LEISA Magazine • 22.1•
March 2006
Learning with Innovation Histories
Boru Douthwaite, Alok Sikka, Rasheed Sulaiman, John Best and John Gaunt
Constructing an “innovation history” is a method for recording
and reflecting on an innovation process. People who have been involved in the
innovation jointly construct a detailed written account based on their recollections
and on available documents. The process of preparing this history stimulates
discussion, reflection and learning amongst all those involved. Others can also
learn, either by studying an individual case or by comparing experiences. Future
planning can build on the lessons learned, prepare a shared vision and act as
a mechanism for change.
Designed and first tried out by the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture,
this method uses two techniques that can be used as group exercises: (a) the
“innovation timeline”, which lists the key events in the history
of the innovation; and (b) the “actor network analysis”, which identifies
the key links between all those involved in the innovation process. This article
describes an experience where this method was used as part of a workshop aiming
to learn from various cases. The “innovations” studied were unusual
partnering arrangements among different organisations.
A joint analysis
Working in partnership is now recognised as a successful strategy for improving
livelihoods of the rural poor, as it allows for two or more organisations to
make the most of each other’s strong points. However, the formation of
effective partnerships can be a challenge. Organisational cultures may reflect
the strengths which one member brings to a partnership but may also fail to
value the strengths of another partner.
The Natural Resource Management (NRM) directorate of the Indian Council for
Agricultural Research and the Natural Resource Systems Programme of the British
Department for International Development have both supported research projects
that have tried new partnership arrangements, with some good results. Both saw
the possibilities of highlighting the lessons learnt by such projects with a
four-day workshop, where participants could also explore ways to promote good
partnering practices. Similarly interested was the World Bank-funded National
Agricultural Innovation Project, which from 2006 will set up associations of
different types of organisations to work in partnership to promote rural development
throughout the country.
The workshop was held in November 2005 in New Delhi. Its objectives were to
identify: (a) the benefits of working in partnership; (b) the enabling and constraining
factors; and (c) the policy and research management strategies required to foster
partnerships. The workshop set out to achieve these objectives through a joint
analysis of four NRM projects, all of which were selected for their innovative
partnering arrangements. The group of organisations involved included NGOs,
international organisations such as CIMMYT, IRRI, the Aga Khan Rural Support
Project, as well as farmer federations, input providers and governmental organisations.
The four projects were analyzed using a slight adaptation of the “innovation
history” approach - the full version of the approach involves two workshops
and writing a description of the innovation history. One adaptation, due to
time and budget constraints, was to drop the first workshop and to ask all participants
to prepare their timelines and network maps beforehand. One of the authors also
interviewed policy makers and senior research managers, looking for their opinions
in relation to partnerships in the context of NRM research and development.
A second adaptation was to have a policy panel discussion as part of the workshop:
eight senior and mid-level policy makers were invited to react to the workshop’s
findings and their policy implications. Participants analyzed the projects in
the first two days. They then became the resource people on the third day, when
other colleagues joined in to help the group prepare for the panel on day 4.
What actually happened?
The first phase of the workshop brought together representatives from each of
the organisations involved in the case studies (some 25 participants in all).
The plan for the first day was to split the participants into their four respective
groups to develop a single combined timeline for each case study in the morning,
and similar combined actor network matrices in the afternoon. This generated
more debate than expected, as the participants in each group discussed their
differing views of what happened. The first group, for instance, learnt a lot
by exchanging opinions regarding the importance of leadership, while the second
group identified the importance of being flexible with budgets. Many partnership
lessons could be drawn out from this discussion, although it was not possible
to finish the actor network matrix exercise. The lessons were then grouped under
four headings:
(a) time: significant time is required to build relationships (between 3 and
6 years); policy makers, donors, and others do not realise that it takes time
to build trust between colleagues;
(b) flexibility: working in new partnerships creates potential for research
and flexibility to respond to demands; it is necessary to allow for mid-term
corrections (e.g. all case study projects did this); project management must
be flexible; flexibility must be built into project documents; government institutions
are restricted by guidelines and so are not flexible;
(c) leadership: importance of champions (strong leadership) to push for flexibility;
and
(d) conflict: recognition that conflicts are inevitable and that methods are
needed to sort them out and maintain communication.
We began day two by splitting the participants into two groups, with each group
made up of people from all four case studies. We presented each group with the
list of lessons learnt from day one and then asked each group to: (a) give more
details, add to, or question the lessons and the headings assigned to them;
(b) identify evidence from each of the case studies; and, (c) identify benefits
of working in partnership and how to measure these benefits. One group ended
up working on the first two points, while the second group concentrated on the
last one. This was all presented during the third day, when the group was joined
by other NRM researchers and development professionals. After a general discussion,
all participants were asked to write on a card the policy question they would
most like to put to a senior policy maker. The facilitators grouped the questions
into categories and presented them. Participants were asked to look at these
questions, and prepare for the panel discussion, which took place during the
last day. The panel, formed by four senior and mid-level policy makers, was
asked to comment on the changes needed to the existing systems to make the forming
of partnerships easier, to nurture existing partnerships, and to enable the
scaling up of partnerships.
Results, feedback and evaluation
Adoption of the “innovation history” method proved useful. We were
able to present clear conclusions, such as those referring to:
• complementarity and comparative advantage: the strongest partnerships
are those that explicitly recognise and build upon the strengths of the partners;
• building relationships with farmers: successful partnerships depend
on the integration of communities in the planning and implementation of partnership
activities;
• leadership: successful partnerships are characterised by having vibrant
and dynamic leaders, but they usually embrace the principle of decentralised
decision-making:
• public-private partnerships: building formal and informal relationships
among key public and private stakeholders can help agricultural research organisations
achieve the objectives of agricultural research partnerships; and
• transparency: successful partnerships are characterised by openness
in planning, decision-making and financial management.
These conclusions were reflected in the policy brief and in the resource materials
for working in partnerships which were presented as a final product of the workshop.
The workshop was also successful in the eyes of the participants. We asked
for feedback and reflected on how the workshop was progressing, through a barometer
group meeting after the first day, an after-action review carried out by the
facilitators on the third day, and also through an end-of-workshop evaluation.
Participants, for example, said they liked the workshop structure, and its flexibility,
which they felt led to real participation and a free and honest exchange of
ideas. This flexibility was partly a result of on-going discussion amongst the
facilitators and key resource people about how the workshop was progressing,
and also of the long discussions between the facilitators in planning for the
following day.
The policy study carried out before the workshop was useful and created an
awareness of the workshop and its outputs amongst the policy makers and senior
research managers. The timeline exercise worked well. It stimulated dialogue
between case study resource people, in particular those from different organisations,
as to which were the significant events, and why. Asking case-study participants
to identify the people related to each significant change encouraged them to
think about partnerships without necessarily having to construct the actor network
maps. Having other researchers join the workshop helped to focus the work of
the first two days, and the same can be said of the final panel session. Presenting
their findings first, and then analyzing these further in preparation for the
policy panel, helped build ownership amongst participants. The interaction with
the policy panel itself immediately began the process of communicating the workshop
findings to policy-makers.
What to change next time?
The main dissatisfaction voiced by participants was with the facilitation and
attendance at the policy panel session. People felt that the discussion could
have better addressed the issues identified in the first three days of the workshop.
Our expectation was that the panel discussion would help workshop participants
learn about policymaking and how to influence it, in order to refine the planned
policy briefs and materials. In this respect, the workshop was successful. However,
having strongly focused on policy messages and key issues, some participants
expected the workshop to lead directly to policy change, and that pathways to
that change would be explored. At the same time, some participants were disappointed
that some of the more senior members invited to be part of the panel were absent.
Quite a lot of time and effort was spent on preparing individual timelines
and actor network matrices before the workshop. The idea was to give a voice
to people who could not attend the workshop. Actual preparation of these inputs
was patchy, and they created a false expectation that individuals would have
an opportunity to present their projects. More time and resources should be
allowed for advising on and following up the preparation of these inputs prior
to such a workshop.
These difficulties, however, are minor when compared to the overall results.
The adaptation of the “innovation history” method to a single workshop
was judged by participants and facilitators as something that worked well and
is worth repeating. It has the important advantage of being much cheaper and
quicker than the full method, while still being able to highlight and share
lessons from innovative experiences. As such, it provided space for the representatives
of the organisations to track and analyse the institutional changes needed to
make the innovations (the partnership arrangements) effective and then to communicate
their findings to a wider audience.
Boru Douthwaite. Senior Scientist, International Centre for
Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). A.A. 6713, Cali, Colombia.
E-mail: b.douthwaite@cgiar.org
Alok Sikka. Director, ICAR Research Complex for the Eastern
Region. WALMI Complex, Phulwari Sharif P.O., Patna 801 505, Bihar, India
Rasheed Sulaiman. Senior Scientist, ICAR National Centre for
Agricultural Economics & Policy Research. Library Avenue, PUSA, P.B. No.
11305, New Delhi 12, India
John Best. Senior Research Fellow, International and Rural
Development Department (IRDD), University of Reading. P.O. Box 237, Reading
RG6 6AR, U.K.
John Gaunt. Director, GY Associates Ltd. 32 Amenbury Lane,
Harpenden AL5 2DF, U.K.