This chapter examines processes to inform decision making and manage innovation at four generally defined levels of the innovation system for agriculture; policy, investment, organization, and intervention and also identifies methods relevant at each level for assessing, prioritizing, monitoring, and evaluating innovation processes so that practitioners have the information needed for decision making and for managing limited resources effectively.
This paper aims to map the experience of the RIU Asia projects and draw out the main innovation management tactics being observed while laying the groundwork for further research on this topic. It provides a framework to help analyse the sorts of innovation management tasks that are becoming important. This framework distinguishes four elements of innovation management: (i) Functions (ii) Actions (iii) Toolsand (iv) Organisational Format.
Agricultural innovation invariably involves a whole range of partnerships, alliances and network-like arrangements that connect together knowledge users, knowledge producers and others involved in enabling innovation in the market, policy and civil society arenas. There is now a very large conceptual and empirical literature that reveals agricultural innovation not as process of invention driven by research, but as a process of making novel use of ideas (old and new) with the specific intention of adding social, economic and/or environmental value.
The CGIAR is currently in a state of transition from its historical role in addressing defined agricultural technology problems, to engagement with strategic partnerships addressing systemic change challenges of the type defined by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This review explores good practice in multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs). Its purpose is to assist the CGIAR in identifying effective practices and strategies in the rapidly evolving context of stakeholders and global development initiatives.
This paper discusses innovation in low and middle-income countries, focusing on the role it has played in local and national responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the lessons from this effort for how innovation might be harnessed to address wider development and humanitarian challenges by mobilising resources, improving processes, catalysing collaboration and encouraging creative and contextually grounded approaches. The paper also examines how international development and humanitarian organisations can improve their support for local and national innovation efforts.
One-fifth of the innovative solutions to fight the Covid-19 pandemic have emerged from low and middle-income countries, and these responses offer promising insights for how we think about, manage, and enable innovation. As the international community now faces the historic challenge of vaccinating the world, more attention and resources must be directed to the innovators who are developing technically novel, contextually relevant, and socially inclusive alternatives to mainstream innovation management practices.
Addressing 21st century development challenges requires investments in innovation, including the use of new approaches and technologies. Currently, many development organisations prioritise investments in isolated innovation pilots that leverage a specific approach or technology rather than pursuing a strategic approach to expand the organisation's toolbox with innovations that have proven their comparative advantage over what is currently used.
How do innovations move from the edges to the core of what an organization does? For maximum impact, innovations must cease to be innovative and become institutionalized and normalized.
Innovation portfolio management enables not only commercial actors but also public sector organisations to systematically manage and prioritise innovation activities according to concurrent and diverse purposes and priorities. It is a core component of a comprehensive approach to innovation management and a condition to assess the social return of investment across an entire portfolio. The OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) has worked in this space for a number of years.
For most development organisations and funders, innovation remains a sprawling collection of activities, often energetic, but largely uncoordinated. To a dregree, this has also been the case for Iceland's development co-operation. Iceland, a comparatively small but energetic player in the international development co-operation system, provided the equivalent of 0.28% (roughly 67 million Euro) of it 2021 gross national income towards Official Development Assistance.