Increasing development impact niarobi nov 2016 final

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

Day 1
Innovation and impact at scale
Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly2 |

Objectives
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

Session 1
Partnerships and platforms:
Different ways of organizing agricultural
innovation

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.

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

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

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.

Why is this important …
Why do I need to know about innovation
I am a researcher and interested in
research / creating knowledge?

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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
Neither is universally correct
There is no blueprint for innovation.
Each approach needs to be tailored to task at hand.

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.
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.
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
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

Which mode of Innovation Platforms fit ?
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

What is your experience with innovation
multi-stakeholder partnership / platforms?
- who is involved?
- benefits?
- challenges?
- how could it be done differently?

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

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

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.

What an IP involves continued
• 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

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

Brainstorm
• Why establish an innovation platform?

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

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

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

How research can contribute to IP’s
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

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

Questions

Morning coffee break

Session 2
An Innovation Platform in Practice:
The Case of IMGoats Innovation
Platforms in Mozambique & India

Acknowledgements

The IMGoats project
• 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 |

Project locations
Need map of Indian sites

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)**

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

IMGoats IPs supported innovation for …
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.

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
• 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

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

Exercise:
Role Play

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.

Exercise: Role Play characters and tips
A representatives from
- The Government
- The NGO
- The private sector
- Trader
- Retailer
- The Farmers & Paravets
- The research organsiation
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

What worked well?
What challenges did you encounter?
How did you overcome them?
What lessons would you take forward?
Exercise: Debrief

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.

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.

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.

Actors in the IPs and their changing roles

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?

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…
Challenges are
evolutionary,
continuous, always
changing, and
integrated.

• 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

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)
General challenges and lessons learnt continued
53 |

Questions

Lunch break

Session 3
Partnering:
Tips and tricks

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.

Why do we need the 3 core principles

What makes successful partnerships
… each sector plays its appropriate part and contributes from core
competencies and strengths

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

• 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)

Exercise:
What would you do ?

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

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.

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.

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?

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)

Partnering tools

Partnership agreements and reviews

Resource Mapping - Identify and Value Contributions
from Partners

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

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

Questions

Useful Resources

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

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

Day 2
Designing & managing projects
for impact at scale

Objectives of today
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

Session 1
Monitoring, Evaluation & Learning:
Introduction

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

• 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.
Before we delve into the detail lets recap on some key terms …
85 |

• 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
More key terms …
86 |

More key terms …
87 |

A typical journey ….

• 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.
M&E&L helps to navigate this journey by …
89 |

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?

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

Different MEL Tools &
approaches for different
purposes

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?
Design
Implementation
Review

Source: CSIRO (2014) Impact Framework
Impact pathway

Problem trees

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

Indicators
97 |
INDICATOR ASSUMPTIONS
MEANS OF
VERIFICATION

Activity plans and milestones
98 • Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly

Internal activity reporting
Partnerships, platforms & managing for impact • Michaela Cosijn & Jen Kelly99 •

Rubrics

Most Significant Change (MSC)

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

Outcome mapping (OM)
• 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

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.

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

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.

So in summary what do we know …
There is no silver bullet
and
design and MEL are not
separate functions … they
inform each other

Morning coffee break

Session 2:
Developing a project logic /
impact pathway / results chain

Source: CSIRO (2014) Impact Framework
Impact pathway

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
• Projects to increase incomes of farmers in:
• Cassava
• Sugar
• Beef
• Geography :

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.
Tip:
Don’t start with the
planned research.
Start with the
problem you want to
solve.

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

Example project logic

Example Approach
- how the partnerships were set up to implement these projects
and program

Exercise: Developing an Impact Pathway
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

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?

Exercise: Tips
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.

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

Lunch break

Case Study:
Managing an Innovation Platform –
What MEL info do we need?

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?

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
TIP:
You don’t need
to know every
thing at the
start … info
needs can
evolve over
time.

Monitoring project logics

Example: What information do we need to manage the
IP?

Session 3
Exercise:
Role Play

Exercise: Monitoring the IP we set up on yesterday?
ROLE PLAY: Develop a draft MEL plan for the IP
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

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?

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

Questions

Useful Resources

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/

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

Increasing development impact niarobi nov 2016 final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Increasing development impact niarobi nov 2016 final

Similar to Increasing development impact niarobi nov 2016 final (20)

More from Food_Systems_Innovation

More from Food_Systems_Innovation (11)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Increasing development impact niarobi nov 2016 final