This project report from Wageningen UR (as a contribution to the CGIAR Humid Tropics research program) examines critical issues for reflection when designing and implementing research for development in innovation platforms’. The current document therefore aims to increase awareness about the complexity of research in innovation. The underlying idea is that innovation platforms can facilitate institutional changes and support system innovations through increased interaction, negotiation and learning between stakeholders, including (new) roles of research(ers).  

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.

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.

The chapter is a part of the book Innovation platforms for agricultural development edited by Iddo Dror, Jean-Joseph Cadilhon, Marc Schut, Michael Misiko and Shreya Maheshwari. It introduces the background for the setting up of innovation platforms (IPs), initiation and function of the three IPs in Ethiopian highlands, innovation fund to support fodder development, the role of different actors in scaling up, outcomes and impact of the intervention, and lessons learned.

The presentation was given in January 2009 and introduced why a new approach for livestock development for poverty alleviation was desirable, innovation, innovation systems and value chains, building of innovation platforms, learning-oriented monitoring and evaluation, and scaling up and out.

In this paper its argued that when flexibly applied and adapted to capture dynamics typical in systems innovation projects, the Log Frame Approach (LFA) ( and logical frameworks have considerable utility to support evaluation for both learning and accountability, and for identifying and addressing institutional logics, which leads to system innovation.

Primary Innovation is a five year collaborative initiative demonstrating and evaluating co-innovation, a systemic approach to innovation addressing complex problems, in five ‘innovation projects’ (active case studies) in different agricultural industries. In defining the elements of co-innovation, Primary Innovation has emphasised nine principles which guide activity in the innovation projects.

This paper describes a process for stimulating this engagement to develop a shared understanding of systemic problems, challenge prevalent institutional logics, and identify individual and collective actions that change agents might undertake to stimulate system innovation. To achieve this the process included (i) multiple actors from the agricultural innovation systems, (ii) steps to prompt reflexivity to challenge underlying institutional logics, (iii) an iterative process of practical experimentation to challenge current practices, and (iv) actions to encourage generative collaboration.

This study identifies systemic problems in the New Zealand Agricultural Innovation System (AIS) that affect the ability of participants in the agricultural sectors to co-develop technologies. We integrate structural and functional streams of innovation system enquiry, gathering data through 30 semi-structured interviews with individuals in Government, industry and research. Interviews explored perceptions of the influence of actors, interactions, institutions, infrastructure, and market structure on the effectiveness of AIS functions.

In this article it is analysed the results of applying a co-innovation approach to five research projects in the New Zealand primary sector. The projects varied in depth and breadth of stakeholder engagement, availability of ready-made solutions, and prevalence of interests and conflicts. The projects show how and why co-innovation approaches in some cases contributed to a shared understanding of complex problems. Our results confirm the context-specificity of co-innovation practices