Five principles of co-innovation

By Helen Percy, James Turner and Wendy Boyce

authors_helen-percy_james-turner_wendy-boyce
1. Helen Percy (biography)
2. James Turner (biography)
3. Wendy Boyce (biography)

What is co-innovation and how can it be applied in practice in a research project?

Co-innovation is the process of jointly developing new or different solutions to a complex problem through multi-participant research processes – and keeping these processes alive throughout the research.

Our experience has been applying co-innovation as a research approach to address complex problems in an agricultural context, however, the principles apply well beyond agriculture. Co-innovation is most suited to hard-to-solve technical, social, cultural and economic challenges. Such challenges have no obvious cause and effect relationships, as well as many different players with a stake in the research problem and solution. These include policy makers, industry, community members, first nations representatives and others who are involved in the research as partners and stakeholders.

Co-innovation as a research approach

One way to think about co-innovation is as a research approach which emphasises working with others at each stage of the research process (see figure below). The first stage (co-design) includes the design of the research issues and outcomes with partners and stakeholders. Once the issues and outcomes of the research are designed, the next stage (co-develop) is to develop the details of the research process. This should include the shared development of an evaluation framework, and ways for the research team to learn and adapt the research as it proceeds. Processes to share the results and implement the findings are required during, and at the end of, the research.

An indication of the steps in the co-innovation research process, adapted from Boyce et al., 2016

Our work has indicated that there are five key principles to co-innovation that can be applied in research projects, as illustrated in the figure below. Here we outline what they are and provide links to some of the tools and processes that we use to support these in practice. Note these principles are in no order of priority.

 

Principles of success for co-innovation, Boyce et al., 2016

1. Involve Partners and Stakeholders

This is about identifying and involving those who will benefit from the research in order to understand the problem from the beginning and develop solutions together throughout the research process.

Questions to ask:

  • Does your project include people who can help to understand the nature of the problem (or opportunity) and its causes?
  • Does the project include opportunities to work with people who could influence the implementation of the research, including those who could take the ideas to the market (entrepreneurs) or create the rules supporting implementation (policy makers)?
  • Do the partners and stakeholders understand their role in the research project?

2. Take a Problem Focus

In research we often want to jump straight into the ‘doing’ without clearly identifying the problem that is being addressed. A co-innovation approach means putting the problem at the centre (rather than the technology or end-user). For example, in our agricultural context, it is not about the farmer (as the end user) who needs to change, but about everyone (researchers, farmers, policy makers, industry etc) addressing the shared problem together rather than focussing on their own ideas.

Questions to ask:

  • Does the project include activities to first identify the problem or opportunity?
  • Are you able to repeat these activities at key points in your research process to maintain a problem focus?
  • Have you taken a broad view of the system by describing the technical, social, cultural, economic, market and political aspects of the problem and solution?
  • Are there opportunities to change activities to reflect changes in understanding of the problem (eg., stop/go milestones or explicit re-planning steps)?

3. Assemble and nurture the right team

In addition to the technical skills, there need to be people with collaborative skills who can strengthen the team’s ability to co-innovate. These are people who can take a broader view of the system and act as translators or brokers between the researchers, and partners and stakeholders. Collaborative and open leadership is also important.

Questions to ask:

  • Do you have people in the team (or access to people) with skills such as system thinkers, facilitators, translators and brokers?
  • Have you allowed enough time up front to fully understand the language and approaches of the different disciplines and perspectives in your research team?

4. Front up – share results early and often

This means that data and results are shared as they emerge, rather than waiting until the end of the research. This helps to understand how the results fit with user knowledge, identify new questions, check that the results are meaningful and/or relevant to users, and keeps the partners and stakeholders engaged in the research process.

Questions to ask:

  • Do you have regular activities with stakeholders to hear, reflect on, learn from, and provide feedback on the research? (For example, project workshops or field days?)
  • Does the project include opportunities and resources for non-research partners to contribute data, knowledge and skills?

5. Plan- Do- Observe- Reflect: action learning cycle

This principle is about building in a rapid action learning cycle of Plan-Do-Observe (monitor)-Reflect to enable projects to maintain a focus on action, as well as adapting to changing circumstances and quickly seizing new opportunities for success. One good way to do this is to build in monitoring and evaluation activities from the beginning, using participatory processes with a focus on reflection and learning.

Questions to ask:

  • Have you built in monitoring and evaluation from the beginning of the project and sufficient time and resources to support this?
  • Does the project include resources and time for reflecting on progress with partners and stakeholders?

What’s your experience with co-innovation?

What has been your experience of co-innovation? Do you have any additional or different principles to add?

To find out more:
Boyce, W., Percy, H., Turner, J., Fear, A., Mills, T. and Craven, C. (2016). Building co-innovation into your research proposal. Beyond Results from AgResearch  and AgResearch Āta mātai, mātai whetū. Christchurch, New Zealand/Aotearoa. (Online):
https://www.beyondresults.co.nz/assets/Documents/cbaa885462/Guide-to-Co-innovation-FINAL-v2.pdf (PDF  624KB)

The tools and approaches below are available on our website: https://www.beyondresults.co.nz/:

Biography: Helen Percy MMS is a science impact leader at AgResearch Ltd. in Hamilton, New Zealand. For the past five years she has been leading AgResearch’s Adoption and Practice Change implementation programme – a cross-organisational change programme to achieve enhanced impact from research.

Biography: James Turner PhD is a senior economist at AgResearch Ltd in Hamilton, New Zealand. He studies, develops and evaluates approaches to enhancing the impact of science in agriculture through extension, participatory research, co-innovation and collaborative processes. James has 20 years’ research experience in forest and agricultural management and economics.

Biography: Wendy Boyce M.Phil. is a reflexive monitor with AgResearch Ltd in Hamilton, New Zealand. She is a collective impact advisor and community biodiversity activator. She grew up on a farm at the base of Maungatautari, near Waikato River.

4 thoughts on “Five principles of co-innovation”

  1. Thank you for this interesting and informative blog post. I am conducting research in Egypt on remediation of water pollution via eco-friendly approaches and I am using your five principles to inform my work.

    One of the challenges we experienced was deciding when to involve stakeholders from industry and government. We decided to delay involving them until we could be sure the newly developed techniques could be scaled up to fulfil real-world application. This turned out to be a good move because even though the first technology we tried worked to purify water in the laboratory, we could not find a way to scale it up. We are still working on this aspect.

    I can endorse your suggestions about assembling and nurturing the right team. We have a mix of team members who have known each other for a long time, one of whom has brought in new international collaborators. One of the team is particularly skilled at collaboration and has the right personality to help resolve problems constructively.

    I agree also with your proposition on the importance of sharing results early and often to keep the team on the right track. I can add here that continuous sharing of the results also has a role in skill building within our team by sharing the techniques used for getting some of the results.

    Thanks again for sharing your work. I thought you might be interested to know that it’s proving useful in another country and problem context.

    Reply
    • Hi Rania, Thank you for your comment, and great to hear that you are trying out this approach with your work in Egypt. I agree that it can be difficult to know when to involve stakeholders, especially when your research is in the early stages. However, early conversations with your government and industry stakeholders are valuable as, firstly, they may help direct your research in a direction that will be useful for those who will ultimately be implementing it, and secondly their early involvement increases the likelihood of buy-in and uptake at the scale up stage.

      It is good to read that you were able to identify a mix of the right team members, and recognize that while not everyone has collaborative skills, the important thing is to have someone on the team who can take that role. Kind regards, Helen

      Reply
      • Hi Helen … Thank you for your reply .. I agreed with you that it would be ideal if we could involve stakeholders from the beginning of early stages of research. However, another way of thinking is considering the time for stakeholder engagement according to the purpose of their engagement. Since we proposed that the engagement of industry and government is to ensure the impact of our new technology and transferring it to real application, we think engaging them when a positive outcome is obtained would be a better choice. Another reason for this choice is to avoid losing the trust of potential cooperative stakeholders if we could not achieve the aim of the research in a satisfactory way.
        Thank you for your helpful article and your comment.
        Kind regards
        Rania

        Reply

Leave a Reply to Helen Percy Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: