Research conducted by Fiona Mwenda and Lydia Tanner at The Research People for the Response Innovation Lab
Despite an increase in funding and support, few humanitarian innovations have successfully scaled beyond the pilot stage. There are many reasons for this, including a lack of funding targeted at scaling innovation within the sector.
Evidence is one important piece of the scaling puzzle. For any innovator looking to scale, evidence is needed to inform the scaling journey, generate support (including funding), and win allies. However, there is a lack of consensus between donors about the types of evidence required at the scaling stage. Taking into account the complexities of the context, this paper is written for innovators (including individual innovators, groups, those working within organizations and across entities), working in any location. It provides practical and positive guidance on what humanitarian innovators themselves can do to address the evidence piece of the scaling puzzle.
The paper begins with a short discussion of what we mean by scaling and why it is not appropriate for every innovation to scale. The paper then outlines the different types of evidence that are important to different audiences, and some of the factors that innovators should consider in prioritizing evidence.
In section three, the paper explores how innovators provide evidence for impact, noting that we need to think broadly about what impact means. While evidence of impact is often important for influencing donors and other stakeholders, there may also be other priorities. Sections four and five outline seven other options, which include evidence that the solution is important and evidence that organizational structures are in place to support ethics, sustainability, team, connections, and learning.
In this way, the paper seeks to reframe the demand for evidence, not as a donor-imposed burden, but as a tool in an innovator’s toolkit. It highlights:
Evidence: Scaling is a multi-stakeholder process and the purpose of evidence is to inform the decision-making processes of all stakeholders.
Variation: A one-size-fits-all approach to evidence-generation for scaling is unhelpful. Multiple factors determine what evidence types are useful for the scaling of each individual innovation. Priorities should be determined by the innovators themselves based on the user, distribution model, revenue model and planned pathway to scale of their innovations.
Impact: A broad array of methodologies are available to assess how an innovation project contributes to change at the individual, community, organizational, sector or global level. The way that an innovator defines and measures impact will determine the scaling trajectory of an innovation.
Beyond impact: The paper outlines the seven other types of evidence an innovator should consider generating in order to meet the evidence needs of stakeholders and decision makers. These fall into two broad categories: evidence that the solution is important, and evidence that there are structures in place to implement the solution effectively.
Uganda.