Innovation platforms are groups of individuals or stakeholder representatives with different backgrounds and interests. They come together to diagnose problems, identify opportunities, and find ways to achieve their goals. When innovation platforms are set up by development projects, their processes are usually facilitated by the support organization.
This editorial illustrates the Knowledge Management for Development Journal Special Issue on "Facilitating multi-stakeholder processes: balancing internal dynamics and institutional politics", explaining that it focuses on the connection between the knowledge function in knowledge management for development (KM4D) and the facilitation function within multi stakeholder processes (MSPs).
This paper highlights seven key issues which are critical to effective platform facilitation and have not received the attention they deserve: the dynamic and evolving nature of platforms; power dynamics; gender equity; external versus internal facilitation; sustainability of the process; issues of scale; and monitoring and evaluation. These issues and implications for facilitation of innovation platforms are discussed based on examples from the field and in relation to current theories.
The present article reviews the results and methodological design of an evaluation at higher education centres in Bolivia, Ghana and India. The ambition of these programmes was to integrate endogenous knowledge and values into education and research programmes. The evaluation provides an example of a mixed methods design that allowed for inclusion and appreciation of perspectives of different stakeholders. An evaluation team has to consider which set of methods is responding to the project context and how the methods complement each other and can be adapted to the case.
This paper examines different practical methods for stakeholders to analyse power dynamics in multi-stakeholders processes (MSPs), taking into account the ambiguous and uncertain nature of complex adaptive systems. It reflects on an action learning programme which focused on 12 cases in Africa and Asia put forward by 6 Dutch development non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
This paper presents the processes, general guidelines lessons and experiences pertaining to “good practices” for organizing and forming Agricultural Innovation Platforms in the Lake Kivu Pilot Learning Site, covering three countries (Uganda, Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo) with widely differing social political environments to address agricultural development challenges.
This paper examines how the different institutional innovations arising from various permutations of linkages and interactions of ARD organizations (national, international advanced agricultural research centres and universities) influenced the different outcomes in addressing identified ARD problems.
The Guidance Note on Operationalization provides a brief recap of the conceptual underpinnings and principles of the TAP Common Framework as well as a more detailed guide to operationalization of the proposed dual pathways approach. It offers also a strategy for monitoring and evaluation as well as a toolbox of select tools that may be useful at the different stages of the CD for AIS cycle.
The first phase in the development of the Common Framework on Capacity Development for Agricultural Innovation systems (CD for AIS) consisted of the review of the existing literature, building up a repository of relevant documentation on agricultural innovation in general and AIS and CD for AIS. This report summarizes this first phase. In particular, Section 1 covers this brief introduction. Sections two and three focus on the review of relevant literature, presenting the methodology used and the structure of the repository itself.
Agricultural innovation in low-income tropical countries contributes to a more effective and sustainable use of natural resources and reduces hunger and poverty through economic development in rural areas. Yet, despite numerous recent public and private initiatives to develop capacities for agricultural innovation, such initiatives are often not well aligned with national efforts to revive existing Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS).