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) Tools and (iv) Organisational Format.

This paper sets out to explore the nature of new organisational and institutional vehicles for managing innovation in order to put research into use for social gain. It has reviewed four classes of such vehicles found in South Asia.

This paper argues that impact assessment research has not made more of a difference because the measurement of the economic impact has poor diagnostic power. In particular it fails to provide research managers with critical institutional lessons concerning ways of improving research and innovation as a process. Paper's contention is that the linear input-output assumptions of economic assessment need to be complemented by an analytical framework that recognizes systems of reflexive, learning interactions and their location in, and relationship with, their institutional context.

This paper builds on experiences from the Research Into Use programme in South Asia that tried to up-scale promising research outputs into wider use. The experience suggests that while facilitating access to technology is important in putting research into use, it has value only when it is bundled together with other innovation-management tasks such as: developing networks, organising producers, communicating research needs, mediating conflicts, facilitating access to inputs and output services, convening innovation platforms, and advocating for policy change and other negotiated changes in

This paper sets out an analytical framework for doing research on the question of how  to use agricultural research for innovation and impact. Its focus is the Research Into Use (RIU) Programme sponsored by the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID). This is one example of a new type of international development programme that seeks to find better ways of using research for developmental purposes.

The question of how agricultural research can best be used for developmental purposes is a topic of some debate in developmental circles. The idea that this is simply a question of better transfer of ideas from research to farmers has been largely discredited. Agricultural innovation is a process that takes a multitude of different forms, and, within this process, agricultural research and expertise are mobilised at different points in time for different purposes. This paper uses two key analytical principles in order to find how research is actually put into use.

This paper reflects on the experience of the Research Into Use (RIU) projects in Asia. It reconfirms much of what has been known for many years about the way innovation takes place and finds that many of the shortcomings of RIU in Asia were precisely because lessons from previous research on agricultural innovation were “not put into use” in the programme’s implementation. However, the experience provides three important lessons for donors and governments to make use of agricultural research: (i) Promoting research into use requires enabling innovation.

In the post-harvest area and in agriculture research in general, both in India and internationally, policy attention is returning to the question of how innovation can be encouraged and promoted and thus how impact on the poor can be achieved. This publication assembles several cases from the post-harvest sector. These provide examples of successful innovation that emerged in quite different ways. Its purpose is to illustrate and analyze the diversity and often highly context-specific nature of the processes that lead to and promote innovation.

This paper is a reflection on a research project that defied the conventional technology transfer approach and adopted an approach based on innovation system principles to address fodder scarcity. Fodder scarcity in the project was conceptualized not as lack of technical capacity, but as lack of innovation capacity. This project tried to enhance innovation capacity by promoting appropriate configurations of stakeholders. However, translating this theory and principles into action was fraught with numerous challenges.

This paper reviews a recent donor-funded project concerning the introduction of post-harvest technology to poor hill farmers in India. Rather than conform to conventional development aid projects of either a “research” or an “interventionist” nature, it combines both approaches in a research-action program, which has more in common with a business development approach than a formal social science one. An important conclusion is that the work (and apparent success) of the project is consistent with an understanding of development that emphasizes the importance of innovation systems.