovaOon
processes
are
intensive
in
terms
of
financial
as
well
as
human
resources
required.
They
also
have
a
rather
long
‘pay-­‐off’
Ome,
parOcularly
when
large
networks
are
involved.
• A
frequently
posed
quesOon
is
whether
InnovaOon
plaRorms
are
“sustainable”.
• ParOcipatory
processes
during
the
program
criOcal,
as
engaged
stakeholders
more
likely
to
conOnue
beyond
iniOal
project
support.
How
are
you
addressing
this
in
your
plaRorm?

45. Role
of
researchers
in
the
resources,
incenOves
and
Omeframe
theme:
• Researchers
can
help
to
provide
insight
into
stakeholders’
expectaOons,
clarify
underlying
principles
of
InnovaOon
plaRorms
and
reveal
possible
benefits
for
stakeholders.
• Researchers
should
clarify
(and
minimize
/
opOmize)
the
amount
of
Ome
stakeholders
are
required
to
invest
in
the
plaRorm.
If
stakeholders
are
expected
to
invest
their
Ome
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
adapOve
management.
• Researchers
can
provide
clarificaOon
towards
expectaOons
of
donors,
partner
organizaOons
and
stakeholders
with
regard
to
the
Ome
frames.

46. Key
quesOons
on
resources,
incenOves
and
Omeframe
theme:
1. What
are
incenOves
for
parOcipaOon
in
the
plaRorm?
Are
these
in
line
with
stakeholders
expectaOons?
2. Are
stakeholders
given
the
opportunity
to
make
a
meaningful
contribuOon
to
research?
3. Is
the
expected
Ome-­‐investment
of
stakeholders
sufficiently
clarified?
4. Is
the
research
strategy
sufficiently
open
and
flexible
to
respond
to
changing
condiOons?
5. Do
donors
and
other
program
partners
agree
on
a
rather
open
project
planning?
6. Do
researchers
in
the
plaRorm
have
sufficient
mandate
to
promptly
respond
to
changing
condiOons?
7. Are
plaRorms
expected
to
conOnue
operaOng
ajer
the
program?
If
so,
in
what
format
and
where
do
resources
come
from?
8. Should
InnovaOon
plaRorms
be
sustainable?
If
so,
when
is
a
plaRorm
considered
sustainable?
9. Where
do
resources
come
from?
Who
controls
them?
10. Are
stakeholders
internally
moOvated
to
join
the
plaRorm?
How
will
you
use
this
in
your
plaRorm?

47. Monitoring
and
EvaluaOon
• InnovaOon
plaRorms’
validity
and
contribuOons
to
effecOve
research
for
development
and
achieving
development
outcomes
needs
to
be
demonstrated.
• InnovaOon
processes
are
complex,
can
only
be
parOally
planned
and
ojen
remain
largely
unintended,
which
make
it
challenging
to
measure
them.
• InnovaOon
processes
are
characterized
by
an
interplay
of
many
factors,
which
makes
it
difficult
to
a_ribute
changes
to
a
specific
cause.
• These
challenges
however
should
not
stop
us
from
a_empOng
to
capture
their
effecOveness.

48. Monitoring
innovaOon
plaRorms
• 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. • AcOviOes
that
aim
to
resolve
a
problem
or
take
advantage
of
an
opportunity
• Process
outputs,
including
changes
in
knowledge,
altudes
and
pracOces
of
the
plaRorm
members
What
to
monitor
What
did
you
think
about
Case
1
(ImGoats)?

50. Process
monitoring
tools
• Outcome
mapping
• Most
significant
change
• Network
analysis
• ParOcipatory
impact
pathways
• Digital
storytelling
/
parOcipatory
video
• Farmer
field
days
and
learning
fairs
Which
others
do
you
use?

51. Which
of
the
following
have
you
used*
for
monitoring
in
your
plaRorm?
A. Outcome
mapping
B. Most
significant
change
C. Network
Analysis
D. ParOcipatory
impact
pathways
E. Digital
storytelling
/
parOcipatory
video
F. Farmer
field
days
/
learning
fairs
Outcom
e
m
apping
M
ost
significant
change
Netw
ork
Analysis
Participatory
im
pact
pa...
Digital
storytelling
/
part...
Farm
er
field
days
/
learn...
0% 0% 0%0%0%0%
*Select
ALL
that
apply

52. Impact
of
innovaOon
plaRorms
• What
are
some
of
the
difficulOes
in
assessing
the
impact
of
innovaOon
plaRorms?
• How
can
plaRorms
achieve
impacts?
In
small
groups,
take
5
minutes
and
discuss:

53. How
can
plaRorms
achieve
impacts?
• By
providing
informaOon
and
resources
to
plaRorm
members
• Through
research
• By
negoOaOon
and
persuasion
• Through
lobbying
and
advocacy

54. Why
is
demonstraOng
impact
difficult?
• Achieving
impact
is
difficult.
The
problems
that
innovaOon
plaRorms
a_empt
to
solve
tend
to
be
complex.
• Some
impacts
are
difficult
to
measure.
Many
impacts
of
innovaOon
plaRorms,
such
as
‘innovaOon
capacity’
are
intangible
and
hard
to
quanOfy.
• Measuring
(non-­‐financial)
benefits
can
be
tricky.
Many
benefits
are
unforeseen
or
are
side
benefits
difficult
to
grasp.
• InnovaOon
plaRorms
are
long-­‐term
endeavors
–
impacts
may
only
be
reached
beyond
the
iniOal
project
duraOon

55. Role
of
researchers
in
the
monitoring
and
evaluaOon
theme:
• Researchers
can
introduce
methods
that
are
more
suitable
to
the
complex
nature
of
innovaOon
plaRorms,
such
as
outcome
mapping,
most
significant
change,
social
network
analysis,
parOcipatory
impact
pathways,
etc.
• Researchers
should
develop
addiOonal
and/or
new
(quanOtaOve)
indicators
that
capture
system
innovaOons,
insOtuOonal
change
and
innovaOon
capacity.
• It
is
also
important
to
conduct
a
diagnosOc
study
of
the
insOtuOonal
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
reflecOon)
that
recognizes
the
complexity
and
intangibility
of
innovaOon
processes
is
needed.
The
framework
should
also
recognize
failures
and
learn
from
them.
• ParOcipatory
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
plaRorm
acOviOes
and
create
feedback
loops.
• Process
documentaOon
can
provide
valuable
insights
in
innovaOon
processes,
but
it
can
also
be
quite
Ome-­‐consuming

56. Key
quesOons
on
monitoring
and
evaluaOon
theme:
1. How
is
effecOveness
of
InnovaOon
plaRorms
measured?
2. What
indicators
and
methods
are
available
to
measure
system
innovaOons,
insOtuOonal
change,
and
innovaOon
capacity?
What
new
indicators
should
be
developed?
3. Is
the
insOtuOonal
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
innovaOon
processes?
6. Is
the
M&E
process
parOcipatory?
I.e.
are
stakeholders
acOvely
involved
in
monitoring
and
evaluaOng
the
InnovaOon
plaRorm
process?
How
will
you
use
this
in
your
plaRorm?
7. Is
there
sufficient
space
and
support
within
the
plaRorm
and
(research)
organizaOons
to
recognize
and
learn
from
failures?

57. More
informaOon
/
resources
on
monitoring
and
evaluaOon
theme
• Handbook
for
ParOcipatory
AcOon
Research,
Monitoring
and
EvaluaOon
(Chevalier
and
Buckles
2013)
• ParOcipatory
EvaluaOon
(Be_er
EvaluaOon)
• Outcome
mapping
(Be_er
EvaluaOon)
• Reflexive
Monitoring
in
AcOon
(Van
Mierlo
et
al.
2010b)
• Knowledge
co-­‐creaOon
portal.
MulO-­‐stakeholder
processes.
Tools
-­‐
InsOtuOonal
Analysis
(WUR)
• Rapid
Appraisal
of
Agricultural
InnovaOon
Systems
(RAAIS)
(Schut
et
al.
2014)
• ‘Learning
alliances:
an
approach
for
building
mulO-­‐stakeholder
innovaOon
systems’
(Lundy
et
al.
2005)

58. Brief
2

59.
You
are
the
head
of
your
country’s
Department
of
Livestock,
and
the
Prime
Minister
has
tasked
you
with
selng
up
a
new
policy
to
develop
your
country’s
dairy
producOon.
Where
do
you
start?
How
can
IPs
contribute
to
shaping
naOonal
policies?

60.
Engaging
with
policymakers
Selng
sector
standards
FacilitaOng
policy
implementaOon
CreaOng
naOonal
plaRorms
Key
elements

61.
Take
5
minutes
to
review
the
three
cases
in
Brief
2.
Discuss
whether
these
mechanisms
would
be
valid
in
your
plaRorms,
and
how
you
would
adapt
&
implement
similar
processes.
Be
ready
to
share
back
with
the
plenary
In
your
groups…

62.
Brief
3

63.
(PotenOal)
role
of
research(ers)
in
innovaOon
plaRorms:
-­‐ Current
thinking:
“re-­‐conceptualizing
of
roles
and
contribuOon
of
researchers
in
development
projects
-­‐ Paradigm
shij
Linear
thinking
–>
innovaOon
system
thinking
(TT
-­‐>
FRS
-­‐>
AKIS
-­‐>
AIS)
-­‐ InsOtuOonal
context:
make
decision
and
influence
the
credibility,
legiOmacy
and
relevance
of
research
in
IPs
-­‐ Changing
roles
of
researchers
are
recognizing
by
the:
– Researcher
themselves
– Policy
makers,
farmers
and
development
pracOOoners
-­‐ How
research
can
contribute
to
development
impact?

64. CGIAR
research
council
suggests
five
roles
of
CGIAR
Centers:
2006
Primary
research
funcOon
Secondary
research
role
at
strategic/
applied
level
CatalyOc
role
FacilitaOve/
enabling
funcOon
Advocacy

65. In
InnovaOon
plaRorms
research
can
help:
To
reduce
uncertainty
To
develop
common
departure
points
necessary
for
coordinaOon
and
collecOve
acOon
To
improve
relaOons
and
understanding
among
stakeholders
by
joint
fact-­‐finding
To
generate
unexpected
feedback
and
eye-­‐openers
for
the
system

66.
Research
support
IPs
in
three
ways:
pracOce
brief
3:
1. TradiOonal
research:
– AuthoritaOve,
objecOve
and
value-­‐free
knowledge
– Base
line
study,
impact
and
evaluaOon
2.
Knowledge
management
and
acOon
research
-­‐
-­‐ Knowledge
in
to
use
-­‐ Backstop
them
to
generate
knowledge-­‐
CapDev
3.
Enabling
Environment
for
innovaOon
– Fund,
input,
capacity
development

67.
Cases
in
Mozambique
and
Ethiopia
Case
1:
government
iniOated
IP
to
develop
sustainable
biofuels
policy
Wageningen
University:
-­‐
• inventory
of
biofuels
acOvity
(tradiOonal
research)
• FacilitaOng
and
documenOng
plaRorm
meeOngs
(kge
mgt)
• Fundraising
and
lobbying
(enabling
environment)
Case
2:
Africa
RISING
project
in
Ethiopia
-­‐ ILRI
and
CG
centers
-­‐ DiagnosOc
acOviOes
in
all
the
project
sites
(PCA,
livelihood,
etc)
to
reduce
uncertainty
-­‐ Develop
common
departure
points
for
joint
acOon

68.
IPs
support
research
process/cycle:
NBDC
case
-­‐ Topic
–
land
degradaOon,
soil
erosion
and
free
grazing
-­‐ Prototypes
–
innovaOon
fund
for
pilot
intervenOon
on
farm
and
grazing
lands
-­‐ Training-­‐
for
farmers
(technologies
and
new
pracOces)
-­‐ Tes3ng,
adaptaOon
and
improvement
–
pilot
on
different
fodder
veriOes
-­‐ Document-­‐
it
worked
well
-­‐ Analyzed-­‐
how
soil
fer3lity
improved
-­‐ Published,
disseminate,
new
research
quesOons

69. 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

70. InnovaOon
plaRorms
for
agricultural
value
chain
development
• How
are
IP
for
VC
different
from
tradiOonal
IP?
• How
do
different
types
of
plaRorm
members
benefit?
• What
different
types
of
VC
IP
can
you
think
of?
In
small
groups,
take
5-­‐10
minutes
and
discuss:

71. Uniqueness
of
innovaOon
plaRorms
that
focus
on
value
chain
development
• many
of
their
members
come
from
the
private
sector.
Profit
moOvaOons
tend
to
dominate
• PlaRorm
members
(may)
compete
with
each
other.
What
are
the
implicaOons
of
this?

72. Types
of
innovaOon
plaRorms
that
deal
with
value
chains.
• Farmer-­‐based
• Value-­‐chain-­‐based
• Accidental

74. Which
type
of
value
chain
innovaOon
plaRorm
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
AccidentalNone
of
the
above
0% 0%0%0%

75. CommunicaOon
in
innovaOon
plaRorms
• What
are
some
of
the
internal
and
external
communicaOons
acOviOes
you
carry
out
in
your
plaRorm?
• What
are
the
roles
of
communicaOons
in
innovaOon
plaRorms?
How
would
these
differ
in
field
sites
/
acOon
sites
/
acOon
areas?
In
small
groups,
take
5
minutes
and
discuss:

76. Three
roles
of
communicaOon
• Engagement
and
dialogue
– Facilitated
meeOngs
and
events
– Study
tours
and
exchanges
– Role
plays
and
games
– Networking
• DocumentaOon
and
outreach
– Internet
and
web-­‐based
tools
– Documents,
newsle_ers
and
publicaOons
– Video
and
photographs
– Resource
centres
– Radio,
phone,
text
messages,
media
• Learning
– ParOcipatory
video
– Most
significant
change
stories
– Ajer
acOon
reviews
– Learning
games
– Story
telling
– Journals

77. Which
of
the
following
have
you
used*
for
communicaOons
in
your
plaRorm?
A. Facilitated
meeOngs
B. Study
tours
C. Role
play
and
games
D. Newsle_ers
&
publicaOons
E. Video
&
photographs
F. Digital
storytelling
/
parOcipatory
video
G. Most
significant
change
stories
Facilitated
m
eetingsStudy
tours
Role
play
and
gam
es
New
sletters
&
publications
Video
&
photographs
Digital
storytelling
/
part...
M
ost
significant
change
s...
0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%
*Select
ALL
that
apply

78. Developing
innovaOon
capacity
through
innovaOon
plaRorms
• In
the
cooking
pot
example,
where
does
innovaOon
capacity
develop?
• In
your
plaRorms,
what
signs
of
innovaOon
capacity
do
you
observe?
In
small
groups,
take
5
–
10
minutes
and
discuss:

79. InnovaOon
Capacity
–
what
is
it
and
how
do
you
foster
it?
• Like
the
cooking
process
in
the
pot…
• ParOcipants
have
to
interact
well;
the
facilitaOon
has
to
be
suitable,
and
all
those
involved
must
have
the
paOence
to
let
the
process
unfold
• Paying
a_enOon
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
capaciOes
locally.

80. Which
type
of
value
chain
innovaOon
plaRorm
is
depicted
in
the
Babure
innovaOon
plaRorm
in
Uganda?
A. Farmer-­‐based
B. Value-­‐chain
based
C. Accidental
D. None
of
the
above
Farm
er-­‐basedValue-­‐chain
based
AccidentalNone
of
the
above
0% 0%0%0%

81. Linking
acOon
at
different
levels
through
innovaOon
plaRorms
• What
kind
of
linkages
are
described
in
the
brief?
Are
you
pracOcing
some
or
all
of
these
in
Humidtropics?
• What
are
some
of
the
benefits
associated
with
linking
acOon
at
different
levels
through
innovaOon
plaRorms?
In
small
groups,
take
5
minutes
and
discuss:

82. Benefits
associated
with
linking
acOon
at
different
levels
through
innovaOon
plaRorms
• Scaling
out
successful
innovaOons.
• Empowering
local
actors
to
influence
policy
• Fostering
dialogue
in
policymaking
• Developing
value
chains
• Increasing
legiOmacy
and
learning
How
linked
are
your
plaRorms?

83. What
linkages
does
your
plaRorm
currently
have
to
other
plaRorms?
A. None
–
we’re
sOll
focusing
internally
B. Horizontal
linkages
(to
plaRorm
at
similar
level)
C. VerOcal
Linkages
(to
plaRorm
at
different
levels)
D. Both
horizontal
and
verOcal
links
None
–
w
e’re
still
focusin...
Horizontal
linkages
(to
pl...
Vertical
Linkages
(to
pla...
Both
horizontal
and
vertic..
0% 0%0%0%

84. IPs
to
support
Natural
Resource
Management
• Who
is
working
directly
on
IP
that
focus
on
NRM?

85. InnovaOon
PlaRorms
in
NBDC
• Baseline
survey
revealed
low
level
of
parOcipaOon
of
relevant
stakeholders
during
planning,
implementaOon
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
• InformaOon:
not
easily
available
• IncenOves:
– Pay
today
benefit
in
the
future
– Pay
today
and
someone
else
benefit
– Pay
today,
watch
others
get
a
free
ride

88. Thank
you
i.dror@cgiar.org