What are the expected functions of innovation platforms?

In an effort to create space for learning, action and change, innovation platforms can fulfil a collated range of functions and related activities in AR4D processes (Table 1). Innovation platforms do not necessarily fulfil – or indeed need to fulfil – all of these functions and activities. Depending on the composition of the innovation platform, as well as its specific objectives, specific functions and activities may be more or less relevant (Klijn and Teisman, Reference Klijn and Teisman2003; Lamers et al., Reference Lamers, Schut, Klerkx and van Asten2017). Furthermore, the functions and activities outlined can be undertaken in various orders, either sequentially or parallel to one another.

Table 1.

Innovation platform functions and activities (adapted from Hekkert et al., Reference Hekkert, Suurs, Negro, Kuhlmann and Smits2007; Kilelu et al., Reference Kilelu, Klerkx, Leeuwis and Hall2011).

What can innovation platforms achieve effectively?

Innovation platforms aim to counter weaknesses in agricultural innovation systems by building interaction amongst different kinds of actors and their organisations, promoting change in practices, institutions and policies and to effectively deploy available human and financial resources to solve problems and capitalise on opportunities (Davies et al., Reference Davies, Maru, Hall, Abdourhamane, Adegbidi, Carberry, Dorai, Ennin, Etwire, McMillan, Njoya, Ouedraogo, Traoré, Traoré-Gué and Watson2018). Regardless of whether innovation platforms are established at local or higher levels, they can explore technological, organisational and institutional solutions, making them ideal for addressing problems in an integrated manner (Flor et al., Reference Flor, Leeuwis, Maat and Gummert2016; Sanyang et al., Reference Sanyang, Pyburn, Mur and Audet-Belanger2014; Schut et al., Reference Schut, Klerkx, Sartas, Lamers, Mc Campbell, Ogbonna, Kaushik, Atta-Krah and Leeuwis2016a). In a way, the formation and operation of innovations platforms is an organisational or institutional innovation in itself (Schut et al., Reference Schut, Klerkx, Sartas, Lamers, Mc Campbell, Ogbonna, Kaushik, Atta-Krah and Leeuwis2016a). It entails changes in ways of collaborating, interacting and in relationships between actors and organisations to overcome obstacles and improve the impact of their collective action (Ngwenya and Hagmann, Reference Ngwenya and Hagmann2011; Swaans et al., Reference Swaans, Boogaard, Bendapudi, Taye, Hendrickx and Klerkx2014).

In AR4D, innovation platforms can support participatory action research. Participatory action research combines both conducting research together with key stakeholders, as well as performing outcome-oriented research (Minh et al., Reference Minh, Friederichsen, Neef and Hoffmann2014). The involvement of key stakeholders is important for three reasons. First, stakeholder groups can provide various complementary insights about the biophysical, technological and institutional dimensions of the problem, thereby broadening the knowledge base. Thus, by engaging in a social learning process with one another, stakeholders can negotiate what type of innovations are technically feasible, economically viable and socio-culturally and politically acceptable (Esparcia, Reference Esparcia2014; Hermans et al., Reference Hermans, Haarmann and Dagevos2011; Schut et al., Reference Schut, van Paassen, Leeuwis and Klerkx2014). Second, through their interaction and participation, stakeholder groups become aware of their different interests, needs and objectives, but also of their fundamental interdependencies and the need for concerted action across different levels to overcome their constraints and reach their objectives (Leeuwis, Reference Leeuwis2000; Messely et al., Reference Messely, Rogge and Dessein2013; Schut et al., Reference Schut, Leeuwis and van Paassen2013). Third, stakeholders are more likely to support the implementation and scaling of innovations when they have been a part of the design and testing process (Faysse, Reference Faysse2006; Neef and Neubert, Reference Neef and Neubert2011).

Doing action- and outcome-oriented research requires flexibility, as innovation platforms operate in dynamic contexts, and themselves aim to promote change. Action research takes the innovation platform members through cycles of designing interventions, testing in practice, observing whether activities bring about desirable change, reflecting on what goes well and what can be improved, which results in a new phase of (re)designing the interventions (Ottosson, Reference Ottosson2003). Members, as well as their supporting organisations, need to be prepared to adapt their approach and expectations and, in some cases, for failure.

The effective innovation platform size depends on the specific innovation challenge or opportunity at hand. For farm-level experimentation, working with 20–40 participants may be appropriate (e.g. Andres et al., Reference Andres, Mandloi, Bhullar, Dror, Cadilhon, Schut, Misiko and Maheshwari2016), whereas innovation platforms aiming at market or regulatory change are more likely to be smaller in size to enhance flexibility and decision-making (Fichter, Reference Fichter2009; Klerkx et al., Reference Klerkx, Hall and Leeuwis2009). Innovation platforms that aim to create economies of scale (e.g. by accessing or distributing inputs or by jointly supplying to private processors) may actually be much larger in size (e.g. Woomer et al., Reference Woomer, Mulei, Kaleha, Dror, Cadilhon, Schut, Misiko and Maheshwari2016). Furthermore, membership and size may change over time as new farmer groups can join or new members are invited to address specific challenges, or partners may lose interest or leave the platform if their needs have been met (Lamers et al., Reference Lamers, Schut, Klerkx and van Asten2017).

When are innovation platforms particularly useful?

In general terms, innovation platforms are useful when (1) persons or organisations that represent different socio-economic backgrounds, interests and perspectives have a stake in a particular problem or solution; (2) multiple persons or organisations want or need to experiment jointly on aspects that they cannot solve individually or that benefit from synergies; (3) new solutions require a combination of new technologies (technological innovation), effective collaboration (organisational innovation) and/or new rule, funding and incentive structures (institutional or policy innovation) and (4) actors and organisations are willing to share knowledge, resources, benefits and risks, as well as sufficient common interest and trust to engage in collective innovation to address a common challenge (Buerkler, Reference Buerkler2013). These conditions are also frequently mentioned in relation to other types of multi-stakeholder approaches such as public-private partnerships (e.g. Hall, Reference Hall2006; McHugh et al., Reference McHugh, Shi, McClellan, Shortell, Fareed, Harvey, Ramsay and Casalino2016; Van der Meer, Reference Van der Meer2002).

Additional questions related to (1) the specific problem at stake, (2) the specific type of solution or innovation needed to overcome that problem and consequently (3) the types of innovation partners that should be engaged and (4) the most cost- and time-efficient partner engagement model can further guide decision making on the need for an innovation platform, or for other innovation and partnership approaches (Hermans et al., Reference Hermans, Sartas, van Schagen, van Asten and Schut2017). If addressing problems does not require the involvement of multiple stakeholder groups and/or organisations, then simpler and more short-term partner collaborations or formal bilateral arrangements may be more desirable (Head, Reference Head2008).

When an innovation platform approach is deemed the most useful innovation and partner engagement model, then it is advised to first make an inventory of existing stakeholder platforms and networks (Boogaard et al., Reference Boogaard, Klerkx, Schut, Leeuwis, Duncan and Cullen2013). If the purpose, modus operandi and power dynamics of these existing platforms are in line with the objectives and needs of the involved stakeholders, then building on these existing platforms and networks may be more efficient and quicker than initiating a new innovation platform (Boogaard et al., Reference Boogaard, Klerkx, Schut, Leeuwis, Duncan and Cullen2013; Cullen et al., Reference Cullen, Tucker and Tui2013, Reference Cullen, Lema, Tucker, Snyder, Duncan, Triomphe, Waters-Bayer, Klerkx, Schut, Cullen, Kamau and Borgne2014a, Reference Cullen, Tucker, Snyder, Lema and Duncan2014b; Schut et al., Reference Schut, Cadilhon, Misiko and Dror2018).

Ability and mandate to pitch the platform at the right level(s)

Innovation platforms can be established at different levels such as village or community level, district level and even province or national level (Tucker et al., Reference Tucker, Schut and Klerkx2013). The guiding question should be ‘At what level or levels can a challenge be addressed most efficiently?’ For example, a problem of access to good quality planting material may be best tackled at the village or community level, whereas exploring irrigation options would require the involvement of stakeholders at the watershed level (e.g. van Rooyen et al., Reference van Rooyen, Ramshaw, Moyo, Stirzaker and Bjornlund2017). As problems at local level are often rooted in, and interrelated with, problems at higher levels (e.g. lack of input certification leading to poor quality fertiliser on the market), the strategic involvement of national level policy actors may be desirable (Schut et al., Reference Schut, van Asten, Okafor, Hicintuka, Mapatano, Nabahungu, Kagabo, Muchunguzi, Njukwe, Dontsop-Nguezet, Sartas and Vanlauwe2016b). Local innovation platforms might resolve concrete agronomic or organisational issues but, without linkages to decision makers at higher level, will most likely not have enough weight to foster structural changes at higher levels (Lamers et al., Reference Lamers, Schut, Klerkx and van Asten2017). Conversely, higher level innovation platforms may be less relevant for farmers with specific needs but can serve to review and, ideally, shift the rules of the game to make the overall system more amenable to farmer interests and overall public goals such as sustainability, incomes, competiveness, etc. (Hounkonnou et al., Reference Hounkonnou, Kossou, Kuyper, Leeuwis, Nederlof, Röling, Sakyi-Dawson, Traoré and Van Huis2012; Hounkonnou et al., in press).

Making changes at higher levels often requires more time and is political by nature, which may not well align with the perceived mandate of AR4D organisations (Schut et al., Reference Schut, van Asten, Okafor, Hicintuka, Mapatano, Nabahungu, Kagabo, Muchunguzi, Njukwe, Dontsop-Nguezet, Sartas and Vanlauwe2016b). Nevertheless, the spin-offs from achieving changes at policy level may lead to the desired agricultural development outcomes. AR4D organisations can find strategic partners who are experienced in engaging high-level decision-makers. Davies et al. (Reference Davies, Maru, Hall, Abdourhamane, Adegbidi, Carberry, Dorai, Ennin, Etwire, McMillan, Njoya, Ouedraogo, Traoré, Traoré-Gué and Watson2018) describe how the engagement of an influential representative of a local chamber of agriculture in Burkina Faso developed a basis for gaining support from regional development policy actors, which created an enabling environment for the innovation platform to achieve its objectives.

Is the institutional environment conducive for an innovation platform approach?

Through their demand-driven approach and their capacity to expose and balance existing power inequalities, innovation platforms can create tensions within AR4D establishments (Hounkonnou et al., in press). Innovation platforms may request AR4D organisations to work on themes, commodities or value chains that are outside of their normal mandate or comfort zone (Schut et al., Reference Schut, Klerkx, Sartas, Lamers, Mc Campbell, Ogbonna, Kaushik, Atta-Krah and Leeuwis2016a). Such institutional tensions and the institutional innovations to deal with them are often the unintended consequences of working through innovation platforms, and can have widespread impacts in the sense of how organisations identify demand, work action-oriented and try to be relevant for their next- and end-users (van Paassen et al., Reference van Paassen, Klerkx, Adu-Acheampong, Adjei-Nsiah and Zannoue2014). Schut et al. (Reference Schut, Klerkx, Sartas, Lamers, Mc Campbell, Ogbonna, Kaushik, Atta-Krah and Leeuwis2016a) pointed out that many AR4D organisations face challenges in supporting and institutionalising innovation platform approaches and principles due to inflexible mandates, incentive structures, procedures and funding mechanisms. They questioned whether in the absence of such an enabling environment or unwillingness of organisations to embrace these tensions, innovation and other multi-stakeholder platforms can lead to real change, or whether that would just result in a continuation of ‘business as usual’. Similar tensions, and institutional and strategic barriers have been observed in other partnership approaches such as public–private partnerships, both within the AR4D sector (e.g. Hall, Reference Hall2006; Kilelu et al., Reference Kilelu, Klerkx and Leeuwis2017; Poulton and Macartney, Reference Poulton and Macartney2012; Spielman and von Grebmer, Reference Spielman and von Grebmer2006), as well as in other sectors (e.g. Faysse, Reference Faysse2006; Klijn and Teisman, Reference Klijn and Teisman2003; Warner, Reference Warner2006).

Are sufficient capacities and skills available?

Innovation platforms consist of multiple and heterogeneous groups of stakeholders with different interests, ideas and competencies in terms of what they can offer to the platform. Bringing together a group of stakeholders with diverse needs, interests and objectives is likely to lead to tensions, conflicts, manoeuvring to seek advantage and even group displacement, which can hinder collective action towards achieving development outcomes (Hinnou et al., Reference Hinnou, Mongbo, Kamanda and Sanyang2018; Kilelu et al., Reference Kilelu, Klerkx and Leeuwis2013, Reference Kilelu, Klerkx and Leeuwis2017; Ruttan, Reference Ruttan2008; Thiele et al., Reference Thiele, Devaux, Reinoso, Pico, Montesdeoca, Pumisacho, Andrade-Piedra, Velasco, Flores, Esprella, Thomann, Manrique and Horton2011). Innovation platforms are known to become arenas of struggle, as solutions for some members may create new obstacles for other members (Leeuwis, Reference Leeuwis2000). Moreover, power differences exist between different members (e.g. farmer versus government official), and not all members may have equal discussion and negotiation skills (Brouwer et al., Reference Brouwer, Hiemstra, Van Vugt and Walters2013; Cullen et al., Reference Cullen, Tucker, Snyder, Lema and Duncan2014b). Facilitation of interactions, collaborations, power dynamics and actions is needed to arrive at commonly agreed upon objectives (Tenywa et al., Reference Tenywa, Rao, Tukahirwa, Buruchara, Adekunle, Mugabe, Wanjiku, Mutabazi, Fungo, Kashaija, Pali, Mapatano, Ngaboyisonga, Farrow, Njuki and Abenakyo2011). Innovation platforms are also known to have successfully contributed to prevention of conflict and resolution of disputes (in crop-livestock systems) (Davies et al., Reference Davies, Maru, Hall, Abdourhamane, Adegbidi, Carberry, Dorai, Ennin, Etwire, McMillan, Njoya, Ouedraogo, Traoré, Traoré-Gué and Watson2018). Depending on the specific body of literature, such facilitation has been referred to as ‘championing’ (Klerkx et al., Reference Klerkx, Adjei-Nsiah, Adu-Acheampong, Saïdou, Zannou, Soumano, Sakyi-Dawson, Van Paassen and Nederlof2013), ‘brokerage’ (Madzudzo, Reference Madzudzo2011), ‘boundary spanning’ (Fleming and Waguespack, Reference Fleming and Waguespack2007) or ‘promoting’ (Fichter, Reference Fichter2009).

Researchers and development practitioners engaged in AR4D projects are increasingly called upon to act as facilitators (Cadilhon, Reference Cadilhon2013b). Stakeholders in an innovation platform that is in its early stage may not feel confident to facilitate; they may look to project implementers and researchers to take the lead (Glin et al., Reference Glin, Fatunbi, Kouévi and Togbé2016). When researchers act as facilitators, conflicts of interest may arise, and they may confront problems about ambiguity of roles and responsibilities, or they can be viewed by other actors as competitors rather than as neutral or legitimate facilitators (Devaux et al., Reference Devaux, Andrade-Piedra, Horton, Ordinola, Thiele, Thomann and Velasco2010; Klerkx et al., Reference Klerkx, Hall and Leeuwis2009). Facilitation may also be shared between various people, e.g. through establishment and IP coordination and facilitation team (Hinnou et al., Reference Hinnou, Mongbo, Kamanda and Sanyang2018) which can in itself be a strategy to build a collaborative ethos and shared ownership in the innovation platform.

To effectively support innovation platforms, competence and skills of facilitators may need to be strengthened through training, coaching and mentoring (Sanyang et al., Reference Sanyang, Taonda, Kuiseu, Coulibaly and Konaté2016). Competencies and skills often go beyond fulfilling solely knowledge brokerage or knowledge management roles, but also require stimulating demand articulation, collective problem analysis with diverse stakeholders, supporting joint decision-making, multi-level network building, mobilising institutional and political support and managing overcoming power inequalities (Kilelu et al., Reference Kilelu, Klerkx, Leeuwis and Hall2011; Schut et al., Reference Schut, Leeuwis, van Paassen and Lerner2011). In doing so, facilitators do much more than just organise and manage platform meetings. They ensure transparency of discussions and negotiations, and that innovation platforms stay solution- and action-oriented so they can reach their objectives. Additional competencies of facilitators can include (1) bringing about changes in the values, attitudes and self-perception of those who engage in innovation platform activities; (2) keeping an innovation platform functional even without external funding; (3) developing the innovation platform's capacity to move from individual to collaborative activities, with the ability to self-organise and learn; (4) providing mechanisms for accountability and feedback within the innovation platform and (5) establishing lessons with other innovation platforms for learning and collective action. Facilitation requires substantial financial investments (Cadilhon, Reference Cadilhon2013b; Glin et al., Reference Glin, Fatunbi, Kouévi and Togbé2016; Swaans et al., Reference Swaans, Cullen, van Rooyen, Adekunle, Ngwenya, Lema and Nederlof2013b).

Organising effective monitoring, evaluation and learning (ME&L)

Impact assessment of innovation platforms and their effectiveness is a contentious issue, and suitable ME&L tools for multi-stakeholder innovation processes in AR4D are limited (Davies et al., Reference Davies, Maru, Hall, Abdourhamane, Adegbidi, Carberry, Dorai, Ennin, Etwire, McMillan, Njoya, Ouedraogo, Traoré, Traoré-Gué and Watson2018; Swaans et al., Reference Swaans, Puskur, Taye and Haile2013c). They produce either qualitative case studies from which data cannot be easily generalised or quantitative impact assessments that do not provide insights into ongoing process dynamics (Sartas et al., Reference Sartas, Schut, Leeuwis, Ӧborn, Vanlauwe, Phillips, Thomas, Brooijmans and Atta-Krah2017). New tools to effectively monitor, evaluate and learn in innovation platforms have been developed and tested. Cadilhon (Reference Cadilhon2013a) developed a conceptual framework, using quantitative research methods to assess the impact of innovation platforms. The framework has been applied in Ghana and Tanzania to evaluate the impact of innovation platforms on marketing relationships (Adane-Mariami et al., Reference Adane-Mariami, Cadilhon and Werthmann2015; Pham et al., Reference Pham, Cadilhon and Maass2015). Another is the learning system for agricultural research for development (LESARD), which provides integrated quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis tools to assess the performance of multi-stakeholder processes (Sartas et al., Reference Sartas, Schut, Leeuwis, Ӧborn, Vanlauwe, Phillips, Thomas, Brooijmans and Atta-Krah2017).

Without appropriate ME&L mechanisms, innovation platforms run the risk of not being able to provide proof of their success or share important learning experiences. ME&L also provides a mechanism to have quick feedback from the innovation platform members so that that a timely adjustment in the innovation platform focus or strategy can be made. This reduces the risk of investing valuable time, energy and financial resources in activities that do not lead to the desired outcomes. The need for continuous reflection, learning and adaptation based on robust ME&L is an essential design principle of innovation platforms (Swaans et al., Reference Swaans, Cullen, Rooyen, Adekunle, Ngwenya, Lema and Nederlof2013a).

What are the costs of innovation platforms?

There is very little information on the costs of innovation platforms in an AR4D project, and – to the best knowledge of the authors – no cost or cost-benefit analysis has been conducted on innovation platforms in an AR4D context. As mentioned before, innovation platforms are human- and financial-resource intensive, and research and development donors will require evidence on the return on investments. Innovation platform costs vary, depending on the (1) type of organisation that is implementing/supporting the innovation platform (average staff costs in international organisations are usually much higher than average staff costs in local NGOs); (2) type of innovation that is being explored, e.g. planting distance or intercropping practices (relatively cheap) versus local processing that requires machinery (relatively expensive); (3) level at which the innovation platform is operating (higher level platforms are usually more expensive); (4) number of innovation platform members (more farmers or other members involved can increase operational and support costs); (5) level of platform support functions required (e.g. facilitator, logistics, documentation, and so forth); (6) spin-off activities that emerge as the platform starts to operate (innovation platforms must have flexibility to cover unplanned but important activities); (7) proximity of facilitators to implementation sites (platform facilitation has to be monitored, so having a local facilitator can make a difference to operational costs) and (8) time for preparing, holding and following-up on meetings, and for general exchange, searching for compromises and documentation (transaction costs).

As becomes clear from Box 1, most of the initial costs of innovation platforms are investments in the institutional set-up of the platform or the organisation in general. These are not costs that often quickly result in benefits or outcomes. Buizer (Reference Buizer2016) conducted cost analysis of two innovation platforms and its overarching steering committee in Uganda. She concluded that the innovation platform costs are approximately US$83.29 per farmer per year (Box 1). We are aware that we cannot use the Ugandan case to draw firm conclusions on whether innovation platforms provide value for money. To do that, we need to compare the costs of innovation platforms with other approaches of innovation design, testing and dissemination. That is, compare the costs of a platform with the costs of dissemination through extension services or the services provided by agribusinesses (contract farming approaches) to their members. Work by IFAD (1998) published in Quizon et al. (Reference Quizon, Feder and Murgai2015) demonstrated that for Farmer Field Schools (FFS) in Uganda, high allowances, transportation costs and several layers of supervision programmes could make extension cost up to US$53 per FFS-trained farmer for a one-season long training, excluding the costs of trainer salaries. Several studies show that diffusion of innovation to non-FFS participants has been disappointing (e.g. Rola et al., Reference Rola, Jamias and Quizon2002). Empowerment and innovation skills of FFS participants were expected to generate economic multiplier effects and more long-term behavioural change of participants, which is similar to the expected outcomes of innovation platforms. When comparing costs of innovation platforms with the costs of government extension services in Uganda, we calculated that the costs per farmer are US$7.36 per farmerFootnote ¹. Using an alternative analysis, we could also conclude that the innovation platforms that Buizer analysed, should at least benefit 2357 farmers in order to be competitive with the FFS approach, or even 16 974 farmers in order to be competitive with the incumbent government extension services system.

Innovation platforms are resource intensive, and research and development donors will require evidence on the return on financial and human resource investments against outcomes and impacts. Mapping the costs of innovation platforms is an important first step towards conducting (long-term) cost-benefit analysis and showing whether innovation platforms can provide value for money. International NGOs and AR4D organisations often provide funding to kick-start innovation platforms. However, this funding is usually available for a limited period and may not be sufficient to meet all the costs associated with the establishment and facilitation of the platform. Continuous support may moreover have a reversed effect on platform ownership, as innovation platform members may not feel fully responsible for the costs and investments. Innovation platforms that are supported through AR4D projects should therefore develop strategies for reducing (financial) dependence on these projects. If engaging in the platform results in obvious benefits, the innovation platform can attract financial resources or other types of support from the private or public development sector. In Bolivia, for example, the private sector took a more proactive role and sought additional funding for the ANDIBOL (Andino Boliviana) multi-stakeholder platform for linking smallholder farmers to value chains (Thiele et al., Reference Thiele, Devaux, Reinoso, Pico, Montesdeoca, Pumisacho, Andrade-Piedra, Velasco, Flores, Esprella, Thomann, Manrique and Horton2011). Davies et al. (Reference Davies, Maru, Hall, Abdourhamane, Adegbidi, Carberry, Dorai, Ennin, Etwire, McMillan, Njoya, Ouedraogo, Traoré, Traoré-Gué and Watson2018) explain that ‘In Amantin and Savelugu [Ghana], the registration of the IP as a cooperative was identified as a factor that explained its outcome because this structure was considered to balance the self-interest and shared interest of members.’ Cadilhon et al. (Reference Cadilhon, Diep and Maass2016) illustrate this using the case of the Tanga Dairy Platform that successfully lobbied policy makers to reduce value-added tax on dairy inputs and products, and remove limitations on urban dairy farming in Tanga City, Tanzania.

What are the benefits for innovation platform members?

Innovation platforms can create different types of benefits for its members. These benefits include, but are not limited to (1) a space where each platform member has access to a variety of experts who could enhance their skills, including farmers, researchers, private sector and government; (2) a protected niche where a group of people can experiment, learn and make mistakes without it having huge negative consequences; (3) increased credibility and legitimacy as a result of speaking with a collective voice when the objective is to create change at different levels; (4) a better power and bargaining position as a group for accessing knowledge, inputs, finance, markets and other types of services and (5) network building for developing new initiatives, enterprises and projects (Boogaard et al., Reference Boogaard, Klerkx, Schut, Leeuwis, Duncan and Cullen2013).

Among organisations that implement innovation platforms, there is debate on whether and how innovation platform members should be compensated for being part of the innovation platform, and in line with Nederlof et al. (Reference Nederlof, Wongtschowski and van der Lee2011) we advise against financial incentives for platform members. Reimbursement of – for example – transport costs can be considered, especially for those participants who are not supported by their constituencies. Benefits should result from the above-mentioned activities and the opportunities that platform membership provides. As membership in innovation platforms is voluntary, members who feel that the platform is not benefitting them sufficiently are free to leave it.

As elaborated earlier, innovation platforms need financial and human resource investments. Facilitation, platform establishment, platform activities and ME&L incur costs that cannot be expected to be carried by the platform members from the beginning. That said, the platform should develop a strategy for becoming independent of permanent outside financial and technical support (e.g. through a development project). Innovation platforms are known to transit into cooperatives (Davies et al., Reference Davies, Maru, Hall, Abdourhamane, Adegbidi, Carberry, Dorai, Ennin, Etwire, McMillan, Njoya, Ouedraogo, Traoré, Traoré-Gué and Watson2018) where platform members make a small financial contribution to the platform's costs. Platforms can also cease to exist once its members feel the mission has been accomplished, or when motivation levels have dropped.

What strategies can support the scaling of innovation platform processes and outcomes?

Innovation platforms initiated through AR4D projects often have the ambition to have impact beyond the initial target area or direct beneficiaries (Duncan et al., Reference Duncan, Teufel, Ravichandran, Hendrickx and Ballantyne2015). Such processes of scaling innovation platform processes and outcomes should be an integral design element of innovation platforms and the manner in which they are implemented. The literature (e.g. Hermans et al., Reference Hermans, Sartas, van Schagen, van Asten and Schut2017) distinguishes between two types of scaling: outscaling and upscaling. Outscaling refers to the horizontal diffusion of innovations to individuals or organisations at the same level (e.g. from one district to another district). Upscaling refers to the embedding of processes or technologies at higher levels (e.g. institutionalisation of new cropping practices in policies). For the innovation platform members (e.g. farmers), the scaling of innovations may not always be beneficial. If there is competition among platform members and secondary beneficiaries, then scaling is challenging. There need to be clear benefits for the platform members to scale out, for example, developing a local brand or production standard that requires a critical mass or a large buyer who requires a minimum quantity produced in one region. An example is the maize innovation platform established by the DONATA Project in The Gambia where women farmers collectively packaged, labelled and sold maize flour and grits in standard bags (Sanyang et al., Reference Sanyang, Pyburn, Mur and Audet-Belanger2014). Another example is from the Bante and Glazoue rice innovation platforms established under the SARD-SC project in Benin that developed brands for local white and parboiled rice (Sanyang et al., Reference Sanyang, Taonda, Kuiseu, Coulibaly and Konaté2016).

Innovation platforms can fulfil an important function in the pathway leading to the scaling of agricultural innovations. Through their participatory approach to identifying and analysing problems, and designing and testing innovations to overcome those problems, they have a higher likelihood to result in solutions that are not only technically sound, but also affordable for farmers and coherent with government policies and objectives. However, if the basic innovation platform features are not respected (e.g. innovation platforms for implementing pre-cooked AR4D projects, with limited participation space for farmers and scaling partners to influence the AR4D agenda), the basis for scaling of innovation may be compromised (Wigboldus et al., Reference Wigboldus, Klerkx, Leeuwis, Schut, Muilerman and Jochemsen2016). As mentioned before, the involvement of farmers, policymakers and the private sector in decision-making and innovation processes provides an important precondition for supporting the wider use and spread of validated technologies and other types of innovations developed in innovation platforms. Public and private scaling partners can be strategically engaged from the early stages of innovation platform establishment, be allocated explicit roles in the innovation platform (e.g. in an advisory or steering committee) and/or be involved in the developing strategies that align with their core business, values and strategies (Klijn and Teisman, Reference Klijn and Teisman2003; Lamers et al., Reference Lamers, Schut, Klerkx and van Asten2017).

Whether innovation platforms can support or play a role in large-scale diffusion or scaling of agricultural innovations also depends on their institutional embedding. A recent meta review in Schut et al. (Reference Schut, Cadilhon, Misiko and Dror2018) of mature innovation platforms concluded that innovation platforms need to be firmly embedded in private or public mechanisms and broader networks that have the capacity to reach target populations beyond the original scope of the innovation platform. Innovation platforms run the risk of staying solitary initiatives if they are not firmly linked to such existing mechanisms and networks, which reduces the chance of having impact beyond the direct beneficiaries.

Which additional mechanisms and arrangements may be needed to broaden the coverage and impact of innovation platforms?

Once an appropriate combination of stakeholders is defined, it is critical to define the process and associated institutional arrangements for collaboration. Innovation platforms may start off with a very focussed approach to addressing a specific or number of problem(s). In an initial stage, a rather loose arrangement, based on clearly defined goals, roles, activities, results and resource needs, may suffice. As the number of stakeholders and the size of operations increases, more formalised institutional arrangements may be needed to govern the innovation platform, its process and its benefits. This may involve the creation of subgroups with specific contracts within and between them. Over time, it may also be worthwhile to consider obtaining a legal entity (e.g. as cooperative) for an innovation platform to enhance its sustainability in terms of independence, its (monetary and non-monetary) benefits for its members, and its potential to become eligible for donations or credit. A comparative case study paper by Davies et al. (Reference Davies, Maru, Hall, Abdourhamane, Adegbidi, Carberry, Dorai, Ennin, Etwire, McMillan, Njoya, Ouedraogo, Traoré, Traoré-Gué and Watson2018) providing examples of improved financial access for innovation platform members as a result of the innovation platform's negotiation with finance providers.