1.
Deciphering the DNA of innovation platforms
Dr. Iddo Dror – Head of Capacity Development (ILRI)
Zelalem Lema – Research Officer on Innovation System in Agriculture (ILRI)
CGIAR Research Program on the Humidtropics / Capacity Development Workshop
Nairobi, Kenya / 29 April – 2 May 2014

2.
On the menu today…
• The Humidtropics innovation
practice briefs - covering the
major aspects and elements
of innovation platforms
• Critical issues for reflection
when designing and
implementing Research for
Development in Innovation
Platforms

3.
Boogaard et al propose 5 themes and 11
reflection issues around innovation platforms

4.
The 12 Innovation Platform Practice Briefs

5.
The Humidtropics take on platforms
• Distinction between R4D platforms and innovation
platforms

6.
The Humidtropics take on platforms (2)

7.
What are innovation platforms?
Who uses innovation platforms?
How do innovation platforms work?
What kind of process is typical in IPs?
What are some of the main benefits and constraints?
In small
groups, take
10-15 minutes
and discuss:

8.
Typical innovation platform cycle

9.
Innovation platform phases according to
various authors
• Generally speaking, these are quite similar to the model
we just covered.
Source: Boogaard et al p.6

10.
Dynamic Processes
Changing focus
Changing membership
Changing responsibilities

11.
Benefits of innovation platforms
• facilitate dialogue and understanding
• enable partners to identify the
bottlenecks hindering innovation
• create motivation and a feeling of
ownership
• facilitate upward communication
• lead to better-informed decisions
• contribute to capacity development
• make innovative research possible
• enhance impact

12.
What is the most enticing benefit of IPs
as far as you are concerned?
A. Facilitate dialogue
B. Identify bottlenecks
C. Motivation & ownership
D. Upward communication
E. Better-informed decisions
F. ↑ Capacity development
G. Enable innovative research
H. Enhance impact

13.
Typical constraints
• Progress and success depends on
the full buy-in of the members
• Tangible outputs are needed to
sustain the members’ interest
and commitment
• can be difficult and costly to
implement
• require a long-term perspective
• can be difficult to monitor and
evaluate innovation platforms in
a systematic way

14.
What is the most crippling constraint of IPs
as far as you are concerned?
A. Dependence on full buy-in
B. Need for ongoing tangible
outputs
C. Difficult & costly to
implement
D. Long term perspective
E. Difficult to M&E
F. Power dynamics
Dependence
on
fullbuy-in
Need
forongoingtangibl...
Difficult&
costlyto
im
p...
Longterm
perspective
Difficultto
M
&
E
Pow
erdynam
ics
25%
20%
5%
10%10%
30%

15.
Composition and initiation of platforms
1. Representation and composition
2. Common objective
3. Relevant research questions

16.
Representation and composition
• Build on existing networks or create new ones?
How did you
handle this
in your
platform?

17.
Common objective
An innovation platform often needs a common objective in order to
function effectively.
Setting a common vision objective of an innovation platform does not
happen ‘naturally’, but is value-driven, and usually achieved through
visioning and foresight exercises.

18.
Relevant research questions
• Important to involve all stakeholders and
give them opportunities to articulate their
demands - create “safe spaces”.
• Research questions often hidden in multi-
stakeholder negotiation processes.
• Participatory methods can be
useful to identify stakeholders’
needs.

19.
Role of researchers in the composition and
initiation of platforms theme:
• support stakeholder mapping,
• make choices and the underlying assumptions of selection on power and equity
explicit.
• undertake capacity development to ensure a common understanding on
innovation platforms
• platform objective is often defined within a project proposal, before stakeholders
have been consulted. This bears a risk of dominance by researchers and project
management, unless they make underlying project assumptions explicit to
platform members.
• what to do when the platform objective differs from the (initial) project vision and
research agenda.
• Supporting stakeholders in expressing their needs and translating these needs
into relevant research questions

20.
Key questions on composition and initiation of
platforms theme:
1. Does the innovation platform build on existing networks or will new networks be created?
2. Who selects representatives? And how? Is diversity among constituencies, e.g. farmers,
taken into account?
3. When innovation champions are included, on what grounds and with what purpose?
4. How and by whom is the objective of the platform defined?
5. Have stakeholders’ ideas been included in the vision?
6. What to do when the platform objective differs from the (initial) project vision?
7. Are stakeholders are sufficiently empowered to articulate their demands?
8. How and by whom are research questions identified? How to deal with demands that lie
outside the project and research scope?
9. How, where and by whom is research conducted?
10. When and how are research findings made available?
How will
you use this
in your
platform?

21.
More information / resources on composition
and initiation of platforms*
• Guidance Note on How to Do Stakeholder Analysis of Aid Projects and Programmes (ODA
1995)
• Social Analysis Sourcebook (World Bank 2003)
• Multi-stakeholder Processes Resource Portal. Stakeholder Analysis (WUR CDI)
• Rapid Appraisal
• Knowledge co-creation portal. Multi-stakeholder processes. Tools - Interests and Roles (WUR)
• Handbook for Participatory Action Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (Chevalier and
Buckles 2013)
• Insights into Participatory Video: A Handbook for the Field (Lunch & Lunch 2006)
• Multi-stakeholder Resource Portal. Visioning tool (WUR CDI)
• Knowledge co-creation portal. Multi-stakeholder processes. Tools – Visioning (WUR)
* Will be available, along with all course materials, in a dedicated dropbox folder.

22.
Coordination and facilitation
Process facilitation
Knowledge co-creation

23.
Process Facilitation
• Effective facilitation of the platform contributes to an enabling
environment which can improve the quality of interactions between
stakeholders
• Operational aspects will be
discussed in more detail in
the “Facilitating innovation
platforms” Brief (#10)

24.
Knowledge co-creation
• Innovation system thinking builds on the idea that innovations
do not only originate from science alone, but that these are
based on knowledge from multiple sources
• Innovation platforms offer
great opportunities for
knowledge co-creation by
researchers and other
stakeholders.
How is this
unfolding in
your
platform?

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

26.
• Critical reflection issues:
• Who should facilitate IPs?
- Insider or outsider ?
- Researchers?
Cases in Ethiopia: RiPPLE, ILRI
Projects (NBDC, Africa RISING,
Humidtropics)
- Research organizations initiate IPs
for projects
- Topics try to address around
projects (flexibility)
Facilitating Innovation platforms (2):

27.
Facilitators can provide the following functions:
Facilitation -> knowledge brokering
• Establish-equal representation
• Identify issues- common & benefits all
• Manage meetings-facilitate discussions, full
participation of all..
• Support activities outside meetings: joint action,
• Manage communications: trust
• Deal with conflict and power: manage different
interest
• Monitor, document and report: process
documentation, learning
• Facilitate and advocate for institutional change
• Develop capacity:
TNA: three most
important success
factors for a well
performing IPs:
• Most of you have
mentioned
factors related to
functions of
facilitators
• IPs are as well
performing as
facilitators

28.
Role of researchers in the coordination and
facilitation theme:
• The main question for researchers is if they should facilitate the platform – or not.
If they do, researchers should address neutrality of the facilitation, and their own
shifting role(s).
• researchers – as well as other stakeholders in the Innovation platforms – can also
address the importance of knowledge co-creation with other stakeholders, and
ensure tacit local knowledge is articulated and taken on board.
• Social learning is an important aspect of knowledge co-creation. Researchers can
contribute to social learning by sharing information and (preliminary) research
results in the platform
• Failures are important sources for learning. Researchers may need to play a
leading role in supporting (self-) reflection among platform members, particularly
in contexts where critical analysis is not the norm.

29.
Key questions on coordination and facilitation
theme:
1. Who facilitates the Innovation platform? an ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’?
2. Can – or should – researchers facilitate the Innovation platform?
3. If researchers fulfil ‘innovation broker’ roles, are these sufficiently rewarded and
recognized by research organizations?
4. Is local knowledge recognized within the platform as an important contributor to
innovations?
5. What participatory methods are used to elicit local knowledge?
6. How does the platform support and enhance social learning among stakeholders?
7. How are failures dealt with within the platform?
8. How is reflection stimulated within the platform? How will
you use this
in your
platform?

30.
More information / resources on coordination
and facilitation theme*
• ‘Operational field guide for developing and managing local agricultural innovation
platforms’ (Makini et al. 2013)
• Putting heads together: Agricultural innovation platforms in practice (Nederlof et al.
2011)
• Multi-stakeholder Processes Resource Portal. Facilitation Skills (WUR CDI)
• The Brokering Guidebook (Tennyson 2003)
• Multi-Stakeholder Processes
• Multi-stakeholder Resource Portal. Participatory Learning and Action (PLA) (WUR
CDI)
• ‘Participatory Learning and Action. A trainer’s guide’ (Pretty et al. 1995)
• ‘Learning alliances: an approach for building multi-stakeholder innovation systems’
(Lundy et al. 2005)
* Will be available, along with all course materials, in a dedicated dropbox folder.

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

32.
Power asymmetries
• Power-relations exist, and can play a role, in every phase of the
platform process. It is important to recognize these power
dynamics and their effects
• System innovations often require
a change in power relations
between stakeholders and
associated institutions (which
often entails conflicts).
• Gender relations are often
characterized by strong power
dynamics and therefore should
receive explicit attention in
innovation processes

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

34.
Which is the biggest perceived power/
representation risk in your platform?
A. Powerful members dominate
B. Diversity not reflected
C. Not all knowledge is used
Pow
erfulm
em
bersdom
i...Diversitynotreflected
Notallknow
ledgeisused
0% 0%0%

35.
Dealing with power and representation
• Participatory rural appraisal
• Participatory video
• Roleplaying
• Skilled facilitators
• Evidence from research
• Links between different
levels
• Bypassing the platform

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

37.
Conflicts, negotiations and trust
• Innovation platforms are likely to be arenas of struggle because they
bring people together with different interests with the aim of finding
joint solutions.
• There are three broad types of frictions: (1) difficulties in
maintaining an agreement or compromise after it has been secured,
(2) problems in securing an agreement, and (3) failure to tackle the
most significant problems in the first place.
• Negotiation (often outside of
formal meetings) can help
resolve conflicts and unleash
innovation processes.

38.
Role of researchers in the power and conflict
theme:
• Researchers can supporting platform members in expressing their views and ideas
through the use of creative participatory methods
• Researchers should remember that they are also part of power structures
• Researchers can help identify interdependency and/or create institutional space
for negotiations. This may involve capacity development and/or advocacy.
• In situations where a lot of conflicting interests exist, research findings can easily
become contested. It is then helpful for researchers to have a trusted relationship
with other stakeholders and organizations. However, trust needs to be built, which
is why an active and frequent presence of researchers in the Innovation platform
is important.

39.
Key questions on power and conflict theme:
1. Are existing power structures within the platform explicitly addressed and dealt with?
2. Is sufficient attention paid to gender dynamics and the power of scientific experts ?
3. Are partnerships between (research) organizations sufficiently flexible and bottom-up to
successfully support innovation processes?
4. If existing power dynamics in the way research is currently done hamper successful
innovations, to what extent can research be re-structured?
5. Are conflicts recognized and effectively dealt with within the platform?
6. Do stakeholders recognize their mutual interdependency to solve a problem?
7. Is there sufficient institutional space and support, e.g. among the government, to use
platform results?
8. Is there sufficient time and space for researchers to build a trusted relationship with other
stakeholders?
How will you
use this in your
platform?

40.
More information / resources on power and
conflict theme*
• Knowledge co-creation portal. Multi-stakeholder processes. Tools- Power (WUR)
• Power cube. Understanding power for social change (IDS)
• Multi-Stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability—Beyond Deadlock and
Conflict (Hemmati 2002)
• Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving in (Fisher and Ury 1981)
• Knowledge co-creation portal. Multi-stakeholder processes. Tools - Conflict styles (WUR)
• ‘Breaking the impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes’ (Susskind and
Cruikshank 1987)
* Will be available, along with all course materials, in a dedicated dropbox folder.

41.
Resources, incentives and timeframe
Incentives and motivation
Changing conditions and flexibility
Resources and sustainability

42.
Incentives and motivation
• Nature of platform matters
– a focus on NRM would
be quite different from
VCD – and this may
influence expectations &
incentives.
• It can be challenging to actively engage stakeholders in the
Innovation platform and to keep them actively involved over time,
especially if incentives for participation can be rather unclear to
stakeholders.
• Financial incentives can be tricky (“project” versus “program”
mentality). Alignment and internal motivation should be sought.

43.
Changing conditions and flexibility
• Innovation processes are non-linear, dynamic, diverse, highly
context-specific and characterized by coincidence, uncertainty and
unpredictability. The process of innovation platforms therefore
requires continuous adaptations to changing conditions
• Changes may occur in several key areas (see below) and should be
welcomed and embraced – they are a normal part of the process!
• priorities of stakeholders
• the focus and objective of the platform
• membership of the platform;
• roles and responsibilities of platform members
• platform activities
• research strategy and research questions
• etc.

44.
Resources and sustainability
• Innovation processes are intensive in terms of financial as well as
human resources required. They also have a rather long ‘pay-off’
time, particularly when large networks are involved.
• A frequently posed question is whether Innovation platforms are
“sustainable”.
• Participatory processes during the program critical, as engaged
stakeholders more likely to continue beyond initial project support.
How are you
addressing this
in your
platform?

45.
Role of researchers in the resources,
incentives and timeframe theme:
• Researchers can help to provide insight into stakeholders’ expectations, clarify
underlying principles of Innovation platforms and reveal possible benefits for
stakeholders.
• Researchers should clarify (and minimize / optimize) the amount of time
stakeholders are required to invest in the platform. If stakeholders are expected to
invest their time without seeing (direct) benefits, their commitment is likely to be
low .
• Researchers should have an open and flexible research strategy from the outset.
• Researchers – as well as other stakeholders and program partners – need to be
flexible, e.g. through adaptive management.
• Researchers can provide clarification towards expectations of donors, partner
organizations and stakeholders with regard to the time frames.

46.
Key questions on resources, incentives and
timeframe theme:
1. What are incentives for participation in the platform? Are these in line with stakeholders
expectations?
2. Are stakeholders given the opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to research?
3. Is the expected time-investment of stakeholders sufficiently clarified?
4. Is the research strategy sufficiently open and flexible to respond to changing conditions?
5. Do donors and other program partners agree on a rather open project planning?
6. Do researchers in the platform have sufficient mandate to promptly respond to changing
conditions?
7. Are platforms expected to continue operating after the program? If so, in what format and
where do resources come from?
8. Should Innovation platforms be sustainable? If so, when is a platform considered
sustainable?
9. Where do resources come from? Who controls them?
10. Are stakeholders internally motivated to join the platform?
How will you
use this in your
platform?

47.
Monitoring and Evaluation
• Innovation platforms’ validity and contributions to effective
research for development and achieving development outcomes
needs to be demonstrated.
• Innovation processes are complex, can only be partially planned
and often remain largely unintended, which make it challenging
to measure them.
• Innovation processes are characterized
by an interplay of many factors, which
makes it difficult to attribute changes to
a specific cause.
• These challenges however should not
stop us from attempting to capture their
effectiveness.

48.
Monitoring innovation platforms
• Why monitor?
• What to monitor?
• Who monitors?
• What process monitoring tools / approaches are you familiar with?
In small
groups, take
10-15 minutes
and discuss:

49.
What to monitor
• Activities that aim to resolve a
problem or take advantage of
an opportunity
• Process outputs, including
changes in knowledge,
attitudes and practices of the
platform members
What did
you think
about Case 1
(ImGoats)?

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

51.
Which of the following have you used* for
monitoring in your platform?
A. Outcome mapping
B. Most significant
change
C. Network Analysis
D. Participatory impact
pathways
E. Digital storytelling /
participatory video
F. Farmer field days /
learning fairs
Outcom
e
m
apping
M
ostsignificantchange
Netw
ork
Analysis
Participatoryim
pactpa...
Digitalstorytelling
/part...
Farm
erfield
days/learn...
0% 0% 0%0%0%0%
*Select ALL that apply

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

53.
How can platforms achieve impacts?
• By providing information and
resources to platform members
• Through research
• By negotiation and persuasion
• Through lobbying and advocacy

54.
Why is demonstrating impact difficult?
• Achieving impact is difficult. The problems
that innovation platforms attempt to solve tend to be
complex.
• Some impacts are difficult to measure. Many
impacts of innovation platforms, such as ‘innovation
capacity’ are intangible and hard to quantify.
• Measuring (non-financial) benefits can be
tricky. Many benefits are unforeseen or are side
benefits difficult to grasp.
• Innovation platforms are long-term endeavors –
impacts may only be reached beyond the initial project
duration

55.
Role of researchers in the monitoring and
evaluation theme:
• Researchers can introduce methods that are more suitable to the complex nature of
innovation platforms, such as outcome mapping, most significant change, social network
analysis, participatory impact pathways, etc.
• Researchers should develop additional and/or new (quantitative) indicators that capture
system innovations, institutional change and innovation capacity.
• It is also important to conduct a diagnostic study of the institutional context at the
beginning in order to have a baseline to which changes can be assessed in later stages of
the project.
• a learning framework (with space for reflection) that recognizes the complexity and
intangibility of innovation processes is needed. The framework should also recognize
failures and learn from them.
• Participatory M&E is favorable because it offers stakeholders the opportunity to learn from
each other and to provide their view on the process. It is also helpful to reflect on platform
activities and create feedback loops.
• Process documentation can provide valuable insights in innovation processes, but it can
also be quite time-consuming

56.
Key questions on monitoring and evaluation
theme:
1. How is effectiveness of Innovation platforms measured?
2. What indicators and methods are available to measure system innovations,
institutional change, and innovation capacity? What new indicators should be
developed?
3. Is the institutional context included in baseline studies?
4. Do the selected M&E method(s) allow for capturing unintended outcomes?
5. Is a learning framework included that recognizes the complexity and intangibility
of innovation processes?
6. Is the M&E process participatory? I.e. are stakeholders actively involved in
monitoring and evaluating the Innovation platform process?
How will
you use this
in your
platform?
7. Is there sufficient space and support within the platform
and (research) organizations to recognize and learn from
failures?

57.
More information / resources on monitoring
and evaluation theme*
• Handbook for Participatory Action Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (Chevalier
and Buckles 2013)
• Participatory Evaluation (Better Evaluation)
• Outcome mapping (Better Evaluation)
• Reflexive Monitoring in Action (Van Mierlo et al. 2010b)
• Knowledge co-creation portal. Multi-stakeholder processes. Tools - Institutional
Analysis (WUR)
• Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Innovation Systems (RAAIS) (Schut et al. in press;
Schut et al. in prep)
• ‘Learning alliances: an approach for building multi-stakeholder innovation systems’
(Lundy et al. 2005)
* Will be available, along with all course materials, in a dedicated dropbox folder.

58.
Still want more M&E?
…then you’re in luck !!!
We’ll have a whole day looking at
Reflexive Monitoring on Friday

59.
Brief 2

60.
You are the head of your
country’s Department of
Livestock, and the Prime
Minister has tasked you with
setting up a new policy to
develop your country’s dairy
production. Where do you
start?
How can IPs contribute to shaping national
policies?

61.
Engaging with policymakers
Setting sector standards
Facilitating policy implementation
Creating national platforms
Key elements

62.
Take 5 minutes to review the
three cases in Brief 2.
Discuss whether these
mechanisms would be valid in
your platforms, and how you
would adapt & implement
similar processes.
Be ready to share back with
the plenary
In your groups…

63.
Brief 3

64.
(Potential) role of research(ers) in innovation
platforms:
- Current thinking: “re-conceptualizing of roles and
contribution of researchers in development projects
- Paradigm shift Linear thinking –> innovation system
thinking (TT -> FRS -> AKIS -> AIS)
- Institutional context: make decision and influence the
credibility, legitimacy and relevance of research in IPs
- Changing roles of researchers are recognizing by the:
– Researcher themselves
– Policy makers, farmers and development practitioners
- How research can contribute to development impact?

65.
CGIAR research council suggests five roles of CGIAR centres:
2006
Primary
research
function
Secondary
research
role at
strategic/
applied
level
Catalytic
role
Facilitative/
enabling
function
Advocacy

66.
In Innovation platforms research can help:
To reduce uncertainty
To develop common departure points necessary for
coordination and collective action
To improve relations and understanding among
stakeholders by joint fact-finding
To generate unexpected feedback and eye-openers
for the system

67.
Research support IPs in three ways: practice
brief 3:
1. Traditional research:
– Authoritative, objective and value-free knowledge
– Base line study, impact and evaluation
2. Knowledge management and action research -
- Knowledge in to use
- Backstop them to generate knowledge- CapDev
3. Enabling Environment for innovation
– Fund, input, capacity development

68.
Cases in Mozambique and Ethiopia
Case 1: government initiated IP
to develop sustainable biofuels
policy
Wageningen University: -
• inventory of biofuels activity
(traditional research)
• Facilitating and documenting
platform meetings (kge mgt)
• Fundraising and lobbying
(enabling environment)
Case 2: Africa RISING
project in Ethiopia
- ILRI and CG centers
- Diagnostic activities in
all the project sites
(PCA, livelihood, etc) to
reduce uncertainty
- Develop common
departure points for
joint action

69.
IPs support research process/cycle: NBDC case
- Topic – land degradation, soil erosion
and free grazing
- Prototypes – innovation fund for pilot
intervention on farm and grazing lands
- Training- for farmers (technologies and
new practices)
- Testing, adaptation and improvement –
pilot on different fodder verities
- Document- it worked well
- Analyzed- how soil fertility improved
- Published, disseminate, new research
questions

70.
Issues
Fodder interventions have been
selected by stakeholders in all three
sites to address these issues
NBDC
Site
Main Issue Related Issues
Fogera
Unrestricted
grazing
Land
degradation
Diga
Land
degradation
Termite
infestation *
Jeldu Soil erosion Deforestation

71.
Innovation platforms for agricultural value
chain development
• How are IP for VC different from traditional IP?
• How do different types of platform members benefit?
• What different types of VC IP can you think of?
In small groups,
take 5-10
minutes and
discuss:

72.
Uniqueness of innovation platforms that focus
on value chain development
• many of their members come from the private sector.
Profit motivations tend to dominate
• Platform members (may) compete with each other.
What are
the
implications
of this?

73.
Types of innovation platforms that deal with
value chains.
• Farmer-based
• Value-chain-based
• Accidental

74.
Which type of value chain innovation platform
is depicted in the previous cartoon?
A. Farmer-based
B. Value-chain based
C. Accidental
D. None of the above
Farm
er-basedValue-chain
based
AccidentalNoneofthe
above
0% 0%0%0%

75.
Communication in innovation platforms
• What are some of the internal and external communications
activities you carry out in your platform?
• What are the roles of communications in innovation platforms?
How would these differ in field sites / action sites / action areas?
In small
groups, take
5 minutes
and discuss:

76.
Three roles of communication
• Engagement and dialogue
– Facilitated meetings and events
– Study tours and exchanges
– Role plays and games
– Networking
• Documentation and outreach
– Internet and web-based tools
– Documents, newsletters and
publications
– Video and photographs
– Resource centres
– Radio, phone, text messages,
media
• Learning
– Participatory video
– Most significant change
stories
– After action reviews
– Learning games
– Story telling
– Journals

77.
Which of the following have you used* for
communications in your platform?
A. Facilitated meetings
B. Study tours
C. Role play and games
D. Newsletters &
publications
E. Video & photographs
F. Digital storytelling /
participatory video
G. Most significant
change stories
Facilitated
m
eetingsStudytours
Roleplayand
gam
es
New
sletters&
publications
Video
&
photographs
Digitalstorytelling
/part...
M
ostsignificantchange
s...
0% 0% 0% 0%0%0%0%
*Select ALL that apply

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

79.
Innovation Capacity – what is it and how do you
foster it?
• Like the cooking process in the pot…
• Participants have to interact well;
the facilitation has to be suitable,
and all those involved must have
the patience to let the process
unfold
• Paying attention to the process and
to learning by the group is central to
developing a sustained capacity to
innovate, as is appropriate training
to develop relevant capacities
locally.

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

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

82.
Benefits associated with linking action at
different levels through innovation platforms
• Scaling out successful innovations.
• Empowering local actors to influence policy
• Fostering dialogue in policymaking
• Developing value chains
• Increasing legitimacy and learning
How linked
are your
platforms?

83.
What linkages does your platform currently
have to other platforms?
A. None – we’re still
focusing internally
B. Horizontal linkages
(to platform at similar level)
C. Vertical Linkages
(to platform at different levels)
D. Both horizontal and
vertical links
None–
w
e’re
stillfocusin...
Horizontallinkages(to
pl...
VerticalLinkages(to
pla...
Both
horizontaland
vertic..
0% 0%0%0%

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

85.
Innovation Platforms in NBDC
• Baseline survey revealed low level of
participation of relevant stakeholders during
planning, implementation and M & E of land
and water management strategies
• Extension approaches are observed to be top-
down – Mere Technology push and blanket
quota system

86.
Why Innovation Platforms?
Or...

87.
IPs to support Natural Resource Management
• Why IPs for NRM? Examples from Fogera
NBDC IP in Ethiopia
• Scale: erosion (up and down stream)
• Complexity: issue is complex (social,
economic and biological and
environmental)
• Conflict: herders and farmers compete on
land
• Cost: some needs high investment
• Information: not easily available
• Incentives:
– Pay today benefit in the future
– Pay today and someone else benefit
– Pay today, watch others get a free ride

88.
Annex

89.
Session Name: Humidtropics CapDev workshop_DROR_30-April-2014
Date Created: 4/30/2014 8:24:55 AM Active Participants: 25 of 25
Average Score: 36.00% Questions: 10
Results by Question
1. H_M_D_R_P_C_ (Multiple Choice)
Responses
Percent Count
I D J I U A 6.25% 1
I O E H E V 18.75% 3
T O S I U I ( c ) 56.25% 9
T U U U A N 18.75% 3
Totals 100% 16
4/30/2014
Page 1 of 6

90.
2. What is the most enticing benefit of IPs as far as you are concerned? (Multiple
Choice)
Responses
Percent Count
Facilitate
dialogue
28.57% 6
Identify
bottlenecks
4.76% 1
Motivation &
ownership
14.29% 3
Upward
communication
0% 0
Better-informed
decisions
19.05% 4
↑ Capacity
development
4.76% 1
Enable
innovative
research
14.29% 3
Enhance impact 14.29% 3
Totals 100% 21
4/30/2014
Page 2 of 6

91.
3. What is the most crippling constraint of IPs as far as you are concerned? (Multiple
Choice)
4. Percentage of females in your platform (Multiple Choice)
Responses
Percent Count
Dependence on
full buy-in
25% 5
Need for
ongoing tangible
outputs
20% 4
Difficult &
costly to
implement
30% 6
Long term
perspective
10% 2
Difficult to M&E 10% 2
Power dynamics 5% 1
Totals 100% 20
Responses
Percent Count
50% or more 10% 2
30-49% 10% 2
20-29% 10% 2
Less than 20% 30% 6
No platforms yet 40% 8
Totals 100% 20
4/30/2014
Page 3 of 6

92.
5. Platform facilitator is (Multiple Choice)
6. Which is the biggest perceived power/ representation risk in your platform? (Priority
Ranking)
Responses
Percent Count
Male 76.92% 10
Female 7.69% 1
Undecided 15.38% 2
Totals 100% 13
Responses
Percent Weighted
Count
Powerful
members
dominate
56.25% 90
Diversity not
reflected
12.5% 20
Not all
knowledge is
used
31.25% 50
Totals 100% 160
4/30/2014
Page 4 of 6

93.
7. Which of the following have you used* in your platform to address power dynamics?
(Multiple Choice - Multiple Response)
8. Where should we continue the rest of the afternoon session? (Multiple Choice)
Responses
Percent Count
PRA 21.88% 7
Participatory
video
9.38% 3
Role-play 12.5% 4
Skilled
facilitators
31.25% 10
Research
Evidence
12.5% 4
Links between
levels
6.25% 2
Bypassing
platform
6.25% 2
Totals 100% 32
Responses
Percent Count
Inside. We’re
already here...
62.5% 10
Outside. It’s a
glorious day...
37.5% 6
I was told there
will be no math
on this course.
0% 0
Totals 100% 16
4/30/2014
Page 5 of 6

94.
9. Which type of value chain innovation platform is depicted in the previous cartoon?
(Multiple Choice)
10. Which type of value chain innovation platform is depicted in the Babure innovation
platform in Uganda? (Multiple Choice)
Responses
Percent Count
Farmer-based 25% 4
Value-chain
based
56.25% 9
Accidental 12.5% 2
None of the
above
6.25% 1
Totals 100% 16
Responses
Percent Count
Farmer-based 20% 3
Value-chain
based
33.33% 5
Accidental 46.67% 7
None of the
above
0% 0
Totals 100% 15
4/30/2014
Page 6 of 6