This document outlines a conceptual framework for evaluating the socio-economic impact of innovation platforms. It defines key terms like innovation systems and platforms. The framework is based on theories of structure-conduct-performance, new institutional economics, and supply chain management. It proposes evaluating platforms' internal structure, members' conduct, and performance outcomes via questionnaires. Statistical analysis would examine relationships between structure, conduct and performance over time to attribute platforms' impact. The framework aims to quantify innovation platforms' development impacts through testing on projects.

1. Outline for a socio-economic conceptual
framework to evaluate the impact of
innovation platforms
Jo Cadilhon
ILRI Internal meeting on Innovation Platforms,
Nairobi, 6-7 December 2012

2. Outline of presentation
• Definitions
• Why is it important to work on innovation
platforms?
• Objectives of innovation platforms
• Literature review to construct the conceptual
framework
• Presentation of the conceptual framework
• Monitoring and evaluation setup
• First ideas for questionnaires and analysis tools
• Discussion and call for help on improvements
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 2

3. Definitions
Innovation systems are complex, open and dynamic
human activity systems in which actors (individuals,
groups, organisations) apply their minds, energies and
resources to innovation in a particular domain of human
activity (Daane, 2010)
An innovation system can be defined as a network of
organizations, enterprises, and individuals focused on
bringing new products, new processes, and new forms of
organization into economic use, together with the
institutions and policies that affect their behavior and
performance (World Bank, 2006)
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 3

4. More definitions
An innovation platform is a needs-based network
bringing together stakeholders from different interest
groups, disciplines, sectors and organizations to
exchange knowledge, generate innovation and develop
joint action. Platforms are more than just places to talk;
they create opportunities for stakeholders to test
solutions to common problems (Cullen & Ergano, 2011)
Interprofessional organizations are a conventional
arrangement, the goal of which is to create value thanks
to cooperative behaviour between agricultural producers
and industrial firms, and to share the quasi-rent thus
created (Valceschini, 2002)
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 4

5. A final definition
Commodity associations are organizations that bring
together a wide spectrum of interest groups related
to a particular commodity or sector (such as
horticulture) in a particular country, whether the
commodity is for export, for the domestic market or
for both. Such associations can draw membership
from individual farmers or their associations, from
crop buyers, processors, distributors and exporters,
as well as from suppliers of support services.
Sometimes government agencies are also members
(Shepherd et al, 2009)
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 5

6. Why work through innovation platforms
for agricultural development?
• Because governments and donors have finally recognized the role
of the private sector and civil society in agricultural development
so as to achieve food security
• Agro-industries and value chains can pull agricultural production in
developing countries
• National agro-industrial development policies now encourage
strengthening of value chain networks
• Past history of agriculture development projects being confronted
with a lack of markets once productivity has increased is
encouraging integration of marketing activities in development
projects
• Multi-stakeholder interaction recognized as best practice for
agricultural knowledge and information systems
(World Bank, 2008; FAO & UNIDO, 2010; Cadilhon & Even, 2012; EU
SCAR, 2012)
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 6

7. Objectives of innovation platforms
• Advocacy of industry interests in policy making circles
• Collective promotion of products
• Concerted setup of quality standards
• Research and development, technology uptake
• Capacity building
• Market regulation activities
– Market information and statistics
– Arbitration of chain conflicts
– Limit transaction costs (collective negociation, price
setting)
– Setting production targets and allocating production share
among members for specific quality products
(Cadilhon & Dedieu, 2011)
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 7

8. Literature review to construct the
conceptual framework
Based on three socio-economic theories:
• Structure – Conduct – Performance
• New Institutional Economics
• Supply Chain Management and Marketing
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 8

9. An elegant economic framework:
Structure – Conduct – Performance
• Developed by Bain in an industrial setting (1959)
• Posits link between market structure
– Number of players
– Market share of players
• The conduct of the players in the market
– Competition
– Collusion
– Price fixing
– Raising barriers to entry
• And the performance of the market
– Price correlations between different physical markets
– Prive variations
– Equity of margin distribution among market players
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 9

10. The flaws of the SCP framework
• Utilized in developing country settings to make
propositions for new market infrastructure, with mixed
results
• The model benchmark for the best market conditions is
the pure and perfectly competitive market, virtually
inexistent in real markets with real people
• SCP completely negates larger environmental
influences on the marketing system
• Relies on price data as primary indicator of market
performance, always difficult to collect reliably
Remember the elegant logic, don’t mention the
outdated framework
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 10

11. New institutional economics
• This framework fully recognizes the uncertainty that is
endemic in the food industry:
– Technical and economic characteristics of the product
– Seasonality of production
– Weather instability
– Unstable food markets
• NIE posits that market stakeholders will create a specific
institutional background (laws, norms of behaviour) and
organizational setting (associations, co-operatives,
contracts, firms) to deal with this uncertain market
environment
• It ponders the optimal market institution to reduce
transaction costs incurred to secure a deal and the sharing
of the quasi-rent (value addition) between buyer and seller
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 11
(Williamson, 1991; Hobbs, 1996;
Valceschini, 2002)

12. Theoretical inputs from supply chain
management and marketing research
• Captures better the continuum of possible marketing
relationships that NIE only refers to as ‘hybrid forms’
between spot transactions and firm integration
• More approachable vocabulary for non-economists
interested in using marketing concepts
• Re-socializes research on market relations
• Provides a range of tested performance measurement
metrics
• A marketing orientation pushes firms to be focused
throughout their activity:
– Implementing market analysis to discover customer needs
– Cooperating with chain partners to react to these results
– Embedding the marketing concept in all departments of the firm
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 12
(Webster, 1992; Fearne, 2000; Duteurtre, 2003; Noble et al, 2002)

13. Elements of SCM with positive impacts
on chain performance
• Cooperation, coordination and joint planning
• Information sharing and communication
• Joint conflict resolution mechanisms
• Trust, based on:
– Credibility of actions and promises
– Process, individual characteristics and institutions
– Social capital
• Interdependence
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 13
(Anderson & Narus, 1984, 1990;
Kumar, 1996; Batt, 2003; Durlauf, 2002;
Hingley & Lindgreen, 2002)

14. The conceptual framework for monitoring
and evaluation of innovation platforms
‘Structure’ ‘Conduct’ ‘Performance’
Internal structure
• Membership
composition
• Decision making
process
• Committees
• Source of funding
• Staff availability
Legal and regulatory
framework
Cultural norms
Gender
Type of chain stakeholder
Cooperation
Coordination
Joint planning
Information sharing
Communication
Trust
Interdependence
Advocacy
Collective promotion
Joint quality standards
Research & development
Capacity building
Market information
Arbitration of chain conflict
Limit transaction costs
Setting concerted
marketing objectives
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 14

15. Monitoring and evaluation setup
• Based on questionnaires of facilitators or managers of
innovation platforms and their members
• Same questionnaires administered at start of activity,
regularly during the activity, and at the end of an
activity capture evolutions in the platform’s ‘structure’,
‘conduct’ and ‘performance’
• Statistical tools enable to demonstrate potentially
significant relationships between S, C and P over time
Possible to attribute the relative share of the structure
and ways of functioning of an innovation platform on
its development outcomes
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 15

16. First ideas for questionnaires
• ‘Structure’ questionnaire
• ‘Conduct’ questionnaire
• ‘Performance’ questionnaire
• Two latter based on 4–5(?) Likert scales so as to
capture variability of stakeholders’ opinions
• ‘Performance’ questionnaire uses selected pages
according to objectives agreed upon by the platform
• Statements in questionnaire based on performance
indicators suggested by Swaans et al (2012)
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 16

17. ‘Structure’ questionnaire
• Structured questionnaire to identify the modus
operandi of the innovation platform
– Membership composition
– Decision making process
– Dedicated committees, units or sections
– Source of funding
– Staff availability, function and numbers
– Legal and regulatory framework
• Administered to facilitators or managers of the
platform
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 17

18. ‘Conduct’ questionnaire
• Structured questionnaire to gather the opinion of
platform stakeholders on the way the platform
facilitates interactions between chain members
• Administered to members and facilitators of the
platform, possibly to chain stakeholders who are not
involved
• Short section to identify individual characteristics
– Age
– Sex
– Type of stakeholder in chain
– Indicator of wealth (type of house)
– Level of education
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 18

19. Example for information sharing section of
‘conduct’ questionnaire
• On a scale of 1 to 4 where 1 is ‘do not agree at all’, and 4 is ‘completely
agree’, please rank your level of agreement with the following statements:
– I share information on my business activities with other types of chain
stakeholders in the platform
– I share information on my business activities with my peers within the chain
– I share information on my business activities with my gender peers
– I share information on my business activities with members of the opposite
sex
– I mainly use platform meetings to share information with other members of
the platform
– I mainly use other communication tools to share information with other
members of the platform
• Which other communication tools do you use to share information with
other members of the platform?
• Are there factors other than the innovation platform that encourage you
to share information on your business activities with chain partners?
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 19

20. Example for capacity building section
of ‘performance’ questionnaire
• On a scale of 1 to 4 where 1 is ‘do not agree at all’, and 4 is ‘completely
agree’, please rank your level of agreement with the following statements:
– I actively seek out new opportunities to learn new skills
– I participate in all of the capacity building activities of the innovation platform
– I am satisfied by the quality of the capacity building activities of the innovation
platform
– I am satisfied by the value for money of the capacity building activities of the
innovation platform
– I have changed my practices following a capacity building activity I participated
in
• Which other means do you use to build your capacity on agricultural
production, marketing and business management?
• Are there factors other than the innovation platform that are important in
helping you build your capacity on agricultural production, marketing and
business management?
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 20

21. First ideas for analysis tools
• Factor analysis to identify the dominant constructs of
what makes innovation platforms successful
• Cluster analysis to identify different groups of
stakeholders according to their perception of the
platform
• Regression analyses to determine the relationships
between the structure of the platform, the conduct of
its stakeholders and whether they are achieving the
objectives they set themselves
• Network analysis to represent the institutional
elements of livestock markets and how they influence
market participation and innovation uptake
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 21

22. Links to work by Swaans et al (2012)
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 22

23. Links to work by Swaans et al (2012)
• Provides a robust and systematic quantitative method
to assess impact pathways along with more qualitative
methods from Swaans et al (2012)
• Conceptual framework simplifies the impact pathway
diagram while keeping most of its elements (contextual
factors, household level, ecological objective missing)
• Swaans et al (2012) wish to evaluate the impacts of IP-
based projects: IP as an intervention
• This framework tries to evaluate the impacts of the IP
setting on the behaviour of its participants and
partners, and ultimately, on the delivery against
objectives agreed upon collectively: IP as an
intervention tool
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 23

24. Discussion
• Method relies mainly on quantitative tools so runs the risk of
missing important explanatory factors that have not yet been
identified
 Allow questionnaire respondents to propose other impact pathways
than those tested by the framework
• Method relies on succession of boring Likert scale statements and
there is a risk of interview bias because of the type of questions
being asked
 Possibly privilege administering the questionnaire by an interviewer
with paper questionnaire or interview tablet to avoid this bias
• Method is not commodity specific so can be used on other products
than livestock products and in many country settings
 Strong potential for scaleability
• To my knowledge, first attempt to quantify the impact of innovation
platforms on development outcomes
 Strong potential for publishable research
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 24

25. Call for help
• Please share case studies from your projects involving
innovation platforms so as to illustrate this conceptual
framework with concrete examples from the field
• Alternatively, identify situations in your current
projects that could be documented further to provide
such illustration
• Allow the conceptual framework to be tested on your
project setting so as to improve it further while gaining
useful evaluation insights
• Inform me of any new project ideas that might be
interested in using this framework from its inception so
as to undertake the complete monitoring and
evaluation process
Jo Cadilhon, ILRI 25

26. Thank you for your attention
Feedback welcome
Email: j.cadilhon@cgiar.org