2. Strategy, management and culture to create an enabling environment for innovation

Abstract

Strategy, leadership and management provide the stimulus for and space in which innovation approaches can flourish and thrive while cultures, capacities and mindsets create an enabling environment for innovation efforts. This chapter looks at how innovation features in OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members’ institutional ambitions, strategies and policy statements. While leadership support for innovation has been strong at the level of policies, statements and speeches, the chapter identifies scope for more comprehensive support for new ways of working and behaviours. The chapter also identifies the aspects in the organisational culture of DAC members that support creative and novel approaches and those that need improvement to establish innovative organisations.

    

Key messages

Innovation is increasingly included in the overarching institutional ambitions of DAC members in relation to their development co-operation and humanitarian assistance efforts. This chapter explores the strategic intentions, managerial approaches and organisational culture that support innovation among DAC members.

• Strategy, leadership and management provide the stimulus for innovation and the motivation and space in which innovation approaches can flourish and thrive. Organisational cultures, capacities and mindsets create an enabling environment for innovation efforts.

• Innovation features explicitly and implicitly as part of many DAC members’ institutional ambitions, strategies and policy statements. There is a spectrum of strategic progress across the DAC membership, covering emerging experimenters, fast developers and established integrators. Innovation plays a number of roles, including: using scarce resources more efficiently and effectively, maximising impact on intended beneficiaries, capitalising on new technologies, accessing ideas from outside the development and humanitarian sector, and transforming international co-operation efforts.

• There are many strategic and thematic silos within DAC members, and innovation has sat on top of these silos rather than being used as a means of bridging them. There are also silos between innovation-related efforts, and between innovation efforts and the “mainstream” efforts of DAC member organisations.

• Many innovation strategies are based on an implicit assumption of “innovation push” to developing countries, as opposed to “innovation facilitation” with and for actors in developing countries.

• Leadership support for innovation has been strong at the level of policies, statements and speeches, but has not always translated into comprehensive support for new ways of working, new behaviours and new processes.

• There is no single organisational culture of innovation among DAC members. Instead, multiple alternative cultures can be observed – some supporting innovation, but others opposing it.

• Innovation skills and capacity development mechanisms have been ad hoc and limited by resource constraints. More has been invested in establishing innovation programmes and activities, and less in the capacities needed to be an innovative organisation.

How do strategy, leadership and management work to foster innovation?

Strategy, leadership and management provide the stimulus for innovation and create the enabling environment in which innovation mindsets and approaches can flourish and thrive. This includes helping to create the context for innovation, encouraging and incentivising participation, fostering a culture where novel ideas are generated and followed, and investing in supporting systems and processes.

Current state of play

Responses to the DAC survey, DAC member documentation and wider literature suggest that many DAC members have been working on initiatives to design, develop, implement and scale innovative and creative solutions for development and humanitarian assistance. In some cases, this work spans decades and builds on various other related efforts (see Box 2.1).

Box 2.1. Historical examples of innovation from Sweden and France

In the 1980s, several Swedish agencies, including the Swedish International Development Agency (Sida), funded research that immunologists Jan Holmgren and Ann-Marie Svennerholm conducted at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital in Gothenburg. Working with researchers at the International Centre for Diarrhoeal Disease Research, Bangladesh (icddr,b), they developed the first cholera vaccine, although for many years it was predominately only used by travellers to areas where cholera was present.

Thanks to collaboration with pharmaceutical companies in India, Korea and Viet Nam, the vaccine was further developed and manufactured, with a focus on producing a safe, effective and cheap vaccine that poor communities could access. Swedish development co-operation supported each step of the research and development process, from initial discovery to testing, piloting, commercialisation, pro-poor adaptations, international approval, pre-WHO qualification, production and global distribution. In 2019, Holmgren and John D. Clemens, Director of icddr,b, were awarded the Prince Mahidol Award, one of the world’s most prestigious global health awards (Sida, 2019[1]).

Unitaid is an innovative global health initiative largely financed by a levy on air tickets. Established in 2006, it provides sustainable funding to tackle inefficiencies in markets for medicines, diagnostics and prevention of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in the global South. Since 2006, Unitaid has provided funding to implementing partners to carry out 24 projects, and has committed over USD 2 billion. An independent evaluation in 2012 found that Unitaid’s achievements “would not have been possible without strong leadership from France”. In particular, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs led the way in advocating for and establishing the cross-country airline tax, which contributes two-thirds of Unitaid’s budget, and French direct contributions make up more than half of Unitaid’s total budget. As well as being an innovative financing mechanism, Unitaid itself is a supporter and amplifier of innovation. By investing in the most promising innovations in prevention, diagnosis and treatment, Unitaid is speeding up adoption of the most effective and least expensive tools and solutions, increasing the impact of supported programmes. Recent research shows that EUR 1 invested by Unitaid yields a return of seven to ten times the initial investment (Unitaid, 2018[2]).

As these two examples illustrate, innovation efforts have linkages to other efforts to improve on and enhance Development Assistance Committee (DAC) members’ work. These include:

• collective action and advocacy across DAC members and more widely (as in the Unitaid case)

• science for development/research for development – investment is furthering knowledge and capacity through systematic and purposeful investigation in the global North and South (as in the cholera vaccine case)

• evidence-based development policy and practice, emphasising the skills and capacities of staff within donor agencies to gather, assess and use evidence.

Source: Sida (2019[1]), Successful Support for Cholera Vaccines Saves Thousands, www.sida.se/English/press/current-topics-archive/ 2019/successful-support-for-cholera-vaccines-saves-thousands; Unitaid (2018[2]), Unitaid: Innovation In Global Health, https://unitaid.org/ unitaid-ar-1617/pdf/Annual-report2016-17.pdf.

While these efforts are clearly of importance and significance, it is evident from the member survey and case studies that innovation has taken on a more explicit focus and institutional relevance in the past decade. Innovation now features explicitly and implicitly as part of many DAC members’ institutional ambitions (20 out of 24 survey respondents responded positively). The term can be found in many, if not most, high-level strategies and policy statements, including ministerial statements and speeches, white papers, departmental strategies, and unit-specific strategies, including those relating to sectors, countries and themes.

These references to innovation suggest that across DAC members, there are a number of different roles and functions for innovation, including to:

• use scarce resources more efficiently and effectively

• maximise impact on the intended beneficiaries

• capitalise on new technologies, notably, but not exclusively, digital innovations

• access ideas from outside development, especially from the private sector, but also from science and academia

• transform international co-operation efforts in specific areas and in the way the sector works as a whole.1

As well as including innovation as a secondary objective in wider strategies and policies, some members also have innovation-focused statements that set out specific institutional commitments and ambitions. In around a third of responses, this is in the form of explicit strategies, policies or statements that relate to innovation specifically (see Box 2.2). Some of these strategic statements correspond to related areas such as digital development, frontier technologies or data for development.

Box 2.2. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s innovation strategy

Innovation strategy plays out at a number of different levels in the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), including:

• at the level of the whole of government (Australia Innovates agenda)

• department wide (as articulated in the 2017 white paper Opportunity, Security, Strength)

• the InnovationXchange (iXc) innovation programme (DFAT Innovation Strategy 2018-21 and related learning agenda; see Box 3.5)

• by technology area (e.g. cybersecurity or technology for development)

• by intervention (e.g. a particular innovation effort consisting of a package of interventions)

• by specific experiment (e.g. a particular pilot testing out new approaches).

The current DFAT Innovation Strategy 2018-21 is an exemplar of good practice among DAC members, especially in terms of its:

• explicit use of theories of change and the development of a coherent set of assumptions about how innovation can contribute to institutional change

• focus on enhancing capacities as the means of achieving sustainable improvements in innovation efforts – the approach taken helped to inform the current peer learning exercise.

Source: Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2018[3]), Innovation Strategy: 2018-21, https://d3qlm9hpgjc8os.cloudfront.net/ wp-content/uploads/2018/07/03095158/DFAT-Innovation-Strategy-FINAL.pdf.

Across all the case study organisations, there are numerous examples of senior-level support for more and better innovation in pursuit of organisational objectives and positive impacts on poor and vulnerable communities. These statements have taken on renewed urgency in light of the global agreements discussed in Chapter 1. Specifically, innovation is increasingly framed as essential if the international community is to deliver on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and meet global humanitarian needs.

Analysis of the survey responses indicated distinct stages of strategic progress across the DAC membership. One can imagine a spectrum, with emerging experimenters at one end, fast developers in the middle and established integrators at the other end (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1. Stages of strategic development in innovation among DAC members
Stage of strategic development	Nature of innovation portfolio
Emerging experimenters – members whose innovation work is relatively recent and small scale; linked to a specific programme or initiative such as health or job creation; they typically do not make innovation the responsibility of a dedicated staff member, but it might be part of a specific role.	Single niche – members in this group typically have a narrow set of innovation interventions in established areas such as digital or private sector development, driven by available capacities and resources.
Fast developers – members that have invested in innovation programmes, and in innovation capacity in the form of select flagship programmes and key individuals working to advise and support learning and networking, but are at a relatively early stage of institutional implementation and roll-out.	Distributed niches – members in this group typically already have a regional or thematic focus (e.g. the Horn of Africa, humanitarian) or an emphasis on a particular form of innovation (e.g. digital) or stakeholder (e.g. private sector), and overall efforts are aligned with these priorities.
Established integrators – members that have a dedicated team or capability for innovation, and some form of strategic or policy framework, as well as a portfolio of investments in different areas. Increasing attention is spent on evidence and learning for innovation, as well as investing in the skills and capabilities of the department in question.	Comprehensive – members in this group have a very broad approach to innovation and see it as a key imperative across the entire portfolio.
Note: This is presented not with the intention of ranking members, but rather to support self-reflection and learning, and is also used to provide tailored recommendations in Chapter 5.

Key issues for consideration

Innovation is often explicitly framed as a means of integrating efforts across institutional silos. In reality, however, strategic efforts in innovation are more often shaped and limited by these silos. For example, innovations in global health are among the most advanced in development and humanitarian work, thanks to significant investment by bilateral, multilateral and philanthropic donors over the past two decades. The lessons from global health innovations have, however, tended to stay anchored within the sub-sector, despite their considerable relevance for other sectors.

Silos are also apparent within and across innovation-related efforts. For many staff not working on innovation directly, innovation is part of an often confusing and interchangeable set of terms, which includes digital, technology, science, research and data. Moreover, there are also many silos between innovation and other functions of the organisation, including closely related and overlapping areas of strategy, policy, foresight and learning. There are clear opportunities to be realised in better joining up these efforts, especially in organisation-wide initiatives such as those focused on developing new strategies or strengthening leadership in the face of uncertainty and complexity.

The wide range of applications of innovation should be seen as a success and testament to the diversity of ways in which innovation ideas are informing development and humanitarian policies and programmes. That said, innovation risks becoming just another buzzword – sprinkled over strategic statements and speeches as a kind of “fairy dust”, to add sparkle and excitement. At a conceptual level, this broad usage risks diluting the strategic intent: if everything is labelled innovation, then nothing actually is.

In the context of the case study countries, multiple directions, ideas and approaches to innovation are indicated. Innovation can be about transformational or incremental change; it can focus on specific types of technology or on changes in behaviours and attitudes; and it can be about early-stage experiments or wider systemic transformation. It can focus on specific challenges within an area of development or humanitarian work (e.g. health) or it can be more generally in support of changing the way the sector as a whole works in response to a given challenge (e.g. in fragile states, or gender and empowerment).

This is the inevitable result of operational and thematic decentralisation in the case study countries, and the same phenomenon can also be observed in other areas of DAC members’ work. As elsewhere in development and humanitarian work, this multiplicity of uses can lead to confusion among staff about what exactly innovation is, and how and why it works. While not uncommon or necessarily problematic, it poses a challenge where there is no common clarity across an organisation.

This was often the case with innovation: many diverse perspectives were apparent in all of the case study countries, but the general attitude seemed to be to let a thousand innovation flowers bloom, rather than attempting to synthesise or integrate the different approaches.

What is common across many of the strategic innovation approaches reviewed as part of the DAC peer learning exercise (PLE) on innovation for development is that many are based on an implicit assumption of “innovation push” to developing countries, as opposed to “innovation facilitation” with and for actors in developing countries.

While senior managers are making a good case for innovation as a result, across the board their support for innovation as a process is less clear, especially in relation to issues of taking risks and managing failures: despite the leadership’s support for innovation at the level of statements and speeches, this has not always translated into comprehensive support for new ways of working and new behaviours.

This is especially apparent in those cases where senior managers place expectations of tangible and fast results from innovation investments, and underestimate the time required to move from promising ideas to development impacts. In some cases, senior leadership engagement with innovation can be erratic and hard to predict, and shaped by personal perspectives. These leadership behaviours can give rise to the impression of innovation efforts as both “pet projects” and somewhat transient.

How do culture, capacity and mindsets drive innovation?

Organisational cultures, capacities and mindsets create the driving force for innovation efforts. An innovation-enabling organisation is one where employees are empowered to innovate, where there is investment in relevant skills and abilities, individually and collectively, and where the prevailing attitudes towards exploring and experimenting are positive and tolerant.

Current state of play

How do organisational cultures support or inhibit innovation?

Across the focus countries, two of the most common reflections the peer learning teams encountered were:

• “We have always been innovative – it has been part of our raison d’être throughout our history.”

• “What is innovation really? No one really knows or can explain it.”

This apparent contradiction is in part because of the state of innovation in the sector more generally. While innovation management has existed for over a century in the business world, it is relatively new in development and humanitarian work. There is a strong shared belief among “innovation converts” of its potential to transform development and humanitarian practices and results.

Certainly, there is evidence that successful innovations can be transformative for the sector and poor and vulnerable communities around the world. The case study countries point to a number of historic “big wins” in innovation, from behaviour campaigns to vaccines and financial innovations. Numerous initiatives, projects and technical developments are underway across DAC member countries. Staff involved exhibit high levels of passion, motivation and enthusiasm for innovation work. Even when they are not directly involved in the process, many donor staff take special pride in innovation when it works.

That said, DAC members do not always consistently signal the importance and relevance of innovation to staff and partners. It is not clear if the innovation agenda has been anchored in organisational realities or insulated from political trends and fashions.

This also usefully illustrates that there is no single organisational culture around innovation among DAC members. Instead, multiple alternative cultures can be observed – some supporting innovation, others opposing it. While innovation can be seen as an emerging micro-culture, the prevailing organisational cultures in DAC member countries do not generally support creativity and innovation, although there are partial exceptions (see Box 2.3).

Box 2.3. How the Swedish International Development Agency’s flexible culture enables innovation

The Swedish International Development Agency (Sida)’s culture has long been recognised among the Development Assistance Committee’s membership as one characterised by consensus and compromise, which comes with the consequence of sometimes losing out on ideas due to long consultation processes. In general, though, individuals and groups have the freedom to create their own platforms for change. This applies both within the organisation, and across the development and humanitarian field more widely.

In innovation terms, this means there is a general openness to people developing their own ideas and approaches and testing them out in different settings. There is an openness to taking risks, as long as this is done in a responsible and ethical fashion.

However, this flexibility and autonomy can also make widespread adoption of novel solutions more challenging, as there is no overriding mechanism to push ideas towards an organisation-wide scale.

This is being addressed explicitly in the current Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Sida innovation agenda, with a greater focus on shared learning, building the evidence base for positive changes that result from innovation efforts, and making the case for innovation as an activity and a result, both inside and outside the organisation.

Source: Eriksson, C., B. Forsberg and W. Holmgren (2004[4]), Organisation Cultures at Sida, www.sida.se/contentassets/ abd946b4bbfc4725aea2aa04002a1807/organisation-cultures-at-sida_2527.pdf.

An important enabler of effective innovation management processes is the organisation’s risk appetite. Across the case study countries, it is clear that risk appetite varies considerably within and across organisational levels and units. Just as there is no single innovation culture, there is no single “risk management environment”. Instead, the types and levels of risks that are seen as manageable are a matter of individual and collective interpretation and capacity or toleration. Different teams and units have different risk management cultures and mindsets, in part due to “pockets” established by particular senior leaders who are willing to take a chance on new and creative approaches.

So, what is seen as possible in one country or in one sector, for example, might be a result of the specific leadership at country level, or thematic leadership of that group of sector specialists. There is evidence of this across all of the case study countries, where certain individuals were seen as helping to foster a positive enabling environment for innovation, which has changed for the worse since those individuals have moved on.

Across the case studies, a number of good practices on how to navigate the nexus between innovation and risk are evident:

• send clear signals about the importance of managing as opposed to minimising risk

• adjust risk appetite on an ongoing basis

• incorporate risk management into the entire innovation cycle, both at project and programme levels

• develop new competencies in risk management

• monitor risk management effectiveness.

How do individual and collective capacities and mindsets drive innovation?

Across the survey and case studies, DAC members mentioned a range of different capacities and skills:

• Development and humanitarian expertise and experience: innovators need to have – or be able to access – deep understanding of the challenges and problems poor and vulnerable communities face, and have a good sense of the limits and possibilities of existing approaches to dealing with them.

• Innovation programme design and management: to effectively design and oversee new funding schemes and other support mechanisms for innovation.

• Innovation technical backstopping: to provide advice and support to innovation commissioners, innovation programme designers, and managers and innovators.

• Innovation skills: to identify problems, generate ideas and proposals, implement and evaluate innovative projects, diffuse and scale approaches through communication and advocacy, and collaborate and organise for innovation (per the innovation capability framework used for the PLE).

Across each of these areas, work is underway within and across DAC members to strengthen the skills of staff and partners through a range of means, including formal training, coaching, mentoring and networking (see Box 2.4).

Box 2.4. The French Development Agency’s intrapreneurship scheme

In 2016, an expansion of the French Development Agency’s (Agence Française de Développement, AFD) mandate by the French Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs led to more financial resources and new sectoral and geographical fields of intervention. To help achieve this objective, the AFD established its first dedicated innovation team and lab, tasked with accelerating its ability to innovate and make the organisation more agile.

A flagship initiative for the new team was an internal innovation capacity development programme based on ideas of “intrapreneurship”. This sought out employees across the organisation with creative ideas for external or internal application, and provided resources and time for the ideas to be piloted. In parallel, it provided training and coaching for chosen intrapreneurs to learn relevant methods, including entrepreneurship, user-centred design, agile working, collaboration and organisational change methods.

As well as strengthening the likelihood of success of the specific innovation efforts, the capacity development programme established networks of internal and external champions dedicated to advancing projects, created networks between intrapreneurs and immersed them in the innovation ecosystem. The programme received a 100% satisfaction rating from the intrapreneurs and has been renewed and expanded for a new cohort of intrapreneurs.

Source: AFD (2019[5]), The AFD Workshop Accelerating Innovative Projects, www.afd.fr/en/actualites/afd-workshop-accelerating-innovative-projects.

Key issues for consideration

Innovation has not yet convinced the majority of staff in any DAC member of its value. In some organisations, certain senior managers and frontline staff may support innovation, but there is a “frozen middle”. In others, mid-level staff are the source of dynamism and creativity, whereas senior and frontline staff are more ambivalent. While the source of dynamism within the hierarchy varies across organisations, there are no unambiguously positive enabling environments for innovation, where innovation is a clearly accepted part of the organisational mainstream.

Related to this, incentives are not clear at the highest levels in DAC members. There are calls for creative and novel solutions, but not always support for new processes and ways of working, and existing processes do not enable innovation management to be undertaken in a robust, systematic and sustainable manner. Consequently, many staff members are still likely to see innovation as something that is “for others, not for me”.

Different types of risk have been conflated in the debate around innovation in DAC members. If one considers the OECD framework on risk management in relation to donors (Figure 2.1), it is clear that innovation risks can fit into the central segment on programmatic risk, but there are also common concerns about how they can lead to institutional risks. There is insufficient clarity about these different types of risk in innovation efforts. Of particular importance when assessing the quality and success of any new approach is the need to consider risk not just from a DAC member perspective, but also in terms of the risks of innovative approaches to end users and institutions in the countries where programmes are implemented.

Figure 2.1. Types of risk Development Assistance Committee members face

Source: Williams, G., A. Burke and C. Wille (2014[6]), Development Assistance and Approaches to Risk in Fragile and Conflict Affected States, www.oecd.org/dac/conflict-fragility-resilience/docs/2014-10-30%20Approaches%20to%20Risk%20FINAL.pdf.

In some members, experimental risk related to research is tolerated and accepted because it is not linked to specific programmes. In others, integrating research into programmes is seen as a way of mitigating risks. For some organisations, the risks of novel programming approaches are inseparable from institutional risks to reputation and fiduciary issues.

Of particular note are concerns about how concepts and ideas of innovation can be risky in the context of prevailing media attitudes to aid and the domestic political context in many DAC donors. Well-placed concerns about unfair criticisms have made many DAC members more sensitive to external perceptions of innovation. This does not always limit the space for innovation as an output. But it does make donors more concerned to not be seen to be “experimenting with taxpayers’ money”, increasing risk aversion and making members more likely to support conventional responses as opposed to novel ones. Paradoxically, while appetite for innovation might be increasing, willingness to openly support innovation as a process might be diminishing. This has been addressed directly by some DAC members – with one interesting illustration being how the Department for International Development (DFID) has developed two new categories of risk that relate to the potential downsides of not innovating (see Box 2.5).

Box 2.5. New risk categories currently being tested in DFID’s Emerging Policy, Innovation and Capability Team

Risk of stagnation: This refers to the relevance of development policy and programmes in fast-changing contexts. With increasing complexity, uncertainty and ever-increasing pace of change in external contexts, development institutions risk losing efficiency, effectiveness and relevance if practices are not constantly modified, updated and further progressed. To ensure that programmes are effectively delivered and institutions are fit-for-purpose, we need to be aware of external changes that can impact adversely on their outcomes or risk of being perceived as outdated by key stakeholders, including affected populations.

Risk of incrementalism: This risk category refers to efficiency and relevance risks at the portfolio level. It assumes a shared understanding that incremental advancements only will not suffice to achieve the SDGs and mitigate the global climate and biodiversity crisis. As fundamental changes are required on systems levels and breakthrough innovations are required, this risk category aims at critical reflection on the composition of entire portfolios, the explicit and deliberate trade-off of risks, certain rewards, and uncertain radical advancements on systems and single-point solutions levels. To ensure that there is explicit and deliberate balance of risk, ambition levels, targeted time horizons and expected returns at the portfolio level (rather than assessing these elements at the level of an individual investment/programme), we need to assess the portfolio composition and degrees of ambition and risk.

In the private sector, successful innovators are recognised as those who actively and consistently try to remove disablers and barriers to innovation; innovation leadership is as important as innovation management. In DAC members, it is recognised that good managers create the context for innovation. However, there is a desire to embed this in the institutional architecture in some way. This may be a misreading of what makes innovation work and how: it is precisely the human aspects of innovation that need to be strengthened and placed at the heart of the innovation agenda. As noted across all of the case study countries, there is no innovation without people.

There is general acknowledgement that not all programme or technical staff will be innovative, but not much is done about how to address this in different professional areas. Such skills are generally shared through tacit learning approaches, including mentoring and learning by doing.

Innovation commissioning and programme design and management are areas that external consultants and academics often support, as well as in-house innovation specialists. Mechanisms are emerging where those running particular funds come together to share lessons and experiences; the Sida Challenge Fund Learning Group is a good example. In particular, the trade-offs between learning and accountability that all programme managers overseeing a portfolio of investments face become very sharp in the context of innovation efforts, where more risks need to be taken and adequately managed.

Dedicated innovation teams in the case study countries typically balance innovation commissioning and programme management with technical advisory work. In general, these skills are not invested in. In particular, investment in organisational capacity for technical advice and support has not taken into account potential demand from across the organisations, so core innovation teams are considerably overstretched.

In general, much skills development has been in specific innovation areas, enabling staff to better understand how innovation processes work and how they can be implemented. There has also been investment in related areas of skills such as agile, user-centred design, etc. (as shown in Box 2.4). In general, however, these innovation skills and capacity development mechanisms have been ad hoc and limited by resource constraints. In general, the case study organisations have invested more in establishing innovation programmes and activities, and rather less in the capacities needed to be an innovative organisation.

As this work is currently structured and supported, therefore, it risks creating a two-tier system of innovation specialists with deep knowledge and generalists with little knowledge. Capacity for innovation needs to be considered more broadly than in terms of training alone. There are many opportunities and spaces to strengthen formal and informal learning, and to establish institutionalised mechanisms for strengthening staff capacity. These include:

• mentoring innovators and innovation leaders and enablers

• learning by doing on innovation projects and programmes

• staff exchanges across sectors and to/from external organisations

• cross-initiative learning across major innovation investments.

References

[5] AFD (2019), The AFD Workshop Accelerating Innovative Projects, French Development Agency, Paris, http://www.afd.fr/en/actualites/afd-workshop-accelerating-innovative-projects (accessed on 1 January 2020).

[3] Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (2018), Innovation Strategy 2018-21, Australia Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Barton, ACT, https://d3qlm9hpgjc8os.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/03095158/DFAT-Innovation-Strategy-FINAL.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2020).

[4] Eriksson, C., B. Forsberg and W. Holmgren (2004), Organisation Cultures at Sida, Swedish International Development Agency, Stockholm, http://www.sida.se/contentassets/abd946b4bbfc4725aea2aa04002a1807/organisation-cultures-at-sida_2527.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2020).

[1] Sida (2019), Successful Support for Cholera Vaccines Saves Thousands, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Stockholm, http://www.sida.se/English/press/current-topics-archive/2019/successful-support-for-cholera-vaccines-saves-thousands (accessed on 1 January 2020).

[2] Unitaid (2018), Unitaid: Innovation In Global Health, Annual Report 2016-2014, Unitaid, Vernier, Switzerland, https://unitaid.org/unitaid-ar-1617/pdf/Annual-report2016-17.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2020).

[6] Williams, G., A. Burke and C. Wille (2014), Development Assistance and Approaches to Risk in Fragile and Conflict Affected States, OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/dac/conflict-fragility-resilience/docs/2014-10-30%20Approaches%20to%20Risk%20FINAL.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2020).

Note

← 1. These roles and functions occur in approximately equal frequency in member innovation strategies and statements.