This paper presents findings of an explorative case study that looked at 22 organisations identified as fulfilling an intermediary role in the Kenyan agricultural sector. The results show that these organisations fulfill functions that are not limited to distribution of knowledge and putting it into use. The functions also include fostering integration and interaction among the diverse actors engaged in innovation networks and working on technological, organisational and institutional innovation.
The agricultural innovation systems approach emphasizes the collective nature of innovation and stresses that innovation is a co-evolutionary process, resulting from alignment of technical, social, institutional and organizational dimensions. These insights are increasingly informing interventions that focus on setting up multi-stakeholder initiatives, such as innovation platforms and networks, as mechanisms for enhancing agricultural innovation, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.
In the systems perspective on innovation, co-operation between several different types of actors is seen as key to successful innovation. Due to the existence of several gaps that hinder such effective co-operation, the scientific and policy literature persistently points at the need for intermediary organizations to fulfill bridging and brokerage roles. This paper aims to provide an overview of the insights from the literature on such ‘innovation brokers’, and to contribute to the literature by distilling lines of enquiry and providing insights on one of the lines identified.
The capacity of existing monitoring and decision making tools in generating evidence about the performance of R4D with multi-stakeholder processes, such as innovation platforms (IPs), public private partnerships (PPP), participatory value chain management (PVCM) is very limited. Results of these tools are either contextual and qualitative such as case studies that can not be used by other R4D interventions or quantitative i.e. impact assessments that do not inform what works in R4D.
This paper outlines key areas of intervention that are identified as the core of FAO's strategy on strengthening Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) across multiple areas of work (e.g. research and extension, agroecology, biotechnology, green jobs, resourcing etc.) for achieving sustainable rural development.
When designing projects, it is important to engage local stakeholders as early as possible to ensure that capacity development (CD) activities are truly relevant to their needs. Multi-Stakeholder processes (MSPs) can also lead to greater ownership of project activities and outcomes. This case study gives an example from Sudan of successful MSPs for developing Food Security and Nutrition Information Systems (FSNIS) in four states.
According to the authors of this paper, actual methods of scaling are rather empirical and based on the premise of ‘find out what works in one place and do more of the same, in another place’. These methods thus would not sufficiently take into account complex realities beyond the concepts of innovation transfer, dissemination, diffusion and adoption. As a consequence, scaling initiatives often do not produce the desired effect.
Increasingly, value chain approaches are integrated with multi-stakeholder processes to facilitate inclusive innovation and value chain upgrading of smallholders. This pathway to smallholder integration into agri-food markets has received limited analysis. This article analyses this integration through a case study of an ongoing smallholder dairy development programme in Tanzania.
Galvanizing the commitment of agricultural innovation systems (AIS) actors through learning, participation and reflection is a prerequisite for capacity development (CD) initiatives. This phase ensures both a common understanding of the process of CD for AIS as well as to create ownership and high-level support by those that head and lead representative bodies of actors within the system.
Implementation is the final stage of the capacity development (CD) for agricultural innovation systems (AIS) cycle of the TAP Common Framework. The Cycle consists of five stages:1.Galvanizing Commitment, 2.Visioning, 3.Capacity Needs Assessment, 4.CD Strategy Development and 5.Implementation. The implementation phase builds on the previous realization of a CD strategy, including an action plan, based on the results of a capacity needs assessment. Those individuals or organizations who assume responsibility for a certain activity will be in charge of implementing the plan.