Discussion paper Innovation

Institutionalizing innovation
Discussion Paper, Brian Lund, March 2015 Page 2
1 Preamble
Arguably Oxfam’s raison d'être is to facilitate change. Very often it means changes based on ideas and
initiatives in circumstances that we are already familiar with, however this is far from the extent of our work. It
would be unreasonable to suggest that all the answers to poverty and injustice are known and the job at
hand is simply to roll them out. On the contrary, Oxfam would argue that it is essential to engage in new ideas,
new applications and new circumstances. This is why, as a global organization we specifically invest in
innovation
1
.
But necessarily, our interest as a global organization must extend beyond simply surfacing innovations to
include adaptation and replicability, then incubation in readiness for scale and impact. Add to this, some
argue that we should not only be emphasizing innovation but moreso ‘continuous’ innovation for without this
investment we risk lapsing into reliance on ‘traditional’ work organization that is very often designed to foster
standardization and actively discouraging innovation
2
.
All of this underpins the requirement for Oxfam to direct attention to institutionalizing innovation by taking
actions that at a minimum include common language and common processes, with the potential to reach to
shared responsibilities and accountabilities in investments. This paper is intended to present a framework for
discussion then a series of recommendations that would assist Oxfam in building the means to toward enable
the discipline needed to institutionalize innovation.
2 Toward institutionalizing innovation
An organization as diverse and networked as Oxfam is certainly fertile ground for surfacing innovation. For
those privileged to have seen Oxfam’s work first hand it is clear that there are many innovations at hand and
many more in the making – “here is space for a thousand flowers to bloom”
3
. But it is also clear that most
innovations struggle to reach their potential for want of focus and resourcing. To draw a parallel; the vast
majority of would-be great small businesses fail. Not because they weren’t base on good ideas but for
reasons of insufficient or inappropriate business development
4
.
This paper seeks to move beyond the general discussion on innovation to address some of the actions that
Oxfam might take in order to institutionalize innovation. It seeks to 1) unpack the key elements and
requirements of the innovation lifecycle from surfacing to succeeding, 2) to discuss some actions that Oxfam
could consider in order to institutionalize innovation and 3) serve as a continuation in the discussion in Oxfam
that is “building’, as Whitehead suggests, “upon Oxfam’s track record of 70 years of social innovation
5
”.
Very often individuals like Muhammad Yunus or organizations like Kiva are cited as examples of how to
advance innovation but in these types of examples I would argue that the organization typically grows around
a singular innovation. These organizations were effectively borne of the innovation with organizational
diversity emerging at later stages. Conversely, one of Oxfam’s strengths is the diversity already across the
confederation. However this same strength can present a challenge to attempts at a focus on innovation,
scale and impact
6
. Consequently, for Oxfam, fostering innovation warrants different approaches
7
in which
Oxfam needs to be able to 1) champion multiple innovations at various levels of maturity while 2) recruiting
external and internal supporters.

1

Include
reference
to
Kimberly’s
definition
of
innovation
prepared
for
Rockefeller
Foundation

2

Stace,
D
&
Dunphy
D,
(2001)
Beyond
the
Boundaries,
2
nd

Edition
ISBN
007470841

3

Eijkemans,
C.
(2015)

Country
Director
Oxfam
in
Cambodia
pers.
comm

4

Australian
Business
Council

5

James
Whitehead,
Social
Innovation
–
Food
for
thought
for
PLT

6

Goldberg,
S
makes
the
same
argument
but
in
terms
of
a
multiplicity
of
small
organizations
in
“Billions
of
Drops
in

Millions
of
Buckets”
(2009)
ISBN
9780470454671

7

Oxfam
is
not
unique
in
this
regard.
Could
build
out
discussion
to
include
innovation
in
Kodak,
Nisan,
DFAT
(aust),

Rockefeller
Think
Tanks,
Harvard
Labs,
Adelaide
University’s
Systems
Approach,
others?

2.1 Championing multiple innovations at various
levels of maturity
Using the model of the innovation life-cycle
8
as a platform for mapping out an illustrative selection of
innovations supported by the Oxfam
9
it is possible to make some general observations about innovation in
Oxfam;
1_ The majority of innovations have emerged from within the single affiliate. While this can simplify
management during the early stages, it tends toward the perception of single-affiliate ownership often
making it harder to solicit wider support from across the confederation at later stages. That said there are
good examples of ideas being developed in collaboration with other affiliates. This sample includes;
a) OUS, ONL, OGB being at the early stages of collectively preparing to test Social Impact Bonds
10
b) The DEVATAR Initiative is managed by OUS with incubation funding via OGB
11
.
2_ The mapping suggests we are able to maintain quite a strong pipeline of ideas aligned with Oxfam
strategies. In terms of the innovation life-cycle the strongest concentration is in developing and testing
innovative ideas – possibly where unrestricted fund allocations where sufficient. The pipeline appears less
populated when moving to scale where combinations of unrestricted funding plus restricted funding and
coordination with other collaborators is necessary. Arguably this reflects the difficulty of recruiting and
resourcing for scale.
Diagram mapping the portfolio of innovations recognized in East Asia
12

8

Find
correct
reference.
Note
that
the
model
should
not
be
interpreted
as
presuming
that
the
innovation
lifecycle

follows
a
singular
pathway.

9
I
have
had
to
use
the
portfolio
of
OUS
East
Asia
Office
(EARO),
simply
because
that
is
the
work
with
which
I
am

most
familiar.
Ideally
this
discussion
should
include
much
more
of
the
cool
work
that
has
emerged
through
the

efforts
of
other
affiliates.

10

Discussion
paper;
Position
Oxfam
to
champion
Social
Impact
Bonds

11

The
DEVATAR
Initiative
–
an
outline

12

The
mapping
shows
all
current
innovation
but
only
some
are
discussed
in
this
paper.
For
details
of
other

innovations
please
contact
the
office
directly.

The same platform can then be expanded to map specific innovations. SRI and SfC are illustrated here.
2.1.1 The System of Rice Intensification (SRI)
Originating as a package of (pre-existing) good husbandry practices applied specifically to the hand-planted
rice crop. Arguably one of the most significant bottom-up innovations seen in rice growing and also a strong
foundation for engagement on development agendas including; smallholder extension; smallholder
economies; women in agriculture; agricultural policy; climate change adaptation; etc.
2.1.1.1 Mapping the progress of SRI as an innovation
The blue boxes offer some insight into Oxfam’s experience with respect to particular points in the lifecycle.
The pink boxes in the diagram indicate some of the ‘complimentary’ innovations that have emerged in this
lifecycle. While they make good sense when associated with SRI, they can also be mapped separately and/or
in association with other innovations. For example, the Rice Dragon and Contracting innovations would be
equally recognizable as innovations in BoP market development
2.1.1.2 Oxfam’s experience in summary
SRI was already emerging as an innovation in smallholder agriculture when Oxfam first engaged. Oxfam began
supporting local partners in developing and testing the application of SRI in local contexts before working
with partners to design and deliver a scaled-up in Cambodia and Vietnam.
a) In terms of internal audiences, OUS wasn’t very successful in recruiting support from other affiliates being
most often thwarted by 1) the tendency of Oxfam staff outside the SRI program to accept the message of
nay-sayers and subsequently discount the worth of SRI
13
. So that no common understanding or interest
in investment has been established. 2) an inability to develop joint resources and sometimes 3) an
inability to reconcile program strategies, on this point OUS was unable to convey SRI as more than a

13

SRI
exhibits
the
characteristics
of
a
disruptive
innovation.
It
challenges
norms
–
in
this
instance
input-‐based

agricultural
systems
–
and
so
must
be
expected
to
attract
challengers.

technical package or that its true value was in changing systems pertaining to the related development
agendas and, 3)
b) In terms of external audiences OUS was successful in recruiting UNDP support. The SRI program ultimately
acknowledged by the UN as being in the top three most scalable programs in Cambodia - but joint
resource development was unsuccessful and the partnership stalled. In Vietnam, OUS was particularly
successful in recruiting government authorities as implementers, direct investors and advocates.
c) Notably, outside of Oxfam, one of the most successful efforts to maintain the momentum of this
innovation has been the Cornell University SRI website
14
that is actively supported by faculty team
actively soliciting and disseminating information.
2.1.2 Saving for Change (SfC)
Is an Oxfam-branded version of the savings –led microfinance products that has been refined via formal and
informal collaboration of several International NGOs. Underpinned by an exceptional evidence base it
addresses the issues of access to finance and particularly women’s empowerment. Increasingly it’s
versatility has allowed it to be used as a platform for an increasing range of development interventions of
importance to Oxfam.
2.1.2.1 Mapping the progress of SfC as an innovation
Again, the blue boxes offer some insight into Oxfam’s experience with respect to particular points in the
lifecycle.

14

http://sri.cals.cornell.edu/

SRI
farmer
in
Takeo
uses
Rice
Dragon/Niek
Srei
to
remove
weeds
from
her
rice
field.

The pink boxes in the diagram indicate some of the ‘complimentary’ innovations that have emerged in this
lifecycle. The majority shown here pertaining to new and targeted markets or new applications of SfC as a
platform for other development initiatives.
2.1.2.2 Oxfam’s experience in summary
The circumstance of SfC is somewhat different given that it is a member of a specific family of innovative
microfinance products called Savings-led Microfinance
15
. Other agencies have been championing the same
innovation around the globe, most notably, CARE International, PACT, CRS and AHA so that globally
participation of the poor is in excess of 8 million.
a) In terms of internal audiences, Oxfam US has managed to program SfC in 5 of the 16 countries but only a
few times in alliance with other affiliates. Easily one of the most significant barriers to adoption has been
OA’s inability to convey to other affiliates 1) what savings-Led microfinance actually is – the tendency is
to presume it is the same as other older and sometimes ineffectual services that Oxfamers have
encountered in the past. 2) the potential of the program to provide a platform for virtually any other
development agenda dependent on women’s empowerment.
b) In terms of external audiences, in Cambodia, aside from the 20+ NGOs that have been trained in SfC
services, Oxfam worked with CARE, PACT, CRS formed an informal alliance to advance savings-led
microfinance. The alliance was able to pursue research and advocacy on indebtedness
16
that continues
to fuel national debate and to convince USAID of the merits of SfC such that the USAID mission is currently
the biggest investor in SfC in Cambodia
Several other innovations from the mapping that warrant detailed descriptions;
2.1.3 Learning about Living
Increases access to information and services on SHHR and gender amongst adolescent youth. Started in
Nigeria in 2007, successfully replicated in Senegal, Morocco, Mali, Egypt, Cambodia and soon-to-be Myanmar.
It would reach to phase 6 if mapped.

15

Reference
the
profile
document

16

Drowning
in
Debt

2.1.4 Gender Action Learning Systems / Gender Road Map (GRM)
Developed in Africa by ONL as a tool to mainstream gender at household and community level. Especially
effective in combination with livelihood development. Applied in Cambodia by OQC leading to a guide book for
the local context that is now used by 13 OUS and ONL partners amongst their target audiences. This would
reachto phase 5 in mapping
2.1.5 Pink Phones
The Pink Phone is another innovation that warrants mapping. It displays some unique characteristics given
that sine it was proven digital phone technology and affordability has changed remarkably. This may reach to
phase 4 if mapped.
2.1.6 Ask your MP
An interesting concept developed by One-Worls UK and COMFREL (Cambodian LNGO) in 2013 as an IT platform
where young people can ask questions by email, SMS and Facebook to elected MPs to raise concerns and
keep them accountable to election promises. It is still to be proven outright but the it is extremely timely
given the role of youth in the changing political context of Cambodia. This would be mapped as reaching
phase 3.
2.2 Recruiting external and internal audiences.
Given that Oxfam is a confederation and the country and regional offices have an increasing capacity for self-
determination, where some other organization, might respond to a directive in relation to an innovation (eg a
new product graduates from the R&D Department and becomes the responsibility of the Marketing
Department), response in Oxfams is reliant of recruiting internal support in much the same way as recruiting
external support. Here Rogers Adoption Curve
17
serves as a useful model for discussing some pertinent
characteristics of adoption i.e. recruitment.
2.2.1.1 Rogers Adoption Curve
Using Rogers Adoption Curve is a long standing
representation of how populations adapt to change.
While the percentages shown in the graph generally
hold true regardless of the circumstance it should be
expected that as Oxfam is an organization focused on
change, the curve should be skewed to the left with a
higher proportion of innovators, early adopters and
early majority.
2.2.1.2 Combining the models - Rogers Adoption
Curve and the Innovation lifecycle
Using Roger’s Curve as a platform for this discussion it
is possible to overlay the innovation life-cycle. Applying
the logic of the two models arguably it is possible to
describe some of the features of the individual or
institutional units operating in each space. Innovators
are more commonly associated with seeing challenges
①and generating ideas②. They require some access to
discretionary resource so that they can take risks. They
are particularly valuable in that they are generally able

17

"Diffusion
of
ideas"
by
Rogers
Everett
-‐
Based
on
Rogers,
E.
(1962)
Diffusion
of
innovations.
Free
Press,
London,

NY,
USA.

to process failure and bounce back. – insert as example; the Rice Dragon. Early adopters are also recognized
as being prepared to take risks, but they focus more on systematic testing and development of ideas – insert
as example; Oxfam and SRI.③④. The early majority is much more responsive to evidence and can be
encouraged to take up implementation when they can clearly see an innovation fitting their business
objectives – insert as example; UNDP on SRI ⑤ The late majority⑥ is much more conservative with risk, only
being prepared to take on change when it is entire known. They make up a substantial portion of the
population so warrant attention if change is to be realized ⑦. As a progression, they each warrant a different
support strategy in order to progress but for the purpose of simplicity they can be rendered down to three key
phases.
2.2.1.3 Applying strategies to the combined model
The phases allow a simplified grouping of the strategies that Oxfam could apply in order to instil an
institutional approach to encouraging innovation
The Phase 1 focuses on supporting staff and offices
interested in innovation and early adoption that would
provide a pipeline of innovations. From Oxfam’s
perspective this pipeline should draw from our diversity,
seek to identify ‘winners’ with potential for focus, scale
and impact.
During Phase 1 innovations should undergo a filter process
and decision point to determine continuation or otherwise.
Criteria for the filter would include Phase 1 outcomes plus
consideration of Phase 2 and Phase 3 prospects. This
would set Oxfam on a course to overcome the diffuse
investment that Goldberg describes as the $10million then
$100million dollar problem
18
.
The Phase 2 begins when Oxfam is able to assign
resources and begin developing external resources. The
innovation should be subject to a second filter and
decision point before continuation. This would be equivalent to an Oxfam endorsement for moving to scale.
The Phase 3 begins when combinations of unrestricted funding, restricted funding and coordination with
other collaborators has been developed.
2.3 Actions that Oxfam might take
For simplicity, the actions that Oxfam might take in working toward an institutional approach able to 1)
champion multiple innovations at various levels of maturity while 2) recruiting external and internal
supporters, have been captured in terms of foundational actions that establishes the environment for
innovation followed by a suite of actions attuned to the three phases.
2.3.1.1 Creating the foundation for innovation in Oxfam
a) In order for Oxfam to gain an edge we will require a systematic approach that considers all aspects of the
organization. Efforts to build strategy intent in institutional innovation for Oxfam would only be effective
with the endorsement of senior management because an innovation strategy would require affiliates to
agree on collaborative allocation of unrestricted resources.
o Outline a series of recommendations to senior management including guidelines for
resource allocations (possibly linked to GPIIF or RPIIF) that directly encourage affiliate
collaboration on innovation funds.

18

Goldberg,
S
(2009)
“Billions
of
Drops
in
Millions
of
Buckets”
ISBN
9780470454671

o This idea could be further expanded to include peer organizations – imagine the incentive for
collaboration if Oxfam and ActionAid, EcoTrust, KIVA etc combined resources to call for
proposals for collaborative innovations19
.
o Prepare for management a recommendation for common criteria and language for deciding
and describing innovations filters for Oxfam. This is a critical step as it has the potential to
introduce the discipline we would need to gain focus
b) Support of innovations or innovation processes is rarely included in Job Descriptions or performance
objectives. As an organization we rely quite heavily on the individual taking the initiative often outside of
prescribed job descriptions. This is not to suggest that innovation should feature in every job description
but it is a response to the fact that the bias in Oxfam at the moment is probably toward job descriptions
featuring implementation without reference to innovation.
o Describe a series of statements for inclusion in Job Description and Performance Objectives
that can be adopted commonly across Oxfam. Make these available to line management and
HRM offices.
c) Build up a library of innovations by;
• Build our baseline – map out and document the lifecycles of innovations we already have in Oxfam -
use the lifecycle model above. The examples above (SRI and SfC) are described only briefly but is was
a really good exercise. Doing the same across the confederation would be breathtaking! The
expectation would be that there would be a library or innovations and the prospect of convergence
and collaboration amongst some would be almost immediate.
• Design and apply the innovation filters now so that Oxfam can be confident in which innovations
already warrant continued support. The filter should address implications/opportunities at all levels
in the organization; program; campaign; fundraising; new business models etc.
• Undertake some pipeline analysis. It should be possible to assess the level of innovation in our
current pipeline. Is it enough? It should also be possible to look back at innovations over the past 5
years and determine the ratio of success and failures. Could do this to EARO’s work as an example.
o Set out a process to map out Oxfam’s investment in innovation. Ideally this should be done
by applying a set of criteria and models (such as above). It would also be logical to employ
one team to develop the first iteration in order the criteria from being too widely interpreted.
o Once innovation is mapped, maintain a library of innovation for Oxfam.
d) There are a lot of organizations (most in the Private Sector) with substantial experience in innovation
within diverse organizations. Examples include, Kodak, Nisan, Rockefeller Think Tanks, Harvard Labs,
Adelaide University’s Systems Approach, DFAT (Australia) and the list goes on….
o Initiate a schedule of regular exchanges with these organizations.
e) Note that this process should include partners and extended networks.
o Set out a process to extend these actions to include partners and allies.
2.3.1.2 Action specifically to support Phase 1
a) Surfacing innovation seems to be where most investment is made. Here there is an interesting question
as to whether is investment is best managed centrally or at the coal face. There are some excellent
examples of initiatives in Oxfam that are centrally managed, often with specific themes such as ICT4D
that is surfacing innovation. However, many of the innovations currently championed by Oxfam where
borne of country and regional initiatives – outside of centralized systems. The Challenge for Oxfam is to
decide how to support a balance that will ensure a strong pipeline.
o Test this as a hypothesis by assessing the performance of a sample of offices over the last 5
years. It will be important to undertake this because there is a school of thought in the

19

Note
that
this
approach
is
already
employed
by
some
agencies.
A
current
example
being
the

Global
Resilience

Partnership,
between
Rockefeller,
USAID
&
Sida

business world that innovation is better served by centralizing. To this end some
organizations have set up departments and knowledge centers - IBM being one of the more
celebrated examples. It hasn’t always worked… and reviews suggest the question becomes
one of opting for the approach that best suits the particular organization. If Oxfam is heading
toward a decentralized, country-empowered model this may not be a good option so
analyzing our past performance using a decentralized approach warrants attention.
b) In Oxfam as in many other organizations, innovations are most often fostered via a competitive process.
Whilst this can be successful, it is logically encourages competition that can be at the expense of
collaboration. This risks small, siloed projects that are owned by the competition winners. Where these
innovations show promise they are then confronted with lack-of-ownership across other affiliates so
their ability to move to phase 2 or 3 is curtailed. This shortcoming can be overcome by emphasizing
collaboration and focusing efforts from the outset. Some options include;
• Affiliates to apply an overarching priority to proposals that can show direct collaboration with
existing innovations inside or outside of Oxfam.
• Where ever possible, initiating the innovation in multiple places at the one time – this approach was
used by OUS in advancing SfC with projects in Africa, Asia and Central America – and it lead to a very
strong early progress.
• Using a compete-and-complement approach to prioritizing proposals. This essentially assigns funds
via a selection process that seeks to balance the emphasis on competition with an emphasis on
collaboration. It can be done by adopting a 2-phase process; the first phase assigning a portion of
available resources via a competitive shortlisting of tendered proposals followed by a second phase
inviting unsuccessful tenderers to re-apply with new proposals designed to complement the tenders
that were successful in the initial shortlisting. This would 1) focus resources and accelerate the
potential to test the best prospects, engender wider ownership and therefore interest in supporting
scale-up and 2) encourage the innovators and early adopters in Oxfam even if their original idea was
unsuccessful
20
. The effectiveness of this compete-and-complement approach would be greatly
magnified if the call was supported across affiliates – and even outside Oxfam.
o Detail a process based on a compete-and-complement approach and make this available to
management.
c) Where innovations are active it would become the responsibility of the Project Manager to provide
updates to a shared platform (Intranet for sensitive innovations, Drop-Box for innovations involving
external actors).
a) Alert system across related OCS/ORS/OIS so that innovations are available for adoption and/or
adaptation
o Set out a protocol for using external repositories. Include text for responsibility in Job
Description designed to achieve the above.
a) In order to widen the prospects for an innovation (and Oxfam), Affiliates should consider preparing a
program prospectus that includes the innovations they have supported and that they are prepared to
support if adopted by other affiliates
21
with actions like funding cross visits, funding scoping
exercises etc. It is going to be important for as many offices in Oxfam as possible to be aware of what
is on offer.
o Set up one or more Program Prospectus specifically attuned to innovation. Introduce to
Oxfam managers and track response.

20

Note
that
The
Global
Resilience
Partnership,
Rockefeller,
USAID
&
Sida
adopted
a
variation
of
this
approach
in

their
2015
call
for
proposals
referring
to
the
second
call
as
‘wildcard’
bids.
They
selected
15/100
proposals
and
re-‐
opened
the
round
to
the
unsuccessful
applicants
for
a
second
‘wild
card’
submission.

21

Add
the
EARO
Program
Prospectus

b) Where innovations have been through the filter process and acknowledged by Oxfam for stage2,
Affiliates should assess the prospect of committing unrestricted resource for leverage for resource
development, match and partnership. This would be additional to normal budget allocations. This
would serve as an inventive to ensure Oxfam uses unrestricted resources to best advantage.
o This could be linked to the recommendations above.
a) Responding to questions posed by Whitehead; how can we take corporate engagement to the next
level? how can we increase our collaboration with ‘unusual suspects’ at every level? how can Oxfam
access new funding and financing modalities that will enable us to achieve our goals?
o Still to describe an action
b) At an early stage of the lifecycle begin describing potentials to contribute to Impact/Change in
Systems. Systems Approach to Solutions for Impact. These should be well described for Phase3 so
that affiliates and partners are able to fathom the wider potential of supporting an innovation. As an
example, SfC improving women’s empowerment programs
o Prepare a guideline for staff managing innovations and disseminate. Consider inclusion in
Phase1 and Phase2 filters
c) How Oxfam manages leadership of innovations warrants re-consideration for each Phase. Given that
the progress through the different stages of the innovation lifecycle requires engagement from
different people with different skill sets- much like the progress of a child’s education requires pre-
school, primary, secondary and university-level teachers – each point of the life-cycle review
requires different support. It may be OK for an innovation to progress through Phase1 under the
management of a single office but progress to Phase2 may warrant multiple country or multiple
affiliate support providing different inputs and contexts then graduation to Phase3 a different
approach again. By way of example arguably the greater barrier to Phase3 lies with affiliate
collaboration and resource development. Perhaps it would be appropriate for fundraisers (from
across affiliates) to be appointed by Oxfam to leadership roles for graduated innovations.
o Prepare a discussion piece on the progressive suite of skills and resources needed to
advance an innovation. This should assist in identifying the types of leadership
arrangements Oxfam should be encouraging.
3 Looking forward
As Whitehead envisions, we must aim to be more relevant to the changing context, more innovative, able to
access more income and better able to be Oxfam at our best. Making investment toward institutionalizing
innovation is a step in that direction but taking that step requires a commitment to actions across Oxfam.
This discussion piece is certainly far from ‘complete’ nonetheless, I hope it presents thinking that can be
challenged or advanced to Oxfam’s advantage, ultimately contributing to a suite of measureable and
accountable initiatives that we can all own.
Brian Lund

Discussion paper Innovation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Discussion paper Innovation

Similar to Discussion paper Innovation (20)

Discussion paper Innovation