The three system CGIAR research programs on Integrated Systems for the Humid Tropics, Dryland Systems and Aquatic Agricultural Systems have included “capacity to innovate” as an intermediate development outcome in their respective theories of change. The wording of the intermediate development outcome is “increased systems capacity to innovate and contribute to improved livelihoods of low-income agricultural communities.” This note captures the CGIAR's collective thinking about this intermediate development outcome from a systems perspective to clarify it and inspire other programs.
An innovation platform is a space for learning and change. It is a group of individuals (who often represent organizations) with different backgrounds and interests: farmers, traders, food processors, researchers, government officials etc. The members come together to diagnose problems, identify opportunities and find ways to achieve their goals. They may design and implement activities as a platform, or coordinate activities by individual members. This brief explains what innovation platforms are and how they work, and it describes some of their advantages and limitations.
Innovation platforms are advocated as a promising way to find solutions to complex problems, such as those in agriculture and natural resource management. As social, economic and environmental problems grow ever more complex, researchers need
to engage more actively with stakeholders such as farmers, development practitioners and policymakers to explore, design and implement solutions. Innovation platforms offer them an opportunity to do so.
This is a chapter of the book Innovation platforms for agricultural development edited by Iddo Dror, Jean-Joseph Cadilhon, Marc Schut, Michael Misiko and Shreya Maheshwari.
Rapid appraisal of agricultural innovation systems (RAAIS) is a participatory, diagnostic tool for integrated analysis of complex agricultural problems. RAAIS facilitates interaction between different groups of stakeholders in collecting and analysing data. The poster briefs what RAAIS is, when to use it, what is available and where it has been used.
Innovation platforms are fast becoming part of the mantra of agricultural research and development projects and programs with an innovation objective.
The term ‘systemic innovation’ is increasing in use. However, there is no consensus on its meaning: four different ways of using the term can be identified in the literature. Most people simply define it as a type of innovation where value can only be derived when the innovation is synergistically integrated with other complementary innovations, going beyond the boundaries of a single organization. Therefore, the term ‘systemic’ refers to the existence of a co-ordinated innovation system.
This paper addresses the under-researched issue of stakeholder identification and engagement in problem structuring interventions. A concise framework to aid critical reflection in the design and reporting of stakeholder identification and engagement is proposed. This is grounded in a critical-systemic epistemology, and is informed by social identity theory. We illustrate the utility of the framework with an example of a problem structuring workshop, which was part of a green innovation project on the development of a technology for the recovery of rare metals from steel slag.
Expertise in research integration and implementation is an essential but often overlooked component of tackling complex societal and environmental problems. We focus on expertise relevant to any complex problem, especially contributory expertise, divided into ‘knowing-that’ and ‘knowing-how.’ We also deal with interactional expertise and the fact that much expertise is tacit. We explore three questions.
The language of co-creation has become popular with policy makers, researchers and consultants wanting to support evidence-based change. However, there is little agreement about what features a research or consultancy project must have for peers to recognise the project as co-creative, and therefore for it to contribute to the growing body of practice and theory under that heading. This means that scholars and practitioners do not have a shared basis for critical reflection, improving practice and debating ethics, legitimacy and quality.