mid-term review of ideas to impactideastoimpact.net/sites/default/files/doc_research... · 1. ideas...

Mid-TermReviewofIdeastoImpact

ConductedforDepartmentforInternationalDevelopmentResearchandEvidenceDivision24February2017

TheLaw&DevelopmentPartnershipLtd

1-3StapleInn,LondonWC1V7QJ

T:+44(0)2076366856F:+44(0)2079006886

[email protected]


Page2of68

Contents

Executivesummary.......................................................................................5IntroductiontoIdeastoImpact.........................................................................................................5

MTRpurposeandapproach...............................................................................................................5

Cross-prizefindings............................................................................................................................5

Programmemanagementfindings....................................................................................................7

Strategicrecommendations...............................................................................................................9

Chapter1:Background................................................................................11TheIdeastoImpactprogramme......................................................................................................11

PurposeoftheMTR.........................................................................................................................17

Approachandmethodology............................................................................................................17

Chapter2:Programmelevelorcross-prizefindings–fivekeythemes.........19Prizes as a catalyst for innovation and problem solving: I2I is effectively testing its core

hypothesis.............................................................................................................................19

Outreach and participation: I2I has drawn in solvers ‘beyond the usual suspects’ but shouldcontinuetomitigatesolverrisk............................................................................................20

Prizesecosystems:I2Ishouldcapitaliseonecosystemstrengthsandaddressdeficits(particularlysolvercapacitygaps).............................................................................................................21

Innovative partnerships: I2I demonstrates that prizes can incentivise coalition building around‘thorny’developmentproblems...........................................................................................22

Balancing research and application: I2I should clarify relationships between prizedesign/implementation,evaluationandwiderknowledgesharing.....................................23

Chapter3:ClimateInformationPrize...........................................................25Background......................................................................................................................................25

Headlines.........................................................................................................................................25

Applicationandaward.....................................................................................................................26

Outreachandparticipation..............................................................................................................27

Prizemanagement...........................................................................................................................28

Partnershipsandcoordination........................................................................................................29

Valueformoney...............................................................................................................................29

Impactandsustainability.................................................................................................................30

Strategicrecommendations.............................................................................................................30


Page3of68

Chapter4:AdaptationatScale....................................................................32Background......................................................................................................................................32

Headlines.........................................................................................................................................32

Design,judgingandaward...............................................................................................................33



Monitoringandlearning..................................................................................................................35


Valueformoney...............................................................................................................................36

Impactandsustainability.................................................................................................................37


Chapter5:UrbanSanitationChallenge........................................................39Background......................................................................................................................................39

Headlines.........................................................................................................................................39

Application,judgingandaward.......................................................................................................40




Impact,sustainabilityandvalueformoney.....................................................................................43


Chapter6:DreampipeII..............................................................................45Background......................................................................................................................................45

Headlines.........................................................................................................................................45

DreampipeIandredesign................................................................................................................46

ImplementingDreampipeII.............................................................................................................46



Chapter7:GlobalLEAPRefrigerationPrize..................................................49Background......................................................................................................................................49

Headlines.........................................................................................................................................49




Page4of68


Monitoring,evaluationandlearning...............................................................................................51


Chapter8:Programmemanagement...........................................................53Governanceandmanagementarrangements.................................................................................53

Valueformoneyandfinancialperformance...................................................................................54

Chapter9:Strategicrecommendations........................................................56Programmeduration.......................................................................................................................56

Targetingprogrammeinvestments.................................................................................................56

Opportunitiesforscalingandreplication........................................................................................57

AnnexA: StatusofI2Iprizes.....................................................................59

AnnexB: Documentsconsulted................................................................62

AnnexC: Interviewees..............................................................................64

AnnexD: Exampleinterviewprotocol.......................................................66

of68

Executivesummary

IntroductiontoIdeastoImpact

1. Ideasto Impact(I2I) isafiveyear,£10.9mprogrammewhich istestingtheapplicationof innovationprizesasafundingmechanismforcatalysinginnovationonintractableproblemsintheenergy,waterandclimateadaptionsectors.

2. IMCWorldwideleadstheprogramme,managingaconsortiumwithwide-rangingexpertise.I2Iisstructuredaround five currently operational prize programmes, most of which are individually managed by animplementing agent, with cross-cutting support provided by prize designers and Itad on evaluation andlearning.

MTRpurposeandapproach

3. ThisMTRtakestheformofanoperationalreviewtoguidetheI2Iprogramme’sfuturestrategicdirectionandresourceallocation,aswellastoimprovevalueformoneywherepossible.Specifically,itseekstoaddresssixmainquestions:

§ Isthelevelofmanagementappropriateacrosstheprogramme?

§ Couldgovernanceandriskmanagementsystemsbeimproved?

§ Istheinvestmentinevaluationandresearchappropriate?

§ Howcanvalueformoneyacrosstheprogrammebeimproved?

§ HowcanDFIDandtheprogrammeenhanceimpactandensuresustainability?

§ Whereshouldfutureinvestmentsintheprogrammebetargetedand/orrestricted?

4. TheMTRhasusedqualitativemethodstoreviewI2I’sactivitiesacrossitsprizeportfolio.AnextensivereviewofprogrammedocumentsandI2Iproducts,aswellasprizeliterature,hasbeenundertakenandaseriesofsemi-structuredinterviewsconducted,includingfieldworkinGhana,KenyaandNepal.Datacollectionwasconductedaccordingtoacommonframeworktofacilitatecross-prizecomparisonsbutadaptedaccordingtothespecificobjectivesandcharacteristicsofeachprize.

Cross-prizefindings

5. Attheprogrammeorcross-prizelevel,theMTR’sfindingscentreonfivekeythemesormessages,asfollow:

Prizesasacatalystforinnovationandproblemsolving–I2Iiseffectivelytestingitscorehypothesis

§ I2Ihassetahighlevelofambitionbydeliberatelyselectingintractableproblemsaroundpathwaysto use (i.e. market/systems change). Valuable lessons have been learnt around rendering these‘softer’ problems ‘prizeable’ – that is, defining the parameters of problems to induce thedevelopmentofinnovativesolutionswhichcanberewardedviaaprizemodality.

of68

§ Prizes are effectively incentivising the development and deployment of innovativesolutions,andareona trajectory todeliveringa rangeof ‘prizeeffects’.Theexactnatureof thisincentive varies by solver, but relates asmuch to recognition associatedwith the prize as prizewinningsthemselves.However,theprogrammehassofarhadrelativelylittleopportunitytocollectrobustevidencearoundthevalueaddedbytheprizemodality.

§ Although not a comparative exercise, MTR findings suggest that prizes may offer added valuerelativetootherfundingmodalities–e,g,grants,loans,equityinvestments–vis-visreachingandincentivisingnewtypesofsolverthroughcompetitionandrecognition,andactingascatalystswhichbuild on and accelerate the momentum of existing enthusiasm and/or initiatives. However,comparedtomoreconventionaltypesoffunding,workingthroughprizesentailsadditionalcostsassociatedwiththe innovativenatureofmodality itself–not leastthe levelofeffort involvedinbuildingunderstandingofthemodalityamongstpotentialparticipants.

§ InfutureDFIDmightconsiderhybridfundingmodalitieswhentackling‘softer’problemsorworkingwithsolverswithmorelimitedcapacity–drawingonknowledgegeneratedbyI2Iastowhenandwherethecatalyticeffectoftheprizemodalityismosteffective.

Outreachandparticipation–I2Ihasdrawninsolvers‘beyondtheusualsuspects’butshouldcontinuetomitigatesolverrisk

§ Inducement prizes are argued to offer a means of reaching a wider group of participants thantraditionalfundingmechanisms.I2Iistestingthishypothesiseffectivelybytargetingawiderangeofdifferent solver types (government, CBO/NGO, SME). The programme team have, however,concludedapurefinancialincentivetobeinsufficienttoinducechangebylargerprivatesectorfirms,whoarealreadyprofit-driven.

§ Whether prize design has accurately anticipated the resources needed of participants and set areasonable risk/reward curve will be demonstrated in prize Stage 2s, where the (financial andopportunity)costsofentryaremuchhigher.I2Ishouldcontinuetomitigaterisksforapplicantsbyminimisingcostsandincreasingpotentialreward(e.g.byfacilitatingengagementwithothersourcesoffinance).

Prizeecosystems–I2Ishouldcapitaliseonecosystemstrengthsandaddressdeficits

§ I2Ihasattempted tonestleprizeswithin contextswithhigh levelsofexistinggovernment/donoractivityandsupportinfrastructure,withpositivebutvaryinglevelsofsuccess.Themaindeficitsinprizeecosystems1centreonsolvercapacitygaps.ItwillbenecessaryforI2Itoengageinadditionalsupportive activities for solvers to mitigate delivery risks, ensure impact and sustainability, andmaximisevalueformoney.

§ Prizesshouldensurethattheyarebuildingonthestrengthsoftheprizeecosystemsinwhichtheyareoperating–forexample,by leveragingtheresourcesofexistingprogrammesand institutionsworkinginthesectororengagingwithnationalpolicydevelopmentprocesses.

1Prizeecosystemisdefinedasresourcesavailabletosolvers(andhencepotentialbarrierstoaccess).

of68

Innovativepartnerships– I2Idemonstrates thatprizescan incentivisecoalitionbuildingaround‘thorny’developmentproblems

§ I2Idemonstratesthepotentialvalueofusingprizestoincentivisediverseactorstobuildcoalitionsaround development challenges, and is testing a range of donor, public-private andsupplier/financierpartnerships.

§ Whereprizeshavenotyet facilitated suchpartnerships, this representsa risk todelivery–mostnotablytothesustainabilityofsolutionswheresolversarenotwell-networkedtoleverageadditionalinvestment.

Balancingresearchandapplication–I2Ishouldclarifyrelationshipsbetweenprizedesign/implementation,evaluationandwiderknowledgesharing

§ I2Imay have been incentivised to place too great an emphasis onmaximising direct beneficiarynumbers.A‘litmustest’forprizescouldbethathighbeneficiarynumbersarenotpursuedattheexpenseofopportunitiestoinducethedevelopmentofgenuinelyinnovativesolutionswithpotentialforlargescale,albeitindirect,impact.

§ Staggered interventions have enabled valuable ad hoc sharing of lessons amongst prize teams.However,endofstageevaluationsof individualprizescouldhavebeendeliveredmorerapidlytofeedintoiterativeprizedesign.

§ MoreattentionandresourceshouldbedevotedtoI2I’swiderknowledgesharingandinfluencingagenda.Learningproducts shouldcapture learning relevant to theprogramme’scentral researchquestionsbutalsooperationallessonsaroundmanagingprizesinthedevelopmentsector.

Programmemanagementfindings

Governanceandmanagementarrangements

6. Leadership andmanagement of theprogramme is very strong. Relationships amongst the PMU, in-houseIMCprizemanagers,consortiumpartnersandimplementingagentsareopen,collaborativeandeffective.

7. I2Ioperatesadaptively,withDFIDprovidingeffectivesupporttothisapproachbyofferingadegreeofflexibility on management arrangements, whilst retaining effective oversight of implementation.Successful examples of adaptation in response to lessons learned and contextual changes includedecisionstoclosedowntheGhanaCleanCookingprizeandredesignDreampipe.

8. However, both working iteratively and through local implementing agents has necessitated highermanagementcoststhanoriginallyenvisaged.

9. Theprogrammecoulddomoretocaptureandsharewithanexternalaudiencelessonsaboutworkingadaptivelyintheinnovationsectorandonprizesspecifically.

of68

Riskmanagement

10. Managersatalllevelsdemonstrateasoundawarenessofmajordeliverrisks,whichtendtocentreon:operating environment (e.g. changes to political environments, security and corruption concerns,naturaldisasters);insufficientsolverinterest(lowregistrationnumbers,poorqualitysubmissions);andparticipantattrition(asaresultofe.g.misjudgedrisk/rewardcurve,inadequatesolvercapacity).

11. Risk ismanaged effectively at prize level,with teams giving careful consideration to the scope andappropriateactions formitigation.Riskmanagementprocessescouldbe formalisedandcentralised,with risk currently owned by prize managers and not reviewed as part of regular programmemanagementprocesses.

Valueformoneyandfinancialperformance

12. Economy: although management costs have been higher than originally envisaged, the team haveworked hard to maintain the proportion of budget (30/70) allocated to programme managementrelativetotheprizepurseandotherin-countryactivities.

13. Efficiency:Theinterfacebetweenprizemanagersandimplementingagents(levelofoversightneeded/ delegation appropriate) is the primary driver of prize efficiency. The global prizes offer themostefficient management arrangements, whilst valuable lessons have been learnt around the relativeefficiencyofrecruitingin-countrystaffandcontractinglocalimplementingagents.However,efficiencymaydecreaseastheprogrammeengagesinincreasedsolvercapacitybuildingactivities.

14. Effectiveness:Certainmeasuresofprogrammeeffectivenesssuggestedbyprogrammedocuments–forexample,relatingtovariancebetweenforecastedandactualbudgets–maycreateunhelpfulincentivesfor the programme given its adaptive mode of working. Effectiveness should be measured morestraightforwardly,withreferencetologframeoutcomes.

15. O1)thedevelopmentanddeploymentofinnovationsolutionsandachievingofpositiveoutcomesforbeneficiaries, will be best demonstrated through evaluations’ measurement of prize effects, withcompletedStage1evaluationspromising.Moreattentionshouldbedevotedtoknowledgesharingandinfluencing to ensure that the programme to ensure that the programme delivers against O3)influencingotherstoimplementprizes‘better’andO4)developingarobustevidencebasecentredonprogrammelearningstreams

16. Equity:Women’srepresentationamongstsolversvariesconsiderablyacrossprizes.InKenya’sClimateInformationPrizewomensubmittedalowernumberof,butonaveragestronger,applicationsthanmen,withaconversionrateof32%(winnersasapercentageofcompletedapplications)comparedto7%formen.Bycontrast,inthecaseofNepal’sAdaptationatScalenoneofthe15prizewinnerswerewomen’sorganisations,withthemainbarrierscapacitylimitationsandpersistentsocio-culturalbarriers.

17. Thereisemergingevidencethatsolutionsinducedacrossdifferentprizesaregearedtowardsbenefittingpoorandvulnerablegroups.BothCIPandA@Ssolutionsareworkingthroughwomen’sgroupstotacklegenderspecificvulnerabilities,aswellastostrengthenwomen’svoiceanddecision-makingpower.

of68

Strategicrecommendations

Programmeduration

1.1 ItisrecommendedthattheoveralltimeframeoftheI2Iprogrammebeextendedbyninemonths(threemonths beyond the current contract end date). Specifically, Adaptation at Scale, Dreampipe II andEnergyAccesswouldbenefitfromsixmonthextensionstoenablesufficienttimeforthedevelopmentanddeploymentofsolutions,anddemonstrationofpositiveoutcomesforbeneficiaries.ThequestionofanextensionshouldalsoberevisitedfortheUrbanSanitationChallengeshoulddelaysarisingfromthepost-electiontransitioninGhanaprovesignificantoverthecomingc.3months.

1.2 ThiswouldbringthedateforthefinalclosureofprizestoJune2019(ratherthanDecember2018),afterwhichtheevaluationteamwillneedninemonthstoconductplannedevaluationandresearch.Giventhat three months are already provided for in existing programme timelines, this would bring theprogammeenddatetoMarch2020,sixmonthsafterthecurrentcontractenddate2–i.e.atotal(no-cost)extensionofninemonths.

Targetingprogrammeinvestments

18. Itisrecommendedthat,atprizelevel,theprogrammeinvestsavingsfromthereducedprizepurseinthoseareaswhichmitigatemajorriskstoStage2delivery–toensurethatprizesachievesustainableimpactandmaximisevalueformoney.Prizelevelfindingssetoutspecificsforeachprize,butsolvercapacitybuildingisaconsistenttheme–notleastsupportonengagingwithpotentialfunderstoleveradditionalinvestment.

19. Attheprogrammelevel,I2Ishouldprioritiseinvestmentin:

1) Knowledgesharingand influencing– includingthegenerationanddisseminationofbothprize(e.g.successfulinnovations)andprogramme(e.g.operatinginnovationprizesfordevelopment)levellearning

2) Scoping for scale up / replication of specific prizes where concrete opportunities presentthemselves,withtheUrbanSanitationChallengethestrongestcontender.

20. TheMTRsupportsexistingevaluationplanstomeasurespecificprize‘effects’aswellastheadditionalityoftheprizemodalityasallowedbytheexistingbudgetforevaluation.Increasestothisbudgetcouldbeconsideredforthoseprizeswherethereisstillscopeforflexible,responsiveevaluationsupporttofeedintoStage2design(DreampipeIIandtheGlobalLEAPrefrigerationsisterprize).Acrosstheboard,itmay be necessary tomakemodest budget increases for evaluating the effectiveness of, previouslyunplanned,capacitybuildingactivities.

21. Whereverpossible,I2Ishouldseektomaximiseimpactbybuildingpartnershipswith–andleveragingtheresourcesandnetworksof–existing,well-establishedinstitutionsandprogrammesoperatinginthesamesectors.

2TheprogrammeheadcontractextendssixmonthsbeyondthecurrentenddatefortheI2Iprogramme,totakeintoaccountdeverytimelinesfortheFrontierTechaddon,whichfallsoutsideofthescopeofthisMTR.

of68

Opportunitiesforscalingandreplication

22. TheexperienceofdesigningandestablishinginnovationprizesfordevelopmentthroughI2Ihasbeenasteeplearningcurve–butoffersvaluablelessonsandlikelyeconomiesofscalewhenscaling/replicating.

23. At present, the strongest candidates for scaling or replication are theUrban SanitationChallenge –owingtotheleveloftractiongainedwithgovernmentandearlyindicationsthateffectivepublic-privatepartnerships are being facilitated – and the Climate Information Prize – which is working with amotivatedandrelativelywellcapacitatedsolvergroup,andhencefaceslowerbarrierstosustainability.Thoseprizeswherebarrierstoscalingsustainablyarehighest–includingwheresolvercapacityismostlimited–maynotbethemostobviouscandidatesforreplication.

24. Inpractice,specificopportunitiesforreplicationhavesofaremergedinadhocwayatlevelofindividualprizes.I2Ishouldbepragmaticandpursueconcreteopportunitieswheretheyarise,providingthattheprizeinquestionremainsonatrajectorytowardsdeliveringsustainableimpact.

25. This does not, however,mean that other prizes should be de-prioritised.With I2I fundamentally aresearch programme, opportunities to capture learning about, for example, working with differentsolversandindifferentsectorsshouldbemaximised.

of68

Chapter2: Background

TheIdeastoImpactprogramme

2.1 IdeastoImpact(I2I)isafiveyear,£10.9mprogrammewhichsupportsresearchanddevelopment(R&D)in energy, water and climate adaptation solutions for developing countries. The programme waslaunchedinApril2014totesttheapplicationofinnovationprizesasafundingmechanismtocatalyseinnovationonintractableenvironmentalanddevelopmentalproblems.I2Ihasdesignedandlauncheda variety of ‘innovation prizes’ to stimulate and incentivise the development and deployment ofsolutionsfor lowincomeconsumers,focusingonimprovingpoorpeople’saccesstoaffordablecleanenergy,safedrinkingwaterandimprovedsanitation,andresiliencetoclimatechange.

Table1:OverviewoftheIdeastoImpactprogramme

Dates 31March2014to30March2019

Budget £10.9m

Description

I2I is testing theapplicationof innovationprizes as a fundingmechanism tocatalyse innovation on intractable environmental and developmentalproblems. I2Ihasdesignedand launchedavarietyofprizestostimulateandincentivise the development and deployment of solutions for low incomeconsumers, focusing on improving poor people’s access to affordable cleanenergy,safedrinkingwaterandimprovedsanitation,andresiliencetoclimatechange.

OutcomesbyMarch2019

§ Newideas,concepts,technologies,systemsorprocessesdevelopedthatarejudgedtohaveawardvalue(73cumulative)

§ Prize driven activities deliveringmultiple innovations that benefit lowincomehouseholds(52cumulative)

§ Prizes and challenges stimulate new investment in technologies andbusinessmodels(£35m)

§ Examples of discussions among key stakeholders around innovationprizesindevelopmentorforsocialoutcomesrefertotheprogramme(24cumulative)

Impactby2025

12 million people will have strengthened adaptive capacity and/or new orimproved access to services (energy and water and sanitation) throughaffordabletechnologies,improvedserviceprovisionandnewbusinessmodelsforlowincomeconsumers.

2.2 IMCWorldwideleadstheprogramme,managingaconsortiumwithwide-rangingspecialistexpertise.I2I is structuredaround five currentlyoperationalprizeprogrammes,mostofwhichare individuallymanagedbyanimplementingagent,withcross-cuttingsupportprovidedbyprizedesignersandItadonevaluationandlearning.Detailsofeachofthefiveprizeswhicharecurrentlyoperationalaresetouton

of68

thefollowingpage(table2)andanoverviewoftheprogressofeachagainstkeymilestonesprovidedinAnnexA.

2.3 The programme defines an innovation prize “as a financial incentive that induces change throughcompetition”.Asummaryofthepurposeandcharacteristicsofsuchprizesisprovidedinbox1.

of68

Table2:TheI2Iprizes

Implementer Sector Country Solvers Description

ClimateInformationPrize

CardnoKenya CC

adaptation–

climate

information

Kenya Smalland

medium

enterprises

TheClimateInformationPrize(CIP)aimstostrengthentheadaptivecapacityofpoorand

vulnerablegroupsby:drivingthedevelopmentofnewwaystoengagecommunitiesinaccessing

andusingclimateinformation;andraisingawarenessofclimateinformationuptakeanduse

CIPisformedof2stages:

• Stage1(“WazoPrize”)offeredawardsforinnovativesolutionsonmakingclimate

informationmoreusabletocommunities.

• Stage2(“TekelezaPrize”)willrewardapplicantsthatcandemonstratethegreatest

impactinimplementingtheirideawithintheprizeprogrammeperiod.

• Inaddition,recognitionprizes(“Tambuaprize”)arebeingrunannuallyduringthe

period2016-2018withafocusonrecognisingandshowcasingnovelideasandactorsin

theareaofclimateinformation.

AdaptationatScale(A@S)

FormerlyIMC;

implementing

agent

currently

being

recruited

CC

adaptation

Nepal NGOs/CBOs

/businesses

A@Saimstoidentify,rewardandincentivisethescalingofexistingsuccessfulclimatechange

adaptationinitiativesthatworkwithlocalcommunities.

A@Sisformedof2stages:

• Stage1(“ProtsahanPrize”)recognised15successfulinitiativesthathavesupported

adaptationtoclimatechangeamongpoorandvulnerablegroupandrewarded

innovativeplanstoscaletheseup

• Stage2(“KaryanwayeinPrize”)willbeawardedtoapplicantswhosuccessfully

implementtheirplantoscale-up,demonstratingpositiveoutcomesforpoorand

vulnerablecommunities

• Inaddition,arecognitionprize(“PahichanPuraskar”)willraiseawarenessofadaptation

andtheprize,andmaintainmomentum.

UrbanSanitationChallengeforGhana(USC)

IRCGhana WASH–

urban

sanitation

Ghana Metropolita

nand

Municipal

District

Assemblies

(MMDAs)

USCisincentivisingMMDAswithapopulationofmorethan15,000toprioritisethedeliveryof

improvedurbansanitation,withtheaimofincreasingaccesstosustainablesanitationservices

forallhouseholds,withaparticularfocusonthepoor.

Thechallengeisformedof2stages:

§ Stage1(“Duapa”)offereda3monetaryprizesforthebestliquidwastemanagement

strategies,aswellas21honoraryawards.

of68

§ Stage2(“theDignifiedCityAward”),inwhich17MMDAsareparticipating,willtrack

theirperformanceinimplementingtheseplansandprovidemonetaryrewardtothose

whohavehadthegreatestimpact.

§ Abaselineassessmentisalsobeingconductedtoenablerobustmeasurementofthe

impactofimplementation.

USChasrecentlybeenawardedfundingbytheBillandMelindaGatesFoundationtoimplement

asisterprize–asanitationawardschemetofundspecificthematicawardsundertheumbrellaof

theUSC–inpartnershipwiththeCommunityWaterandSanitationAgency.

DreampipeII

IMC WASH–

non-revenue

water

Global Water

utilities,

financiers

and

transactions

advisers

DreampipeisaglobalWASHprize(focusedonDFIDprioritycountries)thatseekstoencourage

thedevelopmentofworkableandreplicableideasforhowtoexpandthefinancingavailablefor

non-revenue-water(NRW)reductionactivitiesindevelopingcountries

DreampipeIIisformedof3phases:

§ Phase1–awardswillbemadeforthebestbusinessplanssettingouthowStage2

requirementswillbecarriedout.

§ Phase2–applicantswillbeassessedoncarryingout(andfullydocument)a

demonstrationprojecttoreduceNRWinaselectedwaterutility,aswellasanupdated

businessplanfocusingonfinancingandcontractingforamajorexpansionprojectin

thesameutility.

§ Phase3–applicantswillsubmittermsheetsforallmajorprojectandfinancing

agreementsneededfortheexpansionprojectintheselectedutility,includinga

performance-basedcontract.

Nb.DreampipeIwaslaunchedinFebruary2016andawardedinJuly.Dreampipehassincebeen

redesignedtocreateamorefocused,tournamentapproachtominimiserisk.

GlobalLEAPawards

Energy4

Impact

Energy

Access3–off

grid

refrigeration

Global Manufacture

rsand

distributors

ofoff-grid

appliances

I2IissupportingaDFID/USAIDcollaborationontheGlobalLEAP(LightingandEnergyAccess

Partnership)awards–anexistingprogrammeoperatedbyNGOCLASP–byprovidingfundingto

theprizepurseforitsoff-gridrefrigerationprizeandrunningfieldtestingofshortlisted

appliances.

I2Iisalsodevelopingasisterprizeforlargerscalerefrigeration–theOff-GridColdChain

Challenge–forwhichtheconceptnoteshasrecentlybeenapprovedbyDFID.Theprizewillbe

formedoftwostages,thefirstfocusingonideationandtheseconddemonstrationofresults.

3Nb.theoriginaldesignofI2I’sworkintheenergyaccesssectorwasformedofatrioofprizestosupportashiftinpolicytosupportLPGusage.Ofthese,oneprize(‘theCylinderPrize’)toidentifyappropriate

methodstorecycleandreuseoldLPGcylindersthatdidnotmeetnewsafetystandardswasimplemented,butdiscontinuedowingtochangesinthepolicyenvironment.

of68

Box1:Innovationprizes–asnapshot

Inducementprizeshavebeenusedsinceantiquitytostimulatesolutionstoproblems–largeand small. Initially a tool of governments,4 those seeking to kick start new businesses,industryorevenfundsciencealsoseizeduponprizes5,6.Prizeshaveevolved–morerecentlyduetothesuccessoftheAnsariXPRIZEin2004forsuborbitalspaceflight7–intoatoolusedbynon-profits,governments8andcorporations9.Innovationprizesseektousethepromiseofprestige(agoldmedal,sealofapproval,PRetc.),amonetaryreward(prizepurse)andthevisionofafuturemarket/customertostimulatetheinterestofproblemsolversandattempttobring innewsolvers toaddress thechallenge.Theyaimtostimulateinnovationratherthanrewardgoodperformanceex-post(asamorestandardrecognitionprizewoulddo).10Theprincipaldifferencebetweeninducementprizesand competitive grants is that prizesmay havemultiple solvers, none ofwhom are pre-selectedbythefunderandanyofwhommaywintheprizeuponcompletionofthetask.11Innovationinthiscontextcanbeunderstoodinabroadsense,as“renewing,advancingorchangingthewaythingsaredone”.12Innovationdoesnothavetobetechnicalbutcaninvolveachangeinbehaviourorpractice,orthedesignofnewbusinessmodelsthatcansuccessfullyscaleuptechnologies.13Prizescan:14

§ Produceamultiplierintheorganiser’sreturnoninvestment.

§ Shortenthetimetomarket/implementationforsolutions.

§ Resultinentirenewindustriesorbusinesssectors.

Prizesworkbestwhen:15

41765AwardoftheBritishLongitudePrizefordetermininglongitudeatsea.1773AcadémiedeBesançon’sPrizeforsubstitutefoodswonbythepotato.1795Napoleonawardsprizetoavoidspoilageoffoodledtothedevelopmentofcanningtechnology.5Hanson(1998)Patternsofpatronage:whygrantswonoverprizesinscience.California:UC,Berkeley.(http://mason.gmu.edu/~rhanson/whygrant.pdf)61927OrteigPrizefortransatlanticflightprovidedbyahotelierinterestedinpromotingtourismandwonbyCharlesLindbergh.7http://ansari.xprize.org8EUHorizonPrizes(https://ec.europa.eu/research/horizonprize/index.cfm?pg=about)USAGovernmentPrizes(https://www.challenge.gov/list/)9OnlineplatformencompassesprizesfromNGO’s,individuals,corporations,non-profits(https://www.innocentive.com/ar/challenge/browse)10I2I(2016)AnnualReport2016.11I2I(2016)AnnualReport2016.12Everett,B.(2011)Evidencereview–environmentalinnovationprizesfordevelopment.London:DEWPoint.(https://www.gov.uk/dfid-research-outputs/evidence-review-environmental-innovation-prizes-for-development-dew-point-enquiry-no-a0405)13I2I(2016)AnnualReport2016.14Hendrix,M.(2014)ThePowerofPrizes.WashingtonDC:USChamberofCommerceFoundation.(https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/power-prizes-incentivizing-radical-innovation-0)15NestaCentreforChallengePrizes(2014)Challengeprizes:apracticeguide.London:Nesta.(http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/challenge-prizes-design-practice-guide.pdf)XPRIZE(n.d.)WhatisanXPRIZE?CulverCity:XPRIZE.(http://www.xprize.org/about/what-is-an-xprize)

of68

a) Thecurrentstateoftechnologysuggeststhatproblemisactuallysolvableina<10yeartimeframeandyouunderstandwhatthecurrentbarriersaretosolvingit.

b) Theproblemtobesolvedcanhave itsoutcomespecified inaclearmanner.This isessentialtobeabletojudgeandcommunicatecleararoundthewinner(s)

c) The risk to be takenonby the solver is reasonablewhen compared to the reward(monetaryprize,futuremarket/customers).

d) Thematurityoftheecosystemofknowledge,productsandservicesandregulationsthatpertaintosolvingtheprizeiswellunderstood.

e) Solvingtheproblemwillhaveanimpactthatprovidesthelevelofrecognition/prestigesufficienttointerestandreachabroadcommunityofproblemsolvers.16

Designing a prize that has the best chance of success requires investigating and devisingstrategiestoanswereachofthesepoints.Thesepointscanbeaddressedbyusinganumberoftechniques,17including:

§ Milestone or staged sub-prizes that relate to developing the capacity and/orcompetencyneededtomakeasignificantimpactontheprimaryproblem.

§ Prizeecosysteminvestments–regulatorychange,provisionofknowledge,securingofproductsandservices(includingtestfacilities)forproblemsolvers.

§ Market/customerstimulationandeconomicdevelopmentincentives.

§ Investmentinoutreach(publicandpolicymaker),educationandawarenessaroundtheproblemandbenefitsofsolvingit.

Not everything is ‘prizeable’. Prize design and execution involves a lot of projection andassumption.Rigorousresearchattheoutset isrequiredtoensurerobustdefinitionoftheproblemandthebarrierstosuccess.Thisleadstoamoreeffectiveidentificationofwhereaprizecanbeappliedtogeneratethegreatestleverage.Itcanoftenbenecessarytotweakoradapt theprize,however substantive changeswouldusually indicate flaws in theoriginalresearch.Awelldesignedandexecutedinducementprize,however,canbringabouttransformativechange.

16Bruntetal.(2012).Inducementprizesandinnovation,JournalofIndustrialEconomics,XL(4),pp.657-696.(http://people.hbs.edu/tnicholas/IPI.pdf)17Innocentivecasestudies(https://www.innocentive.com/resources-overview/case-studies/),NestaCentreforChallengePrizes(2013)Thegivingchallengeprizes.London:Nesta.(http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/the_giving_challenge_prizes.pdf)

of68

PurposeoftheMTR

2.4 ThisMTRtakestheformofanoperationalreviewtoguidetheI2Iprogramme’sfuturestrategicdirectionandresourceallocation,aswellastoimprovevalueformoneywherepossible.

2.5 Specifically,itseekstoaddresssixmainquestions:

§ Isthelevelofmanagementappropriateacrosstheprogramme?

§ Couldgovernanceandriskmanagementsystemsbeimproved?

§ Istheinvestmentinevaluationandresearchappropriate?

§ Howcanvalueformoneyacrosstheprogrammebeimproved?

§ HowcanDFIDandtheprogrammeenhanceimpactandensuresustainability?

§ Whereshouldfutureinvestmentsintheprogrammebetargetedand/orrestricted?

Approachandmethodology

2.6 TheMTRhasfollowedasetofguidingprinciples–accordinglyithasbeen:

§ Strategic,reviewinghoweffectivelyI2Iistestingitscorehypothesis–thatinnovationprizesareausefulmethodtocatalyseinnovationonandsolvesignificantenvironmentalproblems–toinformfuturedirectionandresourceallocation.

§ Conducted at an operational level, to inform practical recommendations onmaximisingimpactandvalueformoney.

§ Carriedoutinbothasystematicandparticipatorymanner,toensurerobustnessoffindingsandbuildownershipoffindingsamongstimplementingpartners.

2.7 The MTR has used qualitative methods to review I2I’s activities across each of its prizeprogrammes in a structured and systematic manner. An extensive review of programmedocumentsandI2Iproducts,aswellasprizeliterature,wasundertaken(seeAnnexA)andasetofcoreareasforexplorationdeveloped.Theseincluded:

§ Prizedesign–e.g.howproblemswereidentifiedandselected,andprizeparametersdecidedupon;anydeficitsidentifiedintheprizeecosystem

§ Outreachandparticipation–e.g.typesofsolvers;sufficiencyof levelofandchannelsforpromotion;sufficiencyandappropriatenessofincentivesforapplicants;qualityofproposals;riskstosolversandmitigation

§ Judging and award – e.g. appropriateness of incentives created by judging criteria;effectiveness,efficiencyandtransparencyofjudgingprocesses

§ Partnershipsandcoordination–e.g.anyevidenceofinnovativepartnerships;effectivenessofcoordinationwithotherprogrammesororganisationsoperatinginthesamesectors

§ Programme and prize management – e.g. effectiveness and appropriateness ofmanagementarrangements;majorriskstothesuccessoftheprizeandwhethertheseare

of68

managed effectively; appropriateness of and lessons learned on budgeting; quality andeffectivenessofrelationshipsamongstprogrammeimplementers

§ Monitoring, evaluation and learning – e.g. data collection for prize level M&E; relativeinvestment in and relationships between prize design/implementation, prize levelmonitoringandevaluation,andwiderlearning

§ Valueformoney–e.g.driversofVFM;opportunitiestoimproveVFM;effectivenessofVFMmeasures

§ Impactandsustainability–e.g.evidenceofandopportunitiestoensuresustainableimpact;evidenceofsocialinclusionatsolverandbeneficiarylevel;solvercapacitytoleveradditionalinvestment;scopetoscaleand/orreplicatetheprize

2.8 AlistofintervieweecategorieswasdevelopedfollowingdiscussionswithDFID,IMCWorldwide,ItadandIDS,andaseriesofprotocolsdesignedtoguidesemi-structuredinterviewsacrosstheI2Iprizeportfolio,includingfieldworkinKenya,GhanaandNepal(seeannexesBandC).Theseprotocols provided a common framework for data collection to facilitate cross-prizecomparisonsbutwereadaptedaccordingtotheparticularobjectivesandcharacteristicsofeachprize.

2.9 Reportfindingsaresetoutinfourmainparts:

§ Section2takesacomparativeviewacrosstheI2Iportfoliotoidentifyfivekeycross-prizeorprogrammelevelfindings

§ Sections3to7exploreeachprizeinturnwithreferencetotheareasidentifiedabove.Eachconcludesbysettingoutprize level recommendationsontimeframe,scopeforscalingorreplication,andprioritisationofprogrammeinvestment(includingtherelativeimportanceofandapproximatelevelofresourcerequiredforrecommendedinvestments18).

§ Section 8 sets out programme management findings, with a focus on governance, riskmanagementandvalueformoney

§ Section9concludesbyputtingforwardaseriesofstrategicrecommendations.Thesedonotrevise prize specific recommendations made in earlier sections but address issues oftimeframe, programme investment and opportunities for scaling / replication at theprogrammelevel.

18Recommendedlevelofinvestmentisapproximate,andindicatedwithreferencetothefollowingcategories:L=<£5,000;M=>£5,000-15,000;H=>£15-25,000;VeryHigh=£>25,000.

of68

Chapter3: Programme level or cross-prize findings – five key

themes

3.1 At the programme or cross-prize level, the MTR’s findings centrE on five key themes ormessages,asfollow.

Prizesasacatalystforinnovationandproblemsolving:I2Iiseffectivelytesting

itscorehypothesis

Problemselectionandprizedesign

3.2 As noted above, I2I’s core objective is to test the application of innovation prizes as analternate/additional donor funding mechanism for catalysing innovation on intractableenvironmentalanddevelopmentalproblems.ItiscommendablethatI2Ihassetahighlevelofambitionfortestingthishypothesisbydeliberatelyselectingintractableproblemsratherthanthose which are most easily ‘prizeable’. An early shift in focus from ‘hard’ technology topathwaystouse(i.e.market/systemschange)hasbeenvalidatedbythesubsequentworkofotherprominentprizefunders.

3.3 Nevertheless,theinclusionofEnergyAccess–withtheGlobalLEAPawards’focusonappliancesforoff-gridrefrigeration–offersbalancetotheI2Iprizeportfolio.(Althoughbeyondthescopeofthisreviewit isworthnotingthat learningarounduseof innovationprizesfortechnologyalsobeingpursuedviathenewFrontierTechaddon.19)

3.4 Valuable lessons have been learnt around rendering ‘softer’ problems ‘prizeable’ – that is,articulatinganddefiningtheparametersofproblemsinsuchawayastofacilitatedevelopmentofinnovativesolutionswhichcanberewardedviaaprizemodality.Forexample:

§ Thesixthdesignoption(prize)proposedintheI2Idesignreportwasintendedtodealwithdistribution but not implemented as it proved too challenging to define and specify theproblemsufficientlytoformthebasisforaninducementprize.

§ Dreampipehasbeenredesignedtonarrowitsfocusastheoriginalcallproducedtoowideanarrayofproposals/productstodevelopacoherentportfolio.

Learningaroundtheprizemodality

3.5 It is clear that the prizes are effectively incentivising the development and deployment ofinnovativesolutions,andareonatrajectorytodeliveringarangeofprizeeffects(seeprizelevelfindings).Theexactnatureofthis incentivevariesbysolver,but it isclearthattheincentiverelatesasmuchtotherecognitionorprestigeassociatewiththeprizeastotheprizewinningsthemselves.

19http://www.ideastoimpact.net/frontier-technology-livestreaming

of68

3.6 However, although these early indications are promising, the programme has so far hadrelatively little opportunity to collect robust evidence around the value added by the prizemodality. I2I could test this by selecting a specific prize for comparison with programmesworkinginthesamecontextwhichhavesimilaraimsbutusedifferentmodalitiessuchasgrantsorchallengefunding.

3.7 Althoughnotacomparativeexercise,MTRfindingssuggestthatprizesmayofferaddedvaluerelativetootherfundingmodalities–e,g,grants,loans,equityinvestments–vis-visreachingandincentivisingnewtypesofsolverthroughcompetitionandrecognition(seeparagraphs3.10–3.15,4.13),andactingascatalystswhichbuildonandacceleratethemomentumofexistingenthusiasm and/or initiatives (see paragraphs 4.33 and 5.8). However, compared to moreconventionaltypesoffunding,workingthroughprizesentailsadditionalcostsassociatedwiththe innovative nature of modality itself – not least the level of effort involved in buildingunderstandingamongstpotentialparticipantsaboutthepurposeandstructureofprizes(seeparagraphs4.5,5.13and6.5).

3.8 I2Iexperiencesuggeststhatsome(‘softer’)problemsmaybe lessconducivetobeingsolvedthroughpureprizesthanothers.Likewise,itcanbechallengingtodrawincertaintypesofnewsolverswithmore limitedcapacity (see ‘building solver capacity’below). In futureDFIDandothersmightconsiderhybridfundingmodalitiesinthesecases.KnowledgegeneratedbyI2Iastowhenandwherethecatalyticeffectofprizemodalityismostandleasteffectivecouldbeusedtostructure/sequencedifferentmodalities.

Outreach and participation: I2I has drawn in solvers ‘beyond the usual

suspects’butshouldcontinuetomitigatesolverrisk

Drawinginnewentrants

3.9 Inducement prizes offer ameans of reaching awider group of participants than traditionalfundingmechanisms.Theyseektodrawawiderarrayofparticipants intoproblem-solving–thatis,to“getnewpeopletotackleoldproblemsinnewways”.20

3.10 I2I istestingtheprogrammehypothesiseffectivelybytargetingarangeofdifferenttypesofsolversacrossgovernment,smallandmediumenterprises,NGOsandCBOs.Prizelevelfindingsreflectonwhoisbeingrewarded,thesufficiencyofoutreachactivities,andappropriatenessoftheprizeincentiveforthetypeofsolverinquestion.

3.11 ItisworthnotingthatI2IhasnotworkedwithprivatesectoractorsasextensivelyasDFIDmighthaveoriginally intended.During thedesign phase the team concluded that a pure financialincentivetoinducechangebyprivatesectorfirms,whoarealreadyprofit-driven,waslikelytobe insufficient. Nevertheless, there are early indications that both the Urban SanitationChallenge and Dreampipe II have effectively incentivized innovative partnerships involvingprivatesectoractors.

20PMU

of68

Mitigatingsolverrisk

3.12 TheI2Iteamhavebeenmindfuloftheethicalchallengesassociatedwithoutsourcingrisktosolvers–asdemonstratedbyuseofstagedprizestructures(withStage1prizesfocusingonideation).Whetherprizedesignhasaccuratelyanticipatedtheresourcesneededofparticipantsandseta reasonable risk/rewardcurvewillbedemonstrated inStage2,where thecostsofentryaregenerallymuchhigher.

3.13 The main risks reported by solvers relate to financial and opportunity (time) costs, withrespondentsmostoftenpointingtothepotentialburdenofStage2monitoringrequirements.TherewillbeanongoingneedtomitigatetheserisksduringStage2wherepossible,bothbyminimisingcostsforapplicantsandincreasingpotentialreward,byfacilitatingengagementwithothersourcesoffinance.

3.14 Developinganoptimalrisk/rewardcurveforsolvers isan integralpartofstresstestingprizemodelsasameansofinducingandacceleratingchangearoundaparticularproblem.Workingwith a range of solver types, I2I is well-placed to capture lessons on this, as well as theappropriatenessoftheprizemodalityfroma‘donoharm’perspective.Light-touchevaluationsofthecostsandbenefitsofparticipationforbothwinnersandnon-winnersforparticularprizescouldcontributetothis,aswellas informanassessmentoftheeffectivenessofprogrammeeffortstomitigatesolverrisk.ThesecouldbeconductedwithafocusonStage1non-winnersduringStage2toavoidknockoneffectsontheoverallprogrammetimeline.

Prizesecosystems:I2Ishouldcapitaliseonecosystemstrengthsandaddress

deficits(particularlysolvercapacitygaps)

3.15 Asa ‘purist’prizeprogramme, I2Ihasattempted tonestleprizeswithincontexts (countries,sectors)withhighlevelsofexistinggovernment/donoractivityandsupportinfrastructure,withpositivebutvaryinglevelsofsuccess.TheClimateInformationPrizeinKenya,hasforexample,benefitted from an enabling environment conducive to entrepreneurship, whilst, in Nepal,AdaptationatScalehascapitalisedongovernmentcommitmentstoprioritiseadaptation.

Needtosupportsolvercapacitybuilding

3.16 Although varying by prize, the main deficits in prize ecosystems21 identified across theprogrammecentreonsolvercapacitygaps–primarily:

§ solvercapacitytoprepareapplicationsandimplementandmonitorsolutions

§ solvernetworksnecessarytoengagepotentialinvestorsandleverageadditionalfinance

§ infrastructureforcollaboration/networkingwithothersolverstoenablecollectiveproblemsolving

3.17 IthasbeenandwillcontinuetobenecessaryforI2Itoengageinadditionalsupportiveactivities–notleastsolvercapacitybuilding–tomitigatedeliveryrisks,ensureimpactandsustainability,

21Prizeecosystemisdefinedasresourcesavailabletosolvers(andhencepotentialbarrierstoaccess).

of68

andmaximisevalueformoney.Thisisakeylessononthespecificchallengesofoperatingprizesindevelopingcontexts.Futureprizesmightbeembeddedwithinlargerprogrammestomitigatetheserisks.

Capitalisingonthestrengthsofprizeecosystems

3.18 Prizes shouldalsoensure that theyarebuildingon the strengthsof theprizeecosystems inwhichtheyareoperating.Forsomecertainprizes,suchasCIP,thiswouldmeanidentifyingandleveraging the resources of existing programmes and institutions working in the sector, toensuretheadditionalityoftheprizeandenhancevalueformoney.Forothers,suchasA@S,this could involve engaging with ongoing national policy development to ensure thesustainabilityofinnovationsbeingscaledundertheprize.

Innovativepartnerships:I2Idemonstratesthatprizescanincentivisecoalition

buildingaround‘thorny’developmentproblems

Testingdifferenttypesofpartnerships

3.19 Partofwhatismostinnovativeabouttheprogrammeisitsdemonstrationthatdifferenttypesofpartnershipsaroundprizesfordevelopmentcanwork(i.e. incentivisingdifferentactorsto“coalesce around a common good”.22 Examples of those being effectively tested by theprogrammeincludethefollowing:

§ The Urban Sanitation Challenge, which has gained traction with local government andprovided a platform for public-private partnerships around urban sanitation challenges.These are starting to be put into practice asMMDAs begin to implement their plans incooperationwithprivatesectorpartners.

§ The DFID/USAID partnership on Global LEAP refrigeration prize, which indicates thepotentialvalueofdonorcollaborationoninnovationprizes.I2Iis,forexample,strengtheningtheincentiveofferedbytheexistingprizebyrunningfieldtestingofshortlistedappliances,andofferingmanufacturersanddistributorswithvaluableconsumerfeedback.

§ Dreampipe II’s facilitationofnon-IFI investment (banks,pension funds,privateequity) insolutionsforreducingnon-revenuewatermanagement.Valuablelessonsarebeinglearntaboutdrawinginnewsolversthroughpartnerships–ithasprovenmosteffectivetodrawinex-cityfinancierthroughpartnershipswithsectorexperts(waterutilities),withthe‘usualsuspects’leadingbutdrawinginnewsolverstosupportthem.

Mitigatingdeliveryriskthroughpartnership

3.20 Whereprizeshavenotyetfacilitatedsuchpartnerships,thisrepresentsarisktodelivery–forexample,tothesustainabilitytosolutionswhereCIPsolversarenotwell-networkedtoleverageprivatesectorinvestmentorA@Ssolutionsdonotsecuregovernmentbacking.

22PMU

of68

Balancing researchandapplication: I2I should clarify relationshipsbetween

prizedesign/implementation,evaluationandwiderknowledgesharing

Resultsmanagement

3.21 TheProgrammeManagementUnitmayhavebeenincentivisedtoplacetoogreatanemphasisonmaximisingbeneficiarynumbers.ThishasbeenprioritisedtoalignwithDFID’spreferencefor maximising implementation and impact for beneficiaries (in the context of condensedtimeframesforprizeevaluations).Butitisworthreconsideringthebalancebetweendirectandindirect outcomes – that is, between beneficiaries impacted directly by the solutions beingdeveloped and implemented under the prizes, and inducing the development of reallyinnovative solutions with potential for largescale, albeit indirect, impact (see Dreampipe IIfindings,forexample).

3.22 I2Icoulduseproxiestomeasureindirectbenefitsifaparticularprizeproducesasolutionwitharelativelylownumberofdirectbeneficiariesbutdemonstrablepotentialforsuchlargescaleimpact.However,wedonotrecommendthattheteamrevisitbeneficiarytargetsatthispoint.Ratherprizeteamsshouldbearthistensioninmind–forexample,byensuringthateligibilitycriteria for applicants relating to beneficiary numbers do not rule out support to genuinelyinnovativeandpotentiallyimpactfulsolutions.

3.23 TheMTRteamalsosupportsI2I’sdecisiontodemonstrateresultsandcapturelearningbeyondtheprogrammeResultsFrameworkwithreferenceto(alimitednumberof)anticipatedprizeeffectsforeachprize.Thiswillenabletheprogrammetocaptureinterestinglessonsaboutthepotentialofprizesfordevelopment,aswellastodemonstratevalueformoney.

3.24 Monitoringinformationsystemscouldalsobeimprovedbystreamliningquarterlyreportingtoalign with the programme’s adaptive mode of operating. This could include use of moreinnovativemediumssuchasinfographicsorvideocasestudies.

Flexibleandresponsivelearningandevaluation

3.25 Staggeredinterventionshaveenabledvaluableadhocsharingoflessonsamongstprizeteamsonpracticalissues,withthoseearlieronintheprizepipeline(A@S,DreampipeII)abletoadoptthosetoolswhichhaveprovenmostsuccessful,suchaseffectivecommunicationsmethodsandcontractingmechanisms.

3.26 Prize level evaluationswere originally designed in a traditional, linear fashion,whereas theprogrammehascometoworkinaflexibleanditerativemanner.Itisworthreconsideringthetrade-off between academic rigour and the pace necessary to inform changes to prizeimplementation.Ideally,evaluationscompletedafterawardingofStage1scouldinformdesignchangesaheadofthelaunchofStage2s.ThisapproachhasnowbeenemployedinthecaseofAdaptationatScaleandcouldbeusedforthoseprizes (Dreampipe IIandtheEnergyAccesssister prize) which have not yet awarded their Stage 1 prizes. However, the MTR teamrecognisesthatevaluationsneedtostrikeabalancebetweenspeedandresponsiveness,onthe

of68

onehand,andtheneedtocollectrobustevidencetofeedintotheI2Iresearchstreamslateronintheprogramme.

3.27 The nature of the relationship between prizemanagers and evaluators has developed overtime, offering useful lessons around the need for evaluators to bemore closely embeddedwithinratherthanentirelyindependentfromprizeteamswhereprogrammeobjectivesrequireahighlevelofadaptation.Likewise,theprogrammebenefitsfromhavinganexternal‘criticalfriend’intheresearchrole,butreviewsneedtobeproportionateandtimelytoenabletheteamtoworkquicklyandadaptively,andfacilitateimprovementstoprizes.

Knowledgesharingandinfluencing

3.28 ThereisaneedtodevotemoreattentionandresourcetoI2I’swiderknowledgesharingandinfluencingagenda.Recentadditionstothelogframeincludeanoutcomeindictoronthisbroadinfluencingagenda,aswellasanindicatorontheinfluencingactivitiesof individualprizesatoutputlevel,butprogrammeactivitiesdonotyetfullyreflectthis.

3.29 The PMU has already made efforts to bring together prize managers more regularly andfacilitatecommunicationsusinganonline tool i.e. isdeveloping the infrastructure toenableincreased cross-prize reflections. However, I2I should prioritise the production anddisseminationofglobalpublicgoods,andengagementwithother(potential)prizefundersandimplementers to improve the way in which other prize programmes are designed andimplemented. Learning products should capture prize level learning aswell as operationallessonsaroundrunningprizesinthedevelopmentsector

3.30 Thetimingforincreasingthelevelofeffortdedicatedtoknowledgesharingisoptimal.Nowthatthe prizes are established, there is scope to draw cross-prize reflections, whilst prizemanagement is expected to become less time intensive owing to the longer timeframesbetweenawardstages.

of68

Chapter4: ClimateInformationPrize

Background

4.1 The Climate Information Prize (CIP) aims to strengthen the adaptive capacity of poor andvulnerablegroupsby:drivingthedevelopmentofnewwaystoengagecommunitiesinaccessingandusingclimateinformation;andraisingawarenessofclimateinformationuptakeanduse.

4.2 CIPisformedof2stages:

§ Stage 1 (“Wazo Prize”) offered awards for innovative solutions on making climateinformationmoreusabletocommunities.

§ Stage2(“TekelezaPrize”)willrewardapplicantsthatcandemonstratethegreatestimpactinimplementingtheirideawithintheprizeprogrammeperiod.

4.3 Inaddition,recognitionprizes(“Tambuaprize”)arebeingrunannuallyduringtheperiod2016-2018withafocusonrecognisingandshowcasingnovelideasandactorsintheareaofclimateinformation.

Headlines

4.4 Keyachievementsinclude:

§ Successful awarding of prizes to promising organisations – including “people that DFIDdoesn’tusuallyreach”23–withmanywinnersactivelypursuingtheirproposedinnovations.The prize has helped to “generate creative solutions”24 with innovations including theapplication of climate information approaches not previously used in Kenya and to newarease.g.livestocktrading.

§ Successfulawarenessraisingaroundthevalueofclimate informationand its relationshipwith improved livelihoods and poverty reduction. There is consensus that “demystifyingtheseissues”25representsrealaddedvalue.

4.5 Challengesinclude:

§ EngagementwiththeKenyaMeteorologicalDepartment(KMD)owingtotheirexpectationof payment, contrary to DFID funding rules. Innovators are also using alternative datasourceswhichoffermoreusableformats(e.g.moreregularlyupdateddata)morewidelythanexpected.

23Implementingagent,applicants.24Implementingagent25Implementingagent

of68

§ ResourceintensivenessofdesignandStage1implementation,especiallymanagementtime,given the innovative nature of prize programming. The team have had to work hard tomaintaintheproportionallocatedtomanagementversustheprizepurse.

§ Resource intensiveness of outreach activities, including the need to educate applicantsaround the difference between prizes andmore traditional fundingmodalities. There isscopetoexpandthescopeofmarketingactivitiesandstakeholderengagement if itwerepossibletoaddressbudgetconstraints.

§ Securingthetimecommitmentofjudges.

4.6 Opportunitiestostrengthentheprizeincludescopeto:

§ Enhanceoutreach–givenresourceconstraints,itisnotrecommendedthattheteamexpandmarketingactivities.However,theteamcouldconsidertargetingpartofexistingresourcestoreachcommunitiesofparticularinterest–forexample,vulnerableandharder-to-reachpotentialapplicantsincludingfromthenortherncounties.

§ Improve stakeholder engagement – given the crowded nature of the adaptation andinnovationsectorsinKenya,theprizecoulddomoretocoordinatewithandleveragebetterestablishedprogrammes,institutions,andnetworks.

§ Enhancesustainability–primarilybysupportingwinnerstoengagewithothersourcesoffinance.Weakinnovator/fundernetworksrepresentthemaindeficitintheprizeecosystemandacorerisktotheprize’ssuccess.

Applicationandaward

Accessibilityofapplicationplatformandqualityofapplications

4.7 Theprize’suseofanonlineapplicationplatformhasgenerallyprovenuserfriendly,althoughinterviewees reported someplatform issues. The socialmedia aspect of shortlisting for theinducementprizesmaybechallengingwhereapplicantsarenotalreadywell-networked.

4.8 Judgesreportedsignificantvariationinthequalityofapplications.Wazowasabletoawardto13applicantscomparedtoa targetof15, indicatingthatprocessqualityrequirementsweremet.However, thatonly13of 89eligible applicantswereprizeworthy indicates thatmanyapplicantsfounditchallengingtounderstandandarticulatehowtheirsolutionwouldtackletheproblemtheprizeisseekingtoaddress.

Effectivenessandefficiencyofjudgingprocess

4.9 Securingthetimecommitmentofjudgeshasprovenchallenging–withtheprizeteamrequiredtoexpendsignificanttimechasing,originallyunpaid,judgestocompletetheirassessmentsofWazoapplications.Theissueofpaymenthassincebeenreflectedonandaddressed.

4.10 The in-country prize team are mindful of the need for the judging process to be fair andtransparent,whichwasgenerallysupportedbytheviewsofapplicants.However,theuseofa

of68

publicvotingsystemtoshortlist–althoughausefulmarketingtoolfortheprize–mayskewjudgingoutcomesawayfromthemostinnovativeanddeservingapplications.

4.11 Thejudgingprocesscouldbemademorerobustby:clarifyinghowtheprizedefinesinnovation;categorising applications when judging for ease of comparison; adding a second round ofjudgingi.e.shortlistingbyjudges;andincreasingthetimeavailableforapplicantpresentationstoenableamorethoroughassessmentofproposals.Theteamhasalreadytakenthestepofpayingjudgesfortheirtime.

Appropriatenessofmonitoringandverificationsystems

4.12 Verificationofsubmissionsforbothprizescouldhavebeenmorerobusttoensurethecredibilityof applicants. Identifying Tekeleza indicators that are sufficiently robust for verification andmonitoring purposes but do not present a barrier to entry has been challenging. It will beimportant to keep a close eye on the impact of these requirements – on the number ofsubmissions aswell as the prize’s ability to assess performance – during Stage 2 andmakeadjustmentsifnecessary.

Outreachandparticipation

Additionalityoftheprizemodality

4.13 There are promising signs that the prizes have incentivised the development of innovativesolutions with significant potential to benefit poor people (see ‘impact and sustainability’below).Alltypesofintervieweeattributedstronguptakeandtheinnovativenessofproposedsolutionstothecompetitiveaspectoftheprizewhichdrawsinandmotivatesdifferentkindsofapplicants:“Itgivesthemtheconfidencethatwhattheyaredoingissomethingthathassocialandeconomicvalue”/“Beingchosenmademefeelthatthisisavalidproject…thatcanbenefitotherpeople”.26

Sufficiencyofoutreach/marketingactivities

4.14 Theteamhavemadeconsiderableeffortstomarkettheprizewithlimitedresources.Applicantswhoattendedprizeeventsreportedhavingheardabouttheprizefromnewspaperarticlesandwordofmouth.Hostingstallsatlargereventshasreachedalargeraudience(andprovenmorecosteffective)thanholdingindependentevents.

4.15 However,socialmediausemaynothavebeenaseffectiveasanticipated.Astrongfocusonsocialmediamayalsohavelimitedtheprize’sabilitytoreachmarginalisedcommunities,whichrequiresin-personoutreach.

26Implementingagent,judges,applicants

of68

Typesofsolvers/socialinclusion

4.16 Participantsareamixtureofstart-ups,small/mediumsocialenterprisesandNGOs.Thewiderprivatesectorhasnotparticipated,likelyowingtothevalueoftheprizesonoffer(amaximumof$15,000forWazo,$7,500forTambuaand$200,000forTekeleza).

4.17 Theprizehasbeensuccessfulinattractingapplicants(andwinners)beyondtheusualsuspectsi.e.notonlythosewhomighthavesecuredgrantfundingotherwise.TheStage1evaluationfoundthatonly3of10Wazowinnershadpreviouslyappliedforaninnovationprize.Thereisalso a reasonably good geographical spread among applicants, although could securemoreapplicationsfromthenorth(participantsfrom30of47counties).

4.18 Intervieweesestimate thatapplicantsusually fallwithin theage20-45bracket. ForWazo,7winnersweremenand6women. Interestingly,womenappear tosubmit relativelystrongerapplications,withaconversionrateof32%(winnersasapercentageofcompletedapplications)comparedto7%formen.InStage2theprizecouldconsidertargetingandsupportingwomensolverstocompletetheirapplications.

Supportiveactivitiesandmitigatingrisksforparticipants

4.19 Whethertheprizedesignhasaccuratelyanticipatedtheresourcesneededofparticipantsandsetareasonablerisk/rewardcurvewillbedemonstratedbyTekeleza.Itisworthbearinginmindthat the cost of entry for this third prize ismuch higher thanwas the casewithWazo andTambua (particularly monitoring requirements). The Stage 1 evaluation has found thatapplicationbarrierscentreoninvestmentoftimeandfinances.

4.20 IthasbeennecessarytodevelopdetailedapplicationguidelinesandprovideadditionalsupporttoweakerTekelezaapplications.Despite theprogramme’s ‘purist’prizeapproach, theprizeteamareexploringthepossibilityofholdingaworkshopongrowingasuccessfulstart-upbasedonfeedbackfromwinners.Thereisscopeforvaluableassistanceonimplementationofideas,businessdevelopment,mobilisingfinanceetc.Inparticular,riskofattritioncouldbeaddressedbydoingmoretosupportwinnerstoengagewithothersourcesoffinance.Indeed,themaindeficitidentifiedintheprizeecosystemrelatestoinnovator/fundernetworks.

Prizemanagement

Governanceandrisk

4.21 Managementarrangementsaregenerallyeffectiveandappropriate.TheimplementingagentispositiveaboutitsinteractionswithIMC,withoneteammemberdescribingthisas“averyopenandcollaborativeworkingrelationshipratherthanatraditionalsubcontractorrelationship”.

4.22 The implementing agent appears to have given careful thought to the scope formitigatingdeliveryrisks.Themainriskstothesuccessoftheprizearei)thelevelofuptakeandqualityofTekeleza applications and ii) that winners drop out over time, including owing to financialconstraints. The team is working hard tomitigate these by providing additional support to

of68

applicants who submit sub-standard applications, and requesting quarterly reports fromwinnerstomonitorandsupportimplementation.

Monitoringandevaluation

4.23 AstheprizemovesintoStage2plansformonitoringandverifyingsolvers’activitiesshouldbedecidedupontoensurelegitimacyandthatsolversaredevelopingimpactfulsolutions.

4.24 Teammembers assess lesson learning around theWazo prize to have been effective – butreflectedthatitwouldhavebeenusefultofeedevaluationfindingsfromStage1intoStage2design.

Partnershipsandcoordination

4.25 ItmightbeworthreconsideringthelevelofeffortbeinginvestedinimprovingtherelationshipwithKMD,giventhechallengesencountered(andassociatedlevelofeffort),aswellasthatithasbecomeapparentthatKMDdataisnotnecessarilybestsuitedtoI2Isolversandthesystemstheyaredeveloping.Nevertheless,itisunderstoodthatKMDcouldcontinuetoplayaroleinqualitycontrol.

4.26 However,CIPisoperatinginarelativelycrowdedsectorandcouldmaximisetheprize’simpactby building partnerships with longer-established actors e.g. the Kenya Climate InnovationCentre. A higher level of stakeholder engagement with other programmes and institutionsworkinginthesectorwouldhelptoraiseCIP’sprofileandenabletheprizetoleveragenetworksandresourcestoaddresstherisksidentifiedabove.

4.27 Tapping into the private sector (e.g. banks, Safaricom) to build such partnerships has beenparticularlychallenging.ThereisscopetocapitaliseonCSRinterestsbutbuildingrelationshipsdirectlywithprivatefundersrequiressignificanttimeinvestment.Whenidentifyingsourcesofadditionalfinancewithwhichtoconnectsolvers,theprizeshouldbestrategic–forexample,byworkingwithexistinginvestornetworks.

4.28 Thereisalsoscopetobuildacommunityofpracticeamongstwinnersandothersworkinginthesamespace.

Valueformoney

4.29 Management effort has been higher than anticipated owing to innovative nature of prizeprogramming. The team have worked hard to maintain the proportion allocated tomanagement versus the prize purse, and achieved a great dealwith limited resources (see‘ProgrammeManagement’fordetails).

4.30 Thereispotentialforasingleinnovationtohaveareal(replicable)impact;if/whenthiscomestofruition,theprizemayhaveplayedanimportantcatalyticrolewhichoffersexcellentVFM.The prize is already assisting winners to simplify climate information for better use anddisseminationtoawideraudience.PrizeVFMis,ofcourse,inextricablylinkedtothequestionsofimpactandsustainability(seebelow).

of68

Impactandsustainability

Potentialimpactandsocialinclusion

4.31 Winningsolversproposedgenuinelyinnovativesolutionse.g.useofSMSandvoicetechnologiestoproviderreal-timeweatherandagronomicdatatosmallholderfarmers.However,therewasatendencyamongstintervieweestoassumetechnologytobea‘silverbullet’andhavegreaterreach thanmayactuallybe thecase. It isworthmaintainingabalance in theprizeportfoliobetweentechnologicalandnon-technologicalinnovations.

4.32 Nevertheless,solutionsdoappeartobegearedtowardsbenefittingthepoore.g.improvingthesupplyofinformationtothepoorwhoaredisproportionatelyaffectedbyknowledgepoverty.Some are targeting and empowering marginalised groups e.g. use of women’s groups todisseminateclimateinformation.TheimpactofsolutionsanddegreeofsocialinclusionremainstobeverifiedbyStage2monitoring.

4.33 Theprize’scatalyticroleiscriticaltoitspotentialimpact.Prizelevelevaluationcouldseektoassess the potential effectiveness and efficiency of awarding – enhancing the work andbroadeningthehorizons–ofpeoplealreadyworkingonCIissueswithcommunitiesi.e.locallydriven.

Sustainability

4.34 Some concerns were expressed around the sustainability of solutions, given the resourceconstraintsfacedbysolvers.Thiscouldbeaddressedbyworkingwithprizewinnerstosupportimplementationandminimiseattrition–forexample,buildingbusinessandmonitoringskills.

4.35 Winnersgainexperienceofpitchingaswellasprestige,bothofwhichareusefulwhenseekingfurther investment. The judging criteria also foreground commercial viability. However,innovatorsarenotnecessarilywell-networked,meaningthatsupporttoengagewithpotentialsourcesoffinancewillbecriticaltosustainability.


Scopetoscaleupand/orreplicate

4.36 Tekeleza will demonstrate whether the prize has pitched the risk/reward curve for solversaccurately,whilstmonitoringandverificationoftheactivitiesofWazoandTambuawinnerswilltesttheimpactofsolutions.Takentogether,theseprovidethedataneededtoinformadecisionrescaleupand/orreplication.Theredoes,however,significantpotentialbasedonthesolutionsproposedandwinners’motivationandcapacity(inspiteofthedeficitsidentified,thecapacityofCIP solvers is relativelywell-developed), providing thatbottlenecksmentionedaboveareaddressed.

4.37 Optionscouldincludelaunchinginspecificcountiesincludingthemostaffected(withtheaddedbenefit of aligning with DFID Kenya’s interest in working in the northern counties) and/orreplicatingsuccessfulsolutionsinotherregions.

of68

Prioritisingprizeinvestment

4.38 Tomitigaterisks,andenhanceimpact,sustainabilityandvalueformoney,itisrecommended

thatthefollowinginvestmentsintheprizebeprioritised(indecreasingorderofpriority):27

§ Stakeholderand,particularly,investorengagement,topromotetheprize,leverageexistingnetworksandinstitutions,andsupportwinnerstosecureothersourcesoffunding(M).

§ Solver capacity building to ensure quality implementation – particularly in the areas ofbusinessdevelopmentandmonitoring(H).

27Recommendedlevelofinvestmentisapproximate,andindicatedwithreferencetothefollowingcategories:L=<£5,000;M=>£5,000-15,000;H=>£15-25,000;VeryHigh=£>25,000.

of68

Chapter5: AdaptationatScale

Background

5.1 Adaptation at Scale (A@S) aims to identify, reward and incentivise the scaling of existingsuccessfulclimatechangeadaptationinitiativesthatworkwithlocalcommunities.

5.2 A@Sisformedof2stages:

§ Stage1(“ProtsahanPrize”)recognisedsuccessfulinitiativesthathavesupportedadaptationtoclimatechangeamongpoorandvulnerablegroupandrewardedinnovativeplanstoscaletheseup

§ Stage2(“KaryanwayeinPrize”)willbeawardedtoapplicantswhosuccessfullyimplementtheir plan to scale-up, demonstrating positive outcomes for poor and vulnerablecommunities

5.3 Inaddition,atleastonerecognitionprize(“PahichanPuraskar”)willraiseawarenessoftheprizeandeffectiveadaptations,andmaintainmomentum.

Headlines


§ Completionoftheprocessofmappingwhichorganisations/groupsaredoingwhatintheadaptationspaceandrecognisingtheir innovations– in thecontextofa largenumberofexisting,butisolated,adaptationactivities.

§ Confidencethatawardshavebeenmadetoorganisationsworkingonpro-poorandinclusivesolutions – primarily focused on natural resource management and building economicenterprisesontheseecosystems.

5.5 Thereisconsensusacrossintervieweesthatthemainchallengeencounteredbytheprizerelates

tooutreachtovulnerableandmarginalisedgroups.Noneofthe15prizewinnerswereCBOsorwomen’sorganisations.


§ Level theplaying field for smaller organisations to ensure strongStage2 applicationsbytargetgroupsamongstStage1winners.

§ Enhancesustainabilitybysupportingwinnerstoengagewithothersourcesoffinance.

§ Engagewithongoingnationalpolicymakingprocesses,withtheaimofintegratingthemostsuccessfulsolutionsintogovernmentstrategy.

of68

Design,judgingandaward

Sufficiencyofprizeincentive/additionalityofprizemodality

5.7 SomeintervieweesexpressedconcernthatthevalueofboththeStage1andStage2awardsmaybe lowgiventhe levelofeffortrequiredofapplicants.However,theteam’sdecisiontopitchthelevelofawardsoastomitigateriskforsmallerorganisationswithoutthecapacitytomanagesudden influxesof funding issound.Theprizecould,therefore,consideralternativemeansofstrengtheningtheincentiveforapplicants–forexample,bynetworkingwinnerswithpotentialsourcesofadditionalfinance.

5.8 However, there is agreement amongst interviewees, including winners, on the potentialadditionality offered by the prizemodality. Prizes are seen as a ‘catalyst that can trigger aforward-looking approach’, with competition appearing to increase motivation amongstwinners:

“Aprizeisarecognitionorareward…sopeoplearemotivated.Agrantisonlytherefor

some planned things, but this is a reward for success so in society there is a kind of

prestige.”

Bycontrast,grantfundingisperceivedtobeaccompaniedby:

“Institutional&structurallimitationsthatmeanbeneficiariesdon’thavethefreedomto

decidewheretoinvestscarceresources…[prizesgive]recipients,asrepresentativesofthe

poorandvulnerable,thefreedomtoputfinancialandlivelihoodsdecisionsinthehandsof

thoseaffected…toinvestwheretheythinkwilloffermaximumvalueformoney.”

5.9 Itisalsoexpectedthattheprizewillhelpestablishwinningorganisationsascredibleproblemsolvers–andsotheireligibilityforotherfunding.

Effectivenessandefficiencyofjudgingprocess

5.10 A@S benefitted from a particularly successful judging process. Although there was somedisagreementamongstjudgesastowhichapplicationsweremostprizeworthy,theygenerallyagreedthattheprocessusedrobustscoringcriteriavis-à-visbothtechnicalandsocialinclusionaspects,drewonarangeofcomplementaryexpertiseandwasorganisedinsuchawayastoencourageneutrality.Judgesalsodemonstratedveryhighlevelsofcommitmenttotheirtask.


Targetgroup/typesofsolvers

5.11 Astrongemphasisonsocialinclusionintheprize’sdesignwasnotnecessarilyborneoutinStage1,withtargetingofCBOsandwomen’sorganisationstocaptureindigenousinnovationsnotaseffectiveashoped.

5.12 Stage 1winners consist primarily of local, national and internationalNGOs of varying sizes.There is a good spread across different, including remote, geographic locations andtopographies,aswellasrepresentationofdifferentcastes,includingDalit.However,mostof

of68

theseorganisationsalreadyreceiveDFIDorotherdonorfunding,raisingquestionsaroundtheextenttowhichtheprizeisdrawinginnewsolvers.

Sufficiencyofoutreach/challengesassociatedwiththeapplicationprocess

5.13 Theprizeteamputconsiderableeffortintooutreachactivities,withface-to-faceworkshopsandcommunicationsviafederatedmemberorganisations(i.e.reachingouttomarginalisedgroupsthroughlocalinstitutionswhichrepresentthem)provingthemostsuccessfulmeansofengagingpotential applicants. By contrast, return on investment in media engagement wascomparativelypoor.Challengesofoutreachincludedthedifficultyofexplainingtheconceptofprizemodalityinacontextwheregrantfundingisthenorm.

5.14 Barriersforat-riskapplicantsinclude:

§ That some smaller organisations assumed themselves not to be eligible as they are notregisteredatdistrictlevel.

§ Lack of capacity (and data) to document and demonstrate the impact of a successfulinnovation,asacorerequirementoftheprize.

§ That although applicants could apply in Nepali, using paper applications, most of thesupportingdocumentsneededtobeprovidedinEnglish.

§ Lack of analytical and writing capacity needed to put together a strong application i.e.describingwhathasbeenachieved,articulatinghowlessonslearnt,andputtingtogetheraconvincingplanforscaleup.

§ Socio-culturalbarriers–ofthe15organisationsinvitedtopresentafterbeingselectedforaward,notonebroughtasinglewomanpresenter.

Stage2targeting

5.15 TheCBOsandwomen’sorganisationswhohavebeeninvitedtoparticipateinStage2mustnowcompetewith‘established,powerfulandwell-resourced’NGOs(i.e.‘notalevelplayingfield’),placingadisproportionateburdenonthemandreducingtheirchancesofsucceedingatStage2.

“Ifwe have a situationwhere the national NGOs andmost of the same, familiar crowd of

organisationsapply in thenext stage, then the realobjectiveof theprizemoneywillnotbe

realized…weneedto…makeveryconcertedeffortsaroundthistarget.”

5.16 Potential solutions for overcoming the barriers to submitting prize worthy applicationsidentifiedaboveincludethefollowing:

§ Increasing face-to-face engagement through, for example, workshops in which set outapplication process and requirements or community mobilisers who could maintainmomentumamongstparticipantsandassistwithsubmissions.

§ Encouraginglarger(I)NGOstosupportpartnerorganisationstosubmitapplicationsdirectlyratherthanapplyingontheirbehalf.

of68

§ ExploratoryworktounderstandwhatisbeingdonebyorganisationsofinterestwhowerenotsuccessfulatStage1,andidentificationofcapacitygaps.

Prizemanagement

Governance

5.17 Team performance has been most impressive as regards the level of effort dedicated tomarketingandstakeholdermanagement.However,theteamhashadinsufficientcapacitytomeetthelevelofdemandforinformationandsupportfromapplicants.Thiswillbeaddressedbyplannedchangestomanagementarrangementsi.e.theongoingtenderprocesstorecruitanimplementingagent.

Risk

5.18 Keyriskstothesuccessoftheprizeareasfollow:

§ That winners from target group will either be unable or insufficiently incentivised toimplementscalingplans,resultinginattritionamongstparticipants,includingtargetgroups.

§ Insufficientwinnercapacitytoidentifyandleverageappropriatesourcesofexternalfunding.

“Peoplehavegiventheirplan,butweareyettoseeit.Muchwilldependonwhethertheyare

successfulinmobilisingfunding…thatisthemainrisk.Forthesecondstageoftheprizewinners

mustimplementeverythingattheirownrisk.Thatisalsoachallenge.”

5.19 Mitigatingactionscouldinclude:

§ CommencingandmaintainingcommunicationswithwinnersaroundtheireligibilityfortheStage2awardi.e.reinforcingthattheawardwillbebasedonsuccessfulimplementationofscalingplans.

§ Supporting solvers to develop a methodology for implementation, and identifying andaddressing capacity gaps -- particularly around monitoring and ‘research into use’ i.e.documentingpilots.

§ Supporting winners to leverage funding e.g. support with identifying suitable sources,facilitatingpartnershipsbetweenwinnersandgovernment/donors.

§ Inclusionofinfrastructure(institutionalcapacity,networks)toaddresstheseasacriterionforimplementingagentselection.

Monitoringandlearning

5.20 Thereisconsensusamongstintervieweesthatvirtualverificationconductedsofarshouldbesupportedbyonthegroundmonitoringandverification.TheMTRteamunderstandsthatlighttouchmonitoringfallswithinthescopeofexistingplansandwouldjudgethis,combinedwithplannedsolverreporting,tobesufficient.

of68

5.21 Thereisalsoaneedtoupdatecommunications,withprizewinnersnotyetannouncedonthewebsiteandwinnersunsurewhomtocontactaboutpaymentofprizewinnings/plansforStage2whilstI2Iisrecruitingtheimplementingagent.


5.22 Astheprizeearliestoninthepipeline,A@Shasparticularlybenefitedfrompracticalcross-prizelearninge.g.onefficientcontractingmechanismsforjudges.

5.23 Winners and those involved in theprize as e.g. judges andadvisors, agreed that the awardceremonywasavaluableopportunitytohearfromwinnersabouttheirproposedactivities–andgenerated realenthusiasmamongst interviewees.There isdemand fora communityofpractice to open up opportunities for peer-to-peer learning and collective problem solving.(‘Theonusshouldbeontheorganisertofacilitatetheseinteractionsand,indoingso,empower

participants,enablelessonlearningandpreventattrition.’)

5.24 Despiteexamplesofeffectivestakeholderengagement,thereisaneedtosecureaminimumlevelofengagementwithe.g.DFIDCOanditsprogrammes.ICIMODhas,forexample,expressedinterestinplayingacoordinationroleacrossrelevantDFIDprogramming.Aligningtheprizewithgovernmentand/ordonorprioritieswillbecriticaltoitssustainability.

Valueformoney

5.25 Marketingandnetworkingeffortshaveprovenmoreresourceintensivethanenvisaged.

§ Nevertheless,theprizeappearstobedeliveringvalueformoneyinthefollowingways:

§ Winnersreportthattherecognitionofferedbytheprizehasofferedaneffectiveincentivetocontinueandexpandtheiractivities.

§ Thepotentialaddedvalueofdocumentingsolutions,providingthatthesearedisseminatedeffectively.Inacontextoflowsolvercapacitytocapturelessons,theapplicationprocesshasbeguntobuildapplicantcapacitytodocumenttheirwork.

5.26 Thenewmanagementarrangementswillimprovevalueformoney.ItisrecommendedthattheUK prize team consider well-established and networked institutions to enable the prize toleverageexistingnetworksandresources.

5.27 Otherwise,VFMmaybeimprovedmostefficientlybyaddressingtherisksidentifiedabove,withmitigatingactionsincludingsupportingwinners/Stage2applicantstoimplementtheirsolutionsand leverage funds,buildingnetworks includingcommunitiesofpractice,and strengthening‘knowledgetopolicy’linkages(see‘sustainability’below).

of68



5.28 Thereisearlyevidencethatsolutionsarecontributingtotheimprovedresilienceoftheimpactgroup,oftenworkingwiththemostmarginalisedthrough,forexample,communityusergroups.Successful innovations include improvements to water management through small scaleinfrastructureand‘climatesmartvillages’whichintegratearangeofadaptations.

5.29 NGOsandfemalecommunitymemberswereparticularexercisedaboutthegenderimpactsofsolutions:

“She[usedto]sendhersontohisschoolbutaskthedaughtertocollectthewaterandfirewood.

Butaswaterisnowavailableinthehouseholdbothofthemgototheschool.Asthewateris

availableintheirownhouses[women]areinvolvedinthecommunityactivitiesandmeetings.

And from that they are getting the respect from their husbands. In [project] community

groups…there is be more than 50% female participation. Through this, their height in the

communityhasbeenraised…Forexample,[aspecificcommunitymember]wasnoteducated

butnowshecantalkinandleadmassmeetings.Andafterbeinginvolved,shehasencouraged

her daughter to read…Even her husband has supported her. These two are farmers and

generallywehaveatraditionthatfemalesshouldnotgooutwithouttheirguardians,buttheir

husbandshaveallowedthemtocomeherewithustospeakwithyou.”

5.30 However, more concerted monitoring efforts will be required to verify that solutions areachievingpositiveoutcomesforthepoorestandmostvulnerable.ItwillalsobeimportanttocollecttangibledataontheadditionalityoftheprizemodalityduringStage2.

Sustainability

5.31 Notethatrisks,VFM,impactandsustainabilitymayallbeaddressedthroughastreamlinedsetofresponses,notleastinrelationtowinner/applicantcapacityandnetworks,asoutlinedabove.

5.32 AcoreobjectiveofA@Sistoinfluencegovernmentpolicyandpractice.Sustainabilitycouldbeimprovedbystrengthening‘knowledgetopolicylinkages’–ongoingconsultationsaroundtheNationalAdaptationPlanofferarealopportunitytoembedsuccessfulsolutionsingovernmentstrategy(e.g.ascasestudies).A@Sisparticularlywell-placedgiventhatICIMOD(whosestaffwere involved in A@S design) are coordinating the gender inclusion component ofconsultations.However, the timeframe for feeding into theprocess (c. twomonths) is tightgiven ongoing recruitment of a new implementing agent. Engagement of governmentstakeholderscouldalsobe improvedbye.g. involvingofficials inmonitoringandverificationprocesses.


Timeframe

5.33 A@Sisfacedwithaparticularlyshorttimescaleforachievingimpact.Theprizeisalsoseekingto target solvers with strong capacity building needs. A sixthmonth extension is therefore

of68

recommendedtooffertheseapplicantssufficienttimetoimplementplansandcapturepositiveoutcomes.


5.34 A@Smay not be themost obvious candidate for a) replication given the level of capacitybuildingrequiredforthisgroupofsolversandb)scalingwithinNepalgiventhegeographical/topographical specificityof solutions.The latterwas identifiedasa significantbarrier to thescaleupofadaptationstonationallevelbyanumberofinterviewees.

5.35 However,theprizepresentsarealopportunitytolearnlessonsaroundusingprizestodrawinanatypicalgroupofsolvers–theMTRteamsupportsI2I’srecentdecisiontomakethisafocusareaoftheprizeevaluation.

5.36 IfDFIDandotherswishtocontinueworkingwiththesetypesofsolvers,theymightconsiderhybridfundingmodalities–askingwhenthecatalyticeffectofprizesismost/leastvaluabletodeterminewhenandwhereprizesande.g.grantsaremostlikelytobeeffective.


5.37 Tomitigaterisks,andenhanceimpact,sustainabilityandvalueformoney,itisrecommended

thatthefollowinginvestmentsintheprizebeprioritised(indecreasingorderofpriority):

§ SolvercapacitybuildingtargetedatsmallercommunityorganisationsandgroupstobuildalevelplayingfieldforStage2applicants.Particularattentionshouldbepaidtocapacitytomonitorimplementationanddocumentresults,aswellastomobiliseadditionalfunding(H).

§ If practical, engaging with ongoing national policy development processes to embedsuccessfulsolutionsingovernmentstrategy(L).

of68

Chapter6: UrbanSanitationChallenge

Background

6.1 TheUrbanSanitationChallenge(USC)isincentivisingMetropolitan,MunicipalandDistrictAssemblies(MMDAs)withapopulationofmorethan15,000toprioritisethedeliveryofimprovedurbansanitation,withtheaimofincreasingaccesstosustainablesanitationservicesforallhouseholds,withaparticularfocusonthepoor.

6.2 Thechallengeisformedof2stages:

§ Stage1(“Duapa”)offereda3monetaryprizesforthebestliquidwastemanagementstrategies,aswellas21honoraryawards.

§ Stage 2 (“the Dignified City Award”), in which 17 MMDAs are participating, will track theirperformanceinimplementingtheseplansandprovidemonetaryrewardtothosewhohavehadthegreatestimpact.

§ A baseline assessment is also being conducted to enable robustmeasurement of the impact ofimplementation.

6.3 USChasrecentlybeenawardedfundingbytheBillandMelindaGatesFoundationtoimplementasisterprize–asanitationawardschemetofundspecificthematicawardsundertheumbrellaoftheUSC–inpartnershipwiththeCommunityWaterandSanitationAgency.

Headlines


§ The development of innovative liquid waste strategies by 48 MMDAs – including examples ofinterventions across the value chain, and innovative service delivery and financialmodels – andprioritisationoftheirimplementationbythe17MMDAsparticipatinginStage2(i.e.exceedingtheexpectationthat15MMDAswouldaccessStage2).

§ Ashiftingovernmentpriorities–asdemonstratedbyaMinistryofFinancepolicydirectivebyfortheintegrationoftheUSCintobudgetguidelinesforliquidwastemanagement,andthecommitmentof17MMDAstousingassemblyfundstosupportimplementation.

§ Thecreationofaplatformfora“meetingofminds”28ontacklingsanitationchallenges.Specifically,theestablishmentofnascentpublic-privatepartnershipsbetweenMMDAsandarangeofprivatesectorpartners,withearlysignsthatthesearebeingputintopracticeasMMDAsbegintoimplementtheirstrategies.

§ MMDAsfeltthecommunicationandresponsivenessduringtheapplicationprocesswasoutstanding.MMDAs often mentioned how it was nice knowing they were notified as the application wasreceived.

28Applicants

of68


§ Orienting MMDAs on the differences between the prize modality and traditional fundingmechanisms,aswellasmanagingexpectationsaroundthevalueofprizesavailable.

§ Delayeddisbursementofcashprizestothe3winningdistrictassemblies(DAs).DAsreportthatthisislikelytoposeabarriertothetimelyimplementationofstrategies.

§ Capacitylimitationsoftheagentconductingthebaselinesurvey.


§ Engagewiththenewpoliticaladministration,includingMinistryofWaterandSanitation,tobuildontheGovernment’scommitmenttoimprovingsanitationservices.

§ BuildMMDA’simplementationcapacity,withaparticularfocusonmonitoring.

§ ContinuetosupportMMDA’stobuildandconsolidatepartnershipswith,andleveragefundingfrom,privatesectorpartners.

Application,judgingandaward

Accessibilityofapplicationprocessandqualityofapplications

6.7 Using urban communities with a population of 15,000 persons as a threshold for eligibility wasappropriate, and well-informed by consultations with key stakeholders and thorough scoping ofsanitationissuesinGhana.

6.8 Applicantsreportedthatrequireddocumentationandjudgingcriteriawereadequatelyexplained,andthattheyunderstoodthescoringsystemforeachoftheareastobeaddressedbytheapplication.Theydid,however,drawheavilyonsupportivematerialsavailabletoapplicants,includingresourcematerialsonthewebsite,helpdeskandfeedbacksystems.

6.9 Thequalityofapplicationswasvariable,inpartaccordingtothecapacityofindividualMMDAs.Overallthequalitywasdescribedbyteammembersandjudgesasaverage.However,certainapplicationswereofparticularlyhighquality,includingstrategieswhichspannedtheentiresanitationvaluechainand/orinnovativeservicedeliveryorfinancingmodels.Whilethesupportinadministeringtheapplicationwasstrong,MMDA’sdidseemtorequiremoresupportandpotentiallytimeincraftingtheirplans.For“some

ofthedistrictsitwasthefirsttimetheywerecomingoutwithastrategy”(MLDRG)andsomeMMDAssimplysubmittedtheiralreadyexistingplansthatdidn’texactlymeetthecriteria.ItmaybeusefultoprovidemorecapacitybuildingsupportonstrategycreationandtrytoaligntheawardtimelinewithanyexistingMMDAstrategycreationtimelines.Onejudgementioned“ForinstancesomeoftheMMDAs

hadtospendhugeamountstohireconsultanttohelpthemproducetheirproposals”.

Effectiveness,adequacyandefficiencyofjudgingprocess

6.10 Thejudgingprocesswasagreedtobeeffective,withtheuseofexternalexpertshelpingtoensureitscredibility.ThetransparencyoftheprocessandprovisionoffeedbackwasemphasisedasapositivebyseveralMMDAs:

of68

“Thejudgingcriteriawasverygoodbecauseitguidedyouonwhattodoandshowedwhat

markswouldbeallocated foreachof thequestions in theapplication. Andthenwhenthey

finishedtheysentitbacktoustoshowourperformance.”

6.11 MMDAsalsoparticularlyappreciatedtheopportunitytopresenttheirstrategiesinthefinalphaseofjudging.Judgesandteammembersperceivedthisphasetobecriticaltotherigouroftheprocess.


Sufficiencyofoutreach/levelofpromotion

6.12 Theprizefoundisrelativelystraightforwardtoreachpotentialapplicants,giventhatitwasworkingwithaknowngroupof solverswith ready-made institutional structures to facilitatecommunications (theMinistryofLocalGovernmentsentoutacirculartoallMMDAs).Face-to-faceworkshopswere,however,importanttocreateunderstandingandgalvaniseinterestintheUSC.

6.13 Traditionalmediai.e.newspapersandradio,wereusedtoreachthoseoutsideofMMDAsandfoundtobeeffective.Widerawarenessraisingamongstbeneficiariescouldmakegreateruseofsocialmedia(particularlyWhatsApp which is popular amongst both the literate and non-literate population) togeneratedemandforimprovedsanitationservices.

Sufficiencyandappropriatenessofincentivesforapplicants

6.14 Theresponsethattheprizereceivedfromthecallforapplicationsisagoodindicatorofthesufficiencyof the incentive for applicants: “For the first time we have seen MMDAs prioritising liquid wastemanagement”.29Theprimary incentiveforMMDAs,aswellasprivatesectorpartners,wasgenerallyagreedtobethe ‘prestige’thatcomeswithassociationwiththeprize.MMDAsalsonotedthattheyotherwisefinditdifficulttosourcefunding–andthattheprizehasthepotentialtohelpthemleveradditionalresources.

6.15 SomeMMDAsexpresseddissatisfactionregarding thedecisionnot toawardanymonetaryprizes toMetropolitanandMunicipalAssemblies,arguingthattheirstrategiesweretailoredtowardsaddressingspecificgapsinliquidwastemanagementinpoorcommunities:

“Over time the goal posts kept changing. We were told that that there was going to be two

categories–oneformetropolitan/municipalandanotherforthedistrictsandthateachwillhave

threewinners.Sowhenwewereshortlistedamongstthelastsixwewereoptimisticthatwewillat

leastwinsomethingonlyfortherulestobechangedonthedayofprizeaward.”

6.16 Itisworthnoting,however,thatthisdecisionwasbasedonthequalityofapplicationsreceived.Whilstthis caused some confusion and disillusionment amongst applicants, it is clear that the risks wereconsideredandrationalecommunicatedappropriatelybytheteam.

6.17 Someprivatesectorpartnersfeltthatthattheyshouldalsobeabletogainfromtheirinvolvementintheshort-termbyreceivingaprize,aswellasthattheprizevaluewastoolow.However,basedonthe

29Implementingagent

of68

levelandqualityofapplications,anddegreeofprivatesectorinvolvement,theteamappearsthehavepitchedthetypeandvalueoftheStage1prizeappropriately.

Prizemanagement

Governanceandrisk

6.18 In-countrymanagementbyIRCisofgoodquality,andcollaborationwiththeUK-basedteamiseffective.Theteam,inboththeUKandGhana,demonstrateastrongawarenessandunderstandingofdeliveryrisksandhavegivencarefulconsiderationtomitigation.Theserisksareasfollow:

§ Thechallengesposedbypoliticalchangesandprotractedpost-electiontransition.Withachangeintheparentministryforsanitationissues,thenewministerandseniorofficialsneedtobeengaged.Atlocallevel,untilDistrictChiefExecutive(thepoliticalheadsofMMDAs)areappointed,mostofthemajoractivitiesoutlinedinthestrategiesproposedbytheAssemblieswillnotprogress.AstheUSCrequires MMDAs to use their own funds to support implementation, reprioritisation and/oradministrativedelayscouldalsoaffectimplementation.

§ MMDAcapacitygapspertinenttoimplementation,mostnotablycapacitytoconductmonitoring/reportingactivities.

§ Compressedtimelinefordelivery.

.Monitoringandevaluation

6.19 Thecapacityof theagentcarryingout thebaselinehasbeenweak.The teamhave,however, takenappropriatemitigatingactions,byremovingthecommunity-basedelementofthesurveyi.e.restrictingscopetoassemblylevelinformation.

6.20 There is a consensus that the USC has, until now, placed greater emphasis on design andimplementationthanmonitoringand learning.However, IRChas recentlyestablisheda learningandsharingplatformwithMMDAsviaWhatsApp,heldalearningworkshoptocollateviewsonchallengesandlessonsfromapplicantsandstakeholders,anddocumentedlearnings.Applicantsagreedthattheseinitiativesarepositive,but thatmoreemphasisneeds tobemade toaddress their capacitygaps toenablethemtoapplylessonsandmonitorimplementation.


6.21 I2I’s relationship (MoU)with theMinistry of LocalGovernment andRuralDevelopmentworkswell,lending USC the authority and legitimacy needed tomobiliseMMDAs. That USC has recently beenawardedfundingbytheBillandMelindaGatesFoundationtoimplementasisterprizeinpartnershipwiththeCommunityWaterandSanitationAgency,demonstratestheeffectivenessofI2Iengagementwithgovernmentstakeholdersanddonors/fundersworkinginthesamespace.

6.22 Public-privatepartnershipsformedthroughtheUSCweredescribedasa“win-win”30forbothparties.

30MMDAs,privatesectorpartners

of68

§ Privatesectorpartners learntaboutthechallenge independentlyofMMDAs,andreportthistohavestrengthenedtheirpartnerships(e.g.levelsofunderstanding,efficiency).Settingoutthenames of private sector partners on the project website enabled MMDAs to identify potentialcollaborators.

§ Privatesectorpartnershaveexpressedmostsatisfactionwiththeperformanceofpartnershipssofar,wheretheywereactivelyinvolvedintheapplicationprocessi.e.abletofeedintoandmobilizeresourcestosupporttheMMDAsstrategies.Thesepartnershipsarebeginningtobeoperationalisedasimplementationcommences.

§ Private sector partners see themselves as offering themost value in a) building the capacity ofMMDAs to deliver sanitation services via the development of a strong cadre of MMDA wastemanagement experts and b) marketing successful solutions and products developed duringimplementation.

6.23 Some MMDAs have also initiated contact with local NGOs working in the sector to support theimplementationoftheirstrategies.

Impact,sustainabilityandvalueformoney


6.24 Strategies appear to be targeting the sanitation challenges of poor and low-income groups. In allMMDAs interviewed, for example, strategies targetedpoor communitieswhere thepopulation lackdomestictoilets,resortingtoopendefecation,andwhereincomelevelsaretoolowtodevelopthebasicinfrastructurerequiredtocounterthis.Almostallstrategiesspannedtheentirevaluechainof liquidwastemanagement,includingconstructionoftoiletsinhomesandpublicfacilities(markets,transportterminals),collectionandtransportationoffaecalsludge,andcomposting.

Sustainabilityandvalueformoney

6.25 TheMinistryofFinancehasissuedapolicydirectivefortheintegrationoftheUSCintobudgetguidelinesfor liquid waste management, whilst most of the MMDAs that qualified for Stage 2 have passedresolutionsfortheuseofassemblyfundstoimplementtheirstrategies.ThatassemblieshavebeguntousetheirownfundstoimplementstrategiesbeforeUSCprizewinningshavebeendisbursedrepresentsstrongvalueformoney.

6.26 InallMMDAsthebudgetrequiredforthestrategiesproposedwasgreaterthantheprizemoneybeingoffered, and does not include budget for subsequent scaling of successful solutions. With Ghanabecoming a middle income country, grants as a mechanism for funding development activities ofgovernmentisonthedeclineandhenceisanunsustainablewayoffundingsanitation.Theroleplayedbytheprizeinleveragingprivatesectorfundingoffersawelcomealternative.

6.27 MMDAs awarded cash highlighted the risk of financing the gap between prize money and projectbudget.MMDAs not awarded cash but receiving an honour award asked for othermechanisms tosupporttheirproposals.Thereisanopportunityfortheawardprocesstoactasafilterforotherprivatepartners to support screened projects. This may also help reduce award fatigue and maximisebeneficiariesserved.

of68

“TheriskreallyhastodowiththeMMDAsbecomingdisinterestedovertime.Nowitisa

newthingbutiftheresultisonlylookingatprizewinnerswithoutapplaudingtheworkthatisbeing

putinthenIfearthenon-prizewinnerswillbackout.”

6.28 ThereisevidencethatthedevelopmentofthestrategiesbytheMMDAsasaresultoftheSanitationChallengehasbegun toopenupopportunities to attract funding from theprivate sector andotheractors.Forexample,AtiwaDistrict,oneofthecashprizeawardwinners[fortheirliquidsmanagementplan] has since secured the support of the Ernest PeryerMemorial Foundation and [other] privateindividualstosupportcapitalcostsoftheimplementation.


Timeframe

6.29 Despitethecompressedtimeframe,theMTRdoesnotrecommendanextensiontotheprizetimeline.However,potentialdelaystoStage2asaresultofpost-electionchangesinGhanashouldbemonitoredcloselyoverthecomingc.3months,andthequestionofanextensionberevisitedshouldtheknockoneffectsprovesignificant.


6.30 Itisrecommendedthat,giventheleveloftractionachievedwithgovernment,effectiveincentivisingofpublic-privatepartnerships,andpotentialforsustainabilitythatopportunitiestoreplicatetheprizeareinvestigated.InfacttheGatesFoundationisalreadyreplicatingpartsoftheprogramwithIRC.TheMTRrecommends that the prize is not scaled in-Ghana (given the appropriateness of the threshold foreligibilityaroundsizeofcommunityserved)butreplicatedelsewhere.Giventheuniquecharacteristicsoftheprize–particularlyitssuccessinbuildinglocalcoalitionsaroundsanitationproblemsinaspecificsetting–itshouldbereplicatedatcountrylevelratherthanscaledglobally.


6.31 Tomitigaterisks,andenhanceimpact,sustainabilityandvalueformoney,itisrecommendedthatthe

followinginvestmentsintheprizebeprioritisedequally:

§ IncreasecapacitybuildingforMMDAsthroughlearningandpracticeworkshops,includingcapacitytomonitorimplementation(H).

§ BudgetforthedevelopmentandmanagementoftheCWSAsisterprize(L).

§ ScopingforreplicationoftheUSCi.e.toidentifychallenging,‘prizeable’problemsandappropriatecountrysettingswithstrongprizeecosystems,notleastanenablingpoliticalenvironment(VH).

§ Duetothecreationofstrategicplans,thereisanopportunityfortheawardprocesstoactasafilterforotherprivatepartnerstosupportscreenedprojects.Thismayalsohelpreduceawardfatigue,maximizebeneficiariesserved,andincreasefollow-oninvestment.

§ MMDAsstrategicplansshouldalsoincludeafinancingplantoensurethattheMMDAcanleveragefunds,whetherthosebeinternal,external,andtheprizemoney,toimplementtheproject.

of68

Chapter7: DreampipeII

Background

7.1 DreampipeisaglobalWASHprize(focusedonDFIDprioritycountries)thatseekstoencouragethedevelopmentofworkableandreplicableideasforexpandingthefinancingavailablefornon-revenue-water31(NRW)reductionactivitiesindevelopingcountries.

7.2 DreampipeIIisformedof3phases:

§ Phase 1 – awards will be made for the best business plans setting out how Stage 2requirementswillbecarriedout.

§ Phase2–applicantswillbeassessedoncarryingout(andfullydocument)ademonstrationproject to reduce NRW in a selected water utility, as well as an updated business planfocusingonfinancingandcontractingforamajorexpansionprojectinthesameutility.

§ Phase3–applicantswillsubmittermsheetsforallmajorprojectandfinancingagreementsneeded for the expansion project in the selected utility, including a performance-basedcontract.

7.3 Theoriginalprize–DreampipeI–waslaunchedinFebruary2016andawardedinJulyofthesame year. Dreampipe has since been redesigned to create a more focused, tournamentapproachwiththeintentionofminimisingrisk.

Headlines


§ Timelyadaptationinthedecisiontoclosedown,redesigntheprizeprogrammedrawingonlessonsfromDreampipeI,andlaunchingDreampipeII.

§ ExtensivepromotionofDreampipeIIinrelevantinternationalforaandsectorpublications,andpromisingapplicationnumbers.

7.5 Themostnotable challenges facedby theprizeprogramme related to thediverse solutionsgenerated by Dreampipe I applicants, which would not have allowed the team to form acoherentportfolio.However,asnotedabove,theteamhaslearntvaluablelessonsfromthisexperienceandputthesetogoodusewhenredesigningtheprize.


§ Refineamarketingmodelforglobaldevelopmentprizes–marketingforglobalratherthancountry-specific prizes poses particular challenges, but there are early indications thattargetinginternationalnetworks/communitiesofpracticehasbeenaneffectivemarketing

31NRWisdefinedaswaterthatisproducedbutlostbeforereachingtheconsumer,orisimproperlybilledfor.

of68

tool.Inphases2and3theteamshouldcontinuetorefinetheirapproachandcouldcaptureusefullessonsaroundwhichtechniquesworkbestforwiderdissemination.

§ Considerloweringthethresholdforeligibilityrelatingtothe‘minimumnumberofpersonsimpacted’, placing slightly less emphasis on direct beneficiary numbers to ensure thatgenuinely innovativesolutionswith lowerbeneficiarynumbersbutthepotentialfor largeindirectimpactarenotruleout.

§ Consider – depending on the applications received for Phase I and type of applicants –facilitatingparticular individualapplicantsto jointogethertoforminterdisciplinaryteamswithcomplementaryexpertise.

DreampipeIandredesign

LimitationsofDreampipeI

7.7 DreampipeIproducedtoowideanarrayofsolutionsfortheteamtoformacoherentprofile,withtheparameterssetoutforapplicantsprovingtoobroadandunspecific.

7.8 Marketing a global prize has proven challenging (given the large applicant pool and limitedresources)comparedtoin-countryprizeswhichcanpursuemoreintensiveengagementwithasmaller pool of applicants. Application numbers were lower than hoped with only a smallproportion of those who had shown interest submitting applications. Approximately 400visitorspermonthtothewebsitewererecordedwithintheapplicationwindow,46registrationswere received,ofwhich20applied–a relatively steepdropoff rate.The spreadof typeofapplicantswas also limited,with themajority alreadyworking in thewater sector (i.e. notdrawinginnewordifferenttypesofsolvers).

Redesignprocess

7.9 Thedecision to redesignDreampipe represents a goodexampleof theprogrammeworkingadaptively andusingaproblem-centric approach. The teamconsultedwithawide rangeofstakeholders including prize judges, sector experts, and financiers working in developingcountries to develop a clear understanding of the issues/problems that needed to beconsideredfortheredesign.

7.10 Whilst the end goal of Dreampipe II remains the same, the redesign has narrowed theparametersoftheproblem,aswellasthepathwaysthroughwhichsolversareincentivisedtotackleit,withachangeoffocusfromfinancingmechanismstosourcesoffinancing.Theteamhavealsoactivelyencouragedsubmissionsfrominterdisciplinaryteams.

ImplementingDreampipeII

Outreachandsupportiveactivities

7.11 Theteamhaveadoptedamorestrategicmarketingapproach,andappeartohavehadsuccessinworkingthroughrelevant international forae.g.2016Water Ideasconference,andsectorpublicationse.g.GlobalWaterIntelligencemagazine,withnumbersofapplicationspromising.

of68

7.12 Applicantsarenotprovidedwithtechnicalassistanceduringtheapplicationprocess,butaregivenadhocguidancewhennecessary.Thislevelofsupportislikelytobesufficientgiventhatapplicantsareexpectedtohaverelativelyhighcapacitylevels.

7.13 Asforeligibility,therequirementthatapplicantsmustbeworkingwithatleast150,000personscouldbelimiting.ThisisoneinstancewhereI2Icouldreconsiderthebalancebetweendirectandindirectoutcomes–thatis,betweenbeneficiariesimpacteddirectlybythesolutionsbeingdeveloped and implemented under the prizes, and inducing the development of reallyinnovative solutions with potential for largescale, albeit indirect, impact. Rather than athresholdforeligibilitybasedonbeneficiarynumberswhichrulesoutsmallerinitiatives,scoringcriteriacould includebeneficiarynumberstoensurethattheprogrammereaches its targetswhilstallowingsmaller,buttrulyinnovativeinitiatives,tocompete.

Prizemanagement

Governanceandrisk

7.14 As a global prize managed in-house by IMC, Dreampipe benefits from particular efficientmanagementarrangements.

7.15 Asmentionedabove,theredesignprocessrepresentsagoodexampleofadaptivemanagementwith the prize team placing particular value on the flexibility of the programme and the“problem-solvingenvironment”itenables.

7.16 Themain risk to implementation relate to applicant capacity – specifically, to run Phase 2demonstrationprojects andpreparing term sheetsduringPhase3. The successof theprizedependsontheapplicantsbeingableandwillingtoundertakelargeinvestmentswithrelativelylittlesupportandfeedback.

7.17 Itisworthmentioningthatcertainsector-specificrisksremainbeyondthescopeofsolutionsbeing inducedbytheprizeprogramme–mostnotably,poorsectorgovernanceandpoliticaleconomyaspectsofwaterutility(e.g.rentseeking).

Monitoringandevaluation

7.18 DreampipeisoneofonlytwoprizeswherethereisstillscopeforStage1learningtofeedintolaterstages(or ‘phases’ inDreampipe’scase). If theteamdochoosetocarryoutevaluationafterphases1and/or2, this shouldbe carriedout in timelyway to feed intodesignof thesubsequentphase.Amodestincreasetotheevaluationbudgetwillbeneededtoresourcethis.

7.19 There is consensus that the team has learnt important lessons from the limitations ofDreampipeI–relatingtodefiningtheparametersoftheproblemtobetackledandhowglobalprizes canbemosteffectively andefficientlymarketed. Theprogrammeshouldensure thattheselessonsarefedintoprogrammelearningstreamstoinformlearningproducts.

of68


Timeframe

7.20 GiventhetimethatwasrequiredtoredesignandrelaunchDreampipe,theMTRrecommendsasixmonthextensiontoenablesufficienttimetoachieveandevaluatepositiveoutcomesforbeneficiaries.


7.21 Dreampipeworkswithrelativelywell-capacitatedsolversandsomaybeagoodcandidateforscaling or replication in specific contexts. There is, however, not yet sufficient evidence tosupport such a decision. If the prize is able to attract a sufficient number of high qualityapplicationsforPhaseIandstarttobuildcoalitionsofdiverseactorstotackleNRWreduction,thiswillprovideanearlyindicationofpotentialimpactandsustainability.

Futureinvestment/Scopetoscaleupand/orreplicate

7.22 Toenhanceimpact,sustainabilityandvalueformoney, itisrecommendedthatthefollowing

investmentsintheprizebeprioritised(indecreasingorderofpriority):

§ CapacitybuildingforapplicantstosupportthemtorunPhase2demonstrationprojectsandpreparetermsheetsduringPhase3.Facilitatingpartnershipsbetweenparticipants,withafocusonoutreachtofinanciers(M).

§ Responsive end phase evaluations should the team choose to run evaluations followingphases1and/or2(M).

of68

Chapter8: GlobalLEAPRefrigerationPrize

Background

8.1 I2I issupportingaDFID/USAIDcollaborationontheGlobalLEAP(LightingandEnergyAccessPartnership) awards – an existing programme operated by the NGO CLASP – by providingfunding to the prize purse for its off-grid refrigeration prize and running field testing ofshortlistedappliances.

8.2 I2I is also developing a sister prize for larger scale refrigeration – the Off-Grid Cold ChainChallenge(OGCCC)–forwhichtheconceptnoteshasrecentlybeenapprovedbyDFID.Theprizewillbeformedoftwostages,thefirstfocusingonideationandtheseconddemonstrationofresults.

8.3 The original design of I2I’swork in the energy access sectorwas formed of a trio of prizes(unrelatedtotheGlobalLEAPawards)tosupportashiftinpolicytosupportLPGusageinGhana.Ofthese,oneprize–‘theCylinderPrize’–toidentifyappropriatemethodstorecycleandreuseoldLPGcylindersthatdidnotmeetnewsafetystandardswasimplemented,buttheprogrammewasdiscontinuedowingtochangesinthepolicyenvironmenti.e.thegovernment’sdecisionnottoimplementtheLPGpolicy.I2I’senergyaccessworkhassincebeenredesignedarounditsengagementwiththeGlobalLEAPawards.

Headlines

8.4 Keyachievementsinclude:32

§ DevelopingastrongandeffectivepartnershipwithNGOCLASP,theleadimplementeroftheGlobalLEAPAwards.

§ Timely launchoftherefrigerationprizeandeffectiveoutreachtosolvercommunity,withnominationsexceedingtargets.


§ ResourceconstraintsslowedtheprocessofscopingandpreparingaconceptnotefortheOGCCCgiventhecomplexityofthesubjectmatter.AbetterresourcedprojectmanagerwasappointedbyE4IinOctober2016toaddresstheseconstraints,withtheconceptnotenowapprovedbyDFID.

8.6 Opportunitiestostrengthentheprizeincludescope:

§ Toensure that the Energy 4 Impact prizemanager is fully involved inadhoc cross-prizelearning,giventhedifferentmanagementarrangementsforthisprize(withI2I’sinvolvementintheGlobalLEAPawardsmanagedentirelybyEnergy4Impact).

32ItisworthnotingthatadaptingtothechallengesfacedintheCleanCookingPrizeinGhanabyidentifyingitsinabilitytoprogress

of68


8.7 GlobalLEAPisrunbyCLASP,andfundedprimarilybyUSAID.Thenumberofdifferentdonorsandimplementersinvolveddoessometimespresentchallengesastheresultofslightlydifferingexpectations.However,overallthestrengthofI2I’sinvolvementhasbeentoaddvaluetoanexistinginitiative.

8.8 Therefrigerationprizeoffersausefulexampleofthepotentialvalueofdonorandimplementerpartnershipsoninnovationprizes–aswellasofembeddingprizeswithinexistingprogrammesorinitiatives.Inadditiontoincreasingtheprizepurse,withCLASPalreadywell-networkedwithacommunityofsolversandworkingto identify ‘best inclass’products, I2Ihasbeenable tosupportthemtointroduceastrongerinnovationfocus,mostnotablybyrunningupcomingfieldtesting(forwhichCLASPdidnothavetheresources).

8.9 FacilitatingpartnershipsamongstpotentialsolversundertheOGCCCprizecouldhelptoensureimpact i.e. between manufacturers of technology and suppliers who understand marketdynamicstoenabledisruptionofexistingsupplychainmodalities.


Drawinginsolvers

8.10 ThepartnershipwithCLASPhasprovidedaccess to a known communityof solvers (existingnetworksworkingonoff-gridrefrigerationinitiatives),whichhasbeencriticaltoachievinggoodlevelsofparticipationintherefrigerationprize,particularlygiventhechallengesassociatedwithmarketing global prizes. The number of nominations has exceeded expectations, with 55nominations received from 28 different companies based in 14 countries (of which 7 aredeveloping).

8.11 Theteamhavelearntfromthisexperienceandadoptedastrategicapproachtothepromotionofthesisterprize,bypursuingpotentialpartnerships(e.g.withtheShellFoundation,theGlobalColdChainAlliance)thatcanprovideaccesstostrongsolvernetworks.

8.12 I2Ihasaddedvaluetotheprize’sabilitytodrawinsolvers,withtheofferofvaluableconsumerfeedbackthroughfieldtestingformanufacturersanddistributorsreportedtohaveattractednewentrants.

Diversityofsolutionsproposedandadditionalityofprizemodality

8.13 Applicationsincludeadiversityofappliancesandproducts,including45commerciallyavailableproductsand9latestageprototypes.Therearesomeindicationsthattheprizehasplayedacatalyticeffect,withsomebusinessesreportingrushingprototypesinordertobeabletoenter.

of68

Supporttosolvers

8.14 Smallerorganisations’abilitytocompeteeffectivelywouldlikelybenefitfromcapacitybuildingactivities.However,suchactivitiesarelikelytobeimpractical(anddisproportionatelycostly)inthecontextofaglobalprize,butcouldbeconsidered ifthesetypesofsolvershappentobeclusteredinaparticularregion.AswithotherI2Iprizes,theprioritywouldbetosupportsolverstoengagewithothersourcesoffunding.

Prizemanagement

Governance

8.15 I2I’s involvement in the Global LEAP Awards is managed entirely by Energy 4 Impact. Themanagement relationship between the Programme Management Unit and implementersappearstobecollaborativeandeffective.Withtheprizeteamrelativelynewtotheprogramme,there were some teething issues with the setting up and communication of programmemanagementsystems.However,withcommunicationswithPMUeffective, such issueshavealwaysbeeneasilyrectified.

ManagementoftherelationshipwithCLASP

8.16 Theprize teamappear tobemanaging the relationshipwithCLASP, includingdisbursementrequests,effectively.ThereportingdataprovidedbyCLASPissufficient,butregularI2I-CLASPmeetingsarenowhappeninglessfrequentlythanpreviously–giventhattheserepresentthemainforumforreportingdeliveryrisks,itmaybeusefultoreintroducemoreregularmeetings.

Monitoring,evaluationandlearning

8.17 I2IhasinvestedresourcesinlearningfromtheexperienceoftheGhanaLPGProgramme.Whilstitisclearthatthesecondandthirdprizesbecameunviableastheresultofchangesinthepolicyenvironmentand thedecision to closedown theprogramme represents a goodexampleofadaptation,theteamshouldensurethatanywiderlearningsarefedthroughintoprogrammelearningstreams.

8.18 I2I’s redesigned energy access stream candemonstrate several examples of effective cross-prize learning.Most notably, the team is currently applying learning from elsewhere in theprogrammetoinformthedesignoftheOGCCC.TheseincludelessonsfromDreampipearounddefiningparametersoftheproblemtobeaddressedinthecontextofaglobalprize,andfromtheexistingGlobalLEAPrefrigerationprizearoundusingpartnershipstoidentifyandaccessthe‘right’solvers.

8.19 Nevertheless,as IMChasbeenrequiredtoabsorbmoreof themanagementof the I2Iprizeportfoliotherehasbeenadropininformationsharingbetweentheprizes.TheIMCteamshouldbear in mind the need to engage the Energy 4 Impact team in opportunities for internalinformationsharing,giventhatmostcross-prizelearningtakesplaceonanadhocbasis.

of68

8.20 Field testingwill beused to inform learningproducts – and (although the technology focusdiffers fromother prizes in the I2I portfolio) offers a good example of capturing prize levellearningaroundsolutions forglobalpublicgoods.Byplacing shortlistedproductswith smallretailersinUgandaandprovidingthemwithanappropriatesolarpowersupply,theteamwillassessefficiencyaswellasthevaluepropositionfortheuser:

“Sothatwecanthencomparepotentialeconomicvaluewiththecostoftheproduct,andhelp

themarket understandwhat sort of price points andwhat sort of paymentplanswouldbe

necessaryinordertomakethistypeofproductaffordabletoatypicaluserinanoff-gridarea.”


Timeframe

8.21 The team plan to use a rolling entry system under the OGCCC to compress timeframes byenablingStage2tobeginassoonasStage1hasbeenawarded.Nevertheless–giventhattheGlobalLEAPrefrigerationandsisterawardareatanearlierstagethanotherprizeprogrammesintheI2Iportfolio–theMTRrecommendsasixmonthextensiontoallowsufficienttimeforsolverstoachievepositiveoutcomesforbeneficiaries.Anextensionwillalsohelptoopenuptheprizetonewsolvers;theshorterthetimeframe,themorelikelytheprize isto‘lockout’organisationswhicharenotwell-establishedand-capacitated.


8.22 Theteamisalreadyeffectivelysupportingandscalingtheexistingrefrigerationprizethroughthedesignofacomplementarysisterprizefocusingonlargerscalerefrigerationforcommercialpurposes.


8.23 Toenhanceimpact,sustainabilityandvalueformoney,itisrecommendedthatthefollowinginvestmentsintheprizebeprioritised(indecreasingorderofpriority):

§ InvestmentintheOGCCCprizepurseneededforI2Itomoveforwardwiththedevelopmentoftheprize(VH).

§ LighttouchcapacitybuildingofOGCCCparticipantstosupportthetransitionfromStage1toStage2,includingfacilitatingpartnershipsamongstpotentialsolvers(M).

8.24 Capturinganddisseminating learningfromtheGlobalLEAPrefrigerationprizewillalsobeofcritical importance.AlthoughfallingbeyondI2I’spurview, theprogrammeshould, ifneeded,influencethewiderGlobalLEAPprogrammetoensurethatsuccessfulsolutionsarepromotedeffectively(inthecasethatGlobalLEAPisabletoclearlydefinetheparametersofanappliancethatrepresentsagoodvaluepropositionforthemarketandbeneficiaries).

of68

Chapter9: Programmemanagement

Governanceandmanagementarrangements

Managementstructure

9.1 Leadershipandmanagementoftheprogrammeisverystrong,andperceivedassuchbyteammembers throughout the programme’s organisational structure. Restructuring centralprogramme management arrangements to bring prize managers in-house in 2015/16strengthenedthequalityofcross-prizeinteractionsandresultedinefficiencygains.

9.2 Both Itad and implementing agents report relationships with the PMU and in-house prizemanagerstobeeffective,openandcollaborative,whilstin-countryprizemanagersaresatisfiedwithlevelsofoversightanddelegation.

9.3 However,workingwithlocalimplementingagentshasinvolvedhighermanagementcoststhananticipated. Delegating additional responsibilities to in-country prize managers has provenchallengingowingtocapacitylimitations.

Adaptivemanagement

9.4 I2Iwasnotexplicitlydesignedasanadaptiveprogrammebuthasbecomesoorganicallyowingto the innovative nature of the programme and its activities. DFID has provided effectivesupport to this approach by offering a degree of flexibility onmanagement arrangements,includingbudgeting,whilstretainingeffectiveoversightofimplementation.However,workingflexiblyandresponsively,includingeffectivemanagementofResultsFramework,hasrequiredmoremanagementtimethanoriginallyenvisaged.

9.5 Initsearlierstages,theprogramme,attimes,found‘failingfast’tricky(i.e.identifyingandeitherhaltingoradaptingspecificapproacheswhicharenotworkingwell)–likelyasaresultofthechallengesassociatedwithstructuringprizesaroundparticularlyintractableissues.However,itcanalsopointtoeffectiveexamplesofadaptationinresponselessonslearnedandcontextualchanges – most notably, closing down the Ghana Clean Cooking prize and refocusingDreampipe.

9.6 The programme could domore to systematically capture and share lessons about workingadaptivelyintheinnovationsectorandonprizesspecifically.Atpresent,instancesofadaptationaredocumentedbutnotproducedforanexternalaudience.

Riskmanagement

9.7 ThePMU,in-houseandin-countryprizemanagersdemonstrateasoundawarenessofmajorriskstodelivery,whichtendtocentreonthefollowingissues:

§ Operating environment (e.g. changes to political environments, security and corruptionconcerns,andnaturaldisasters).

of68

§ Insufficientsolverinterest(lowregistrationnumbers,poorqualitysubmissions)

§ Participant attrition (as a result of e.g. misjudged risk/reward curve, inadequate solvercapacity)

8.1 Riskismanagedeffectivelyatprizelevel,withteamsgivingcarefulconsiderationtothescopeformitigationandmakingalterationstoimplementationaccordingly.

8.2 Thereispotentialtoformaliseandcentraliseriskmanagementprocesses.Riskisownedbyprizemanagers rather than centrally and not currently reviewed as part of regular programmemanagementprocesses.Significantchangestotheriskregisterarecurrentlyreportedformallyonanannualratherthanquarterlybasis.Itisrecommendedthatalighttouchupdate–forexample,intheformofanissueslog–beincludinginquarterlyreporting.

Valueformoneyandfinancialperformance

9.8 Economy:

§ Managementcostshavebeenhigherthanoriginallyenvisaged,buttheteamhaveworkedhardtomaintaintheproportionofbudgetallocatedtoprogrammemanagementrelativetothe prize purse and other in-country activities. In 2016 central administration andmanagementconstituted8%oftotalspend.

§ Theproportionof junior (vs. senior)days is reported tohave increasedover time, albeitincrementally.Theprogrammehasalsoderivedeconomyfromthefact thatallUK-based(andmostin-country)programmestaffarepart-time.

9.9 Efficiency:

§ Therelativeefficiencyofdeliveryacrossthedifferentprizeshasbeendrivenprimarilybytheinterface between prize managers and implementing agents – specifically, the level ofoversightthathasbeenneeded/ofdelegationappropriate.Theglobalprizesunsurprisinglyoffer themost efficientmanagement arrangements,33whilst valuable lessons have beenlearntaroundtherelativeefficiencyofcontractingandimplementingagentandrecruitingin-countrystaff.

§ Itshouldbenotedthatefficiencymaydecrease,iftheprogrammeistoengageinthesolvercapacitybuildingactivitiesnecessarytomitigaterisksaroundimplementationofsolutionsandStage2award,andensuresustainableimpact.

§ Theprogrammehasalsobenefitedfromflexibilityofstaffresourcesacrosstheprizesatprizemanagerlevel.

9.10 Effectiveness:

33Theefficiencyoftheglobalprizesisalsoenhancedbysimplerprizeecosystemsanddesigns,althoughmarketingcoststendtobehigherthanisthecaseforcountryspecificprizes.

of68

§ Programme documents currently suggest a wide range of measures of effectiveness –certain ofwhich, for example, those relating to variance between forecasted and actualbudgets or planned and actual delivery dates for key outputs, may create unhelpfulincentivesfortheprogramme,particularlygivenitsadaptivemodeofworking.

§ Effectiveness should be measured more straightforwardly, with reference to logframeoutcomes–i.e.O1)thedevelopmentanddeploymentofinnovationsolutionsandachievingofpositiveoutcomesforbeneficiaries,O3)influencingotherstoimplementprizes‘better’andO4)developingarobustevidencebasecentredonprogrammelearningstreams.

§ The first of thesewill be best demonstrated through evaluations’measurement of prizeeffects,withcompletedStage1evaluationspromising.Moreattentionshouldbedevotedto knowledge sharing and influencing to ensure that the programme not only tests butcaptures and disseminates lessons around its core hypothesis (and in doing so deliversagainstoutcomes3and4).

9.11 Equity:

§ Women’srepresentationamongstsolversvariesconsiderablyacrosstheprizes.Inthecaseof CIP, for example, significantly fewer women submittedWazo applications than men.However,womenappeartosubmitrelativelystrongerapplications,withaconversionrateof32%(winnersasapercentageofcompletedapplications)comparedto7%formen;almosthalfofwinnerswerewomen.Bycontrast,inthecaseofA@Snoneofthe15prizewinnerswerewomen’sorganisations,whilstnoneof thewinners sentwomen representatives toparticipate in the presentation of their solutions after award. Barriers include capacitylimitationsandpersistentsocio-culturalbarriers.

§ Bycontrast, there isemergingevidencethatsolutions inducedacrossdifferentprizesaregeared towardsbenefittingpoorandvulnerablegroups.BothCIPandA@Ssolutionsareworkingthroughwomen’sgroupstotacklethespecificvulnerabilitiesfacedbywomen(e.g.time and information poverty), aswell as to strengthen their voice and decision-makingpowerwithincommunities.

of68

Chapter10: Strategicrecommendations

Programmeduration

10.1 Delays to implementation have resulted from the innovative nature and complexity ofprogramme design (and consequent programme adaptations), as well as unforeseeablecircumstances – not least the April 2015 earthquake in Nepal. It is recommended that theimplementationtimelineforcertainprizesbeextendedbysixmonthstoallowsufficienttimeforthedevelopmentanddeploymentofsolutions,anddemonstrationofpositiveoutcomesforbeneficiaries.

10.2 Specifically,thefollowingprizeswouldbenefitfromasixmonthextension:

§ AdaptationatScale

§ DreampipeII

§ EnergyAccess

10.3 Inaddition,potentialdelaystoStage2oftheUrbanSanitationChallengeasaresultofpost-electionchangesinGhanashouldbemonitoredcloselyoverthecomingc.3months,andthequestionofanextensionberevisitedshouldtheknockoneffectsprovesignificant.

10.4 ThiswouldbringthedateforthefinalclosureofprizestoJune2019(ratherthanDecember2018),afterwhichtheevaluationteamwillneedninemonthstoconductplannedevaluationand research. Given that three months are already provided for in existing programmetimelines,thiswouldbringtheprogammeenddatetoMarch2020,sixmonthsafterthecurrentcontractenddate34–i.e.atotal(no-cost)extensionofninemonths.

10.5 Managementcostsassociatedwithprizeextensionsshouldbekeptascloseaspossibletothe‘low’bracketofinvestment.

Targetingprogrammeinvestments

10.6 Itisrecommendedthat,atprizelevel,theprogrammeinvestsavingsfromreducedprizepursein thoseareaswhichmitigatemajor risks toStage2delivery i.e. theeffectivedevelopment,deploymentandtestingofsolutionsandpositiveoutcomesforbeneficiaries.Thiswillhelptoensurethattheprizesachievesustainable impactandmaximisevalueformoney.Prize levelfindingssetoutspecificsforeachprize,butsolvercapacitybuildingisaconsistenttheme–notleastsupporttoengagewithpotentialfunderstohelpleveradditionalinvestment.

10.7 Attheprogrammelevel,I2Ishouldprioritiseinvestmentin:

a) Knowledgesharingandinfluencing–includingthegenerationanddisseminationofbothprize(e.g.addressingspecificproblemsthroughprizes,workingwithdifferent

34TheprogrammeheadcontractextendssixmonthsbeyondthecurrentenddatefortheI2Iprogramme,totakeintoaccountdeverytimelinesfortheFrontierTechaddon,whichfallsoutsideofthescopeofthisMTR.

of68

typesofsolveretc.)andprogramme(operatinginnovationprizesfordevelopment)levellearning(VH).

b) Scoping for scale up / replication of specific prizes where concrete opportunitiespresent themselves, with the Urban Sanitation Challenge the strongest contender(VH).

10.8 TheMTRsupportsexistingevaluationplanstomeasurespecificprizeeffectsandadditionalityaspossiblewithinexistingresourceenvelopes.Theprogrammecouldconsiderincreasestotheevaluationbudget,forthoseprizeswherethereisstillscopeforflexible,responsiveevaluationsupport to feed intoStage2design,namelyDreampipe II and theGlobal LEAP refrigerationsisterprize.Otherwise,relevantopportunitiesforsuchadaptivelearningarelimited.Acrosstheboard, itmaybenecessarytomakemodest increasestoevaluationbudgetstoevaluatetheeffectivenessof,previouslyunplanned,capacitybuildingactivities(L).

10.9 Whereverpossible,I2Ishouldseektomaximiseimpact–withoutplacingsignificantadditionalburdenontheprogrammebudget–bybuildingpartnershipswith,andleveragingtheresourcesandnetworksof,existingandwell-established institutionsandprogrammesoperating inthesamesectors.

Opportunitiesforscalingandreplication

10.10 TheexperienceofdesigningandestablishinginnovationprizesfordevelopmentthroughI2Ihasbeenasteeplearningcurve–butoffersvaluablelessonsandlikelyeconomiesofscalewhenscaling/replicating.

10.11 Thoseprizeswherebarrierstoscalingsustainablyarehighest–includingwheresolvercapacityismostlimited–maynotbethemostobviouscandidatesforreplication.

10.12 Criteria for identifying the most suitable candidates for scaling or replication include: theinnovativenessofsolutionsdeveloped;effectivenessofcoalitionsorpartnershipsbuiltaroundthe prize problem; successful transition to Stage 2, including effective implementation ofsolutionsandsubmissionofprizeworthyapplications;anddemonstrationofpositiveoutcomesforbeneficiaries,whicharelikelytobesustainable.

10.13 Atpresent,thestrongestcandidatesappeartobe:theUrbanSanitationChallenge,owingtothelevel of traction gained with government and early indications that effective public-privatepartnershipsarebeingfacilitated;andtheClimateInformationPrize,whichisworkingwithamotivated and relatively well capacitated solver group, and hence faces lower barriers tosustainability.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatitistooearlytoassesswhetheracorrelationexists betweena group’s capacity and the innovativenessof solutionsdeveloped (although,basedonconsultations,theMTRteamsuspectsthatthismaywellbethecase).

10.14 Inpractice,specificopportunitiesforreplicationhavesofaremergedinadhocwayatlevelofindividualprizes.I2Ishouldbepragmaticandpursueconcreteopportunitieswheretheyarise,providing that the prize in question remains on a trajectory towards delivering sustainableimpact.

of68

10.15 However,thisdoesnotmeanthatotherprizesshouldbede-prioritised.I2Iisfundamentallyaresearchprogramme, and soopportunities to capture learning about, for example,workingwithdifferentsolversandindifferentsectorsshouldbemaximised.

of68

AnnexA: StatusofI2Iprizes

ClimateInformationPrize,Kenya

Milestone Progress

AwardofStage1(Wazo)

Achieved:3winnersand10runnerupswereawardedon6thApril2016.

LaunchofStage2(Tekeleza)

Achieved:Successfullylaunchedon6thApril2016.

AwardofTambua(RecognitionPrizes)

Achieved:Totalof12applicationsreceived,fromwhich7wereshortlistedforjudging.Aprizepurseof£4,550wasawarded.

CloseofStage2(Tekeleza)

Ontrack:3submissionshavebeenreceivedfortheTekelezaPrize,closing28thFebruary.TheprizeclosestonewapplicantsinDecember2017,andwillcloseinMarch2018.

AwardofStage2(Tekeleza)

TobereviewedatcloseofStage2

AdaptationatScale,Nepal

Milestone Progress

LaunchofStage1(ProtsahanPuruskar)

Achieved:theprizewassuccessfullylaunchedon2ndMay2016).

CloseofStage1 Achieved:Theprizewasclosedon5thOctober2016(rescheduledfrom30thSeptember).

AwardofStage1 Achieved:Atotalof15winnerswereeachawarded£10,000on16thDecember2016.Atotalof59applicationswerereceived.

LaunchofStage2(KarynwayanPuraskar)

Ontrack:TheStage2prizeisduetobelaunchedbyMarch2017.All15winnersfromStage1arebeingcommunicatedwithtoinvitethemtoapplyforStage2.

AwardofRecognitionPrize(PahichanPuraskar)

TheRecognitionPrizeisduetobeawardedbytheendofthethirdquarterof2017.

CloseofStage2 Stage2isduetocloseinAugust2018.

AwardofStage2 TobereviewedatcloseofStage2

UrbanSanitationChallenge,Ghana

Milestone Progress

CloseofStage1(DuapaAward)

Achieved:Stage1closedonApril30th2016.Atotalof91/139solversregisteredtheirinterest,resultinginatotalof48MMDAssubmittingtheirliquidwastemanagementstrategies.

of68

Milestone Progress

AwardofStage1 Achieved:Atotalof21honoraryawardsweredisbursed.AllwinnersweregiventheopportunitytoenterStage2.

LaunchofStage2(DignifiedCityAward)

Achieved:Stage2waslaunchedinJune2016.17MMDAshaveaccessedStage2(15anticipated).Supporttoapplicantsisprovidedthroughongoinghelpdeskfacility

VerificationofStage2

Ongoing:Poorperformancebycontractedagenthasresultedindelaystotheassessment.Contractwithagenthasbeenre-negotiated.Theappointmentofanadditionalfirmtosupplementtheworkisplanned.

CloseofStage2 Stage2isduetocloseinJuly2018.

AwardofStage2 TobereviewedatcloseofStage2

Dreampipe,Global

Milestone Progress

CloseofStage1DreampipeI

Achieved:DreampipeIclosedinApril2016.Atotalof20applicantsfrom14countriesreceived.Prizeredesignedtonarrowprizeparametersandmitigaterisk.

AwardofStage1DreampipeI

Achieved:3winnerswereawardedatotalof£30,000onJuly31st2016.

LaunchofPhaseIDreampipeII

Achieved:DreampipeIIwaslaunchedonOctober21st2016.ThefirststageofDreampipeIIwillcloseinMarch2017.

CloseofPhase1DreampipeII

DuetocloseMarch2017

AwardofPhase1DreampipeII

TobereviewedatcloseofPhase1

LaunchofPhase2DreampipeII

DuetolaunchJune2017


Duetocloseearly2018


TobereviewedatthecloseofPhase2

LaunchofPhase3DreampipeII

Duetolaunchearlysummer2018


Duetocloselatesummer2018


TobereviewedatthecloseofPhase3

of68

GlobalLEAPRefrigerationPrize

Milestone Progress

LaunchofPrize Achieved:SuccessfulpartnershipestablishedwithGlobalLeap,hasresultedinnominationsbeingopenedon21stSeptember2016.

CloseofPrize Ontrack:Thedeadlinefornominationsclosedon20thJanuary2017.55nominationshavebeenreceivedfrom28differentcompaniesbasedin14countries(ofwhich7developingcountries).45arecommerciallyavailableproductsand9latestageprototypes.FieldworkisscheduledforQuarter4,andlabtestinginQuarter5.

AwardofPrize Tobereviewedatcloseoftheprize

of68

AnnexB: Documentsconsulted

ProgrammeDocumentation

AnnualReport2015AnnualReport2016I2IDesignReportProgrammeLogframeOrganogramQuarter4ReportQuarter5ReportQuarter6ReportFinancetrackerBusinesscasesFebruary2017BeneficiarynumbersCostperbeneficiaryVfMSummaryandIndicatorsProgrammeandPrizeRiskMatrix

UrbanSanitationChallenge

USCDesignDocumentStageOnePresentationsStageOneEvaluationFindingsJudgingCriteria

Dreampipe

StageOneEvaluationFindingsDreampipeDesignDocumentTheoryofChange

AdaptationatScale

TheoryofChangeandM&EFrameworkDesignDocumentJudgingCriteria

ClimateInformationPrize

DesignDocumentTambuaPrizeDesignDocumentWazoPrizeDesignDocumentStageOneEvaluationFindingsJudgingCriteria

of68

EnergyAccess

StructureandComponentTitlesofGLEAPAwardsGLEAPAwardFactsSheet

AdditionalDocumentation

Bruntetal.(2012).Inducementprizesandinnovation,JournalofIndustrialEconomics,XL(4),pp.657-696.Everett, B., Wagner, E. and Barnett, C. (2012). Using innovation prizes to achieve the MileniumDevelopmentGoals.Innovations,7(1),pp.107-114.Everett,B.(2011)Evidencereview–environmentalinnovationprizesfordevelopment.London:DEWPoint.Goldhammer,J.,Mitchell,K.,Parker,A.,Anderson,B.andJoshi,S.(2014)Thecraftofincentiveprizedesign:lessonsfromthepublicsector.DeloitteUniversityPress.Hanson(1998)Patternsofpatronage:whygrantswonoverprizesinscience.California:UC,Berkeley.Hendrix,M.(2014)ThePowerofPrizes.WashingtonDC:USChamberofCommerceFoundation.McKinsey&Co(2009).“Andthewinneris…”Capturingthepromiseofphilanthropicprizes.Sydney:McKinsey&Co.NestaCentreforChallengePrizes(2014)Challengeprizes:apracticeguide.London:Nesta.NestaCentreforChallengePrizes(2013)Thegivingchallengeprizes.London:Nesta.XPRIZE(n.d.)WhatisanXPRIZE?CulverCity:XPRIZE.

of68

AnnexC: Interviewees

Name Organisation RoleUK/remoteMagdalenaBanasiak

DFID SeniorResponsibleOwner–SeniorInnovationAdviser,ClimateEnvironmentandWaterTeam,ResearchandEvidenceDivision

DavidWoolnaugh DFID TeamLeader,ClimateEnvironmentandWaterTeam,ResearchandEvidenceDivision

DonaldMenzies DFID InnovativeAidInstrumentsAdviser/PBRLeadBryonyEverett IMCWorldwide TeamLeaderGabrielleMinkley IMCWorldwide ProgrammeManagerJontySlater BlueGlobeConsulting PrizeLeadMichaelLoevinsohn IndependentConsultant ResearchLeadRobbieGregorowski ItadLtd Evaluation&LearningLeadCherylBrown Independentconsultant

(contractedbyItad)EvaluationCoordinator

AlexMason IMCWorldwide PrizeManager(CIPandA@S)LarsOttoNaess IDS ThemeLead(A@S) VeronicaDiBella IMCWorldwide PrizeManager(USC)SimonCollings Energy4Impact ThemeLead(EnergyAccess)MakenaIreri Energy4Impact PrizeManager(EnergyAccess)FroeydisGording IMCWorldwide PrizeManager(Dreampipe)ChrisShugart Independentconsultant

(contractedbyIMC)PrizeDirector(Dreampipe)

Nepal(A@S)PurusottamManShrestha

IMCWorldwide ImplementingPrizeManager

JamesWalton IMCWorldwide NepalCountryManagerDilBadhwarBhattarai(andcommunitymembers)

MachhapuchhreDevelopmentOrganization(MDO)

Applicant/winner

NagdavYadav(andcommunitymembers)

CDAF Applicant/winner

SabitraGhimire HIMAWANTI-Nepal Applicant/winnerKanchanLama Independentconsultant

(contractedbyIMC)Advisorypanel

MadhavKarki CGED-Nepal Advisorypanel/judgeTopKhatri JudgeAnjalPrakash ICIMOD Programmecoordinator(roleinprizedesign)NareshSharma NepalClimateChange

SupportProgramCoordinator,NationalAdaptationPlan

AnnikaOlsson DFIDNepal EconomicAdviser,ClimateChangeandNaturalResourceManagement

Kenya(CIP)

NickiSpence Cardno(implementingagent)

ImplementingPrizeManager

of68

BeatriceKinyanjui Cardno RegionalManagerStephenMutimba Camco StakeholderEngagementExpertDanielMbeyah Applicant/winnerMercyAgosa Applicant/winnerJohnKioli KenyaClimateChange

WorkingGroupJudge

VictorOrindi AdaConsortium JudgeGeorgeOtieno ICPAC JudgeGhana(USC)

VidaDuti IRC(implementingagent)

TeamLeader

KwameAsubonteng

IRC SanitationExpert

AbubakariWumbei IRC CommunicationsLeadMawuenaDotse MAPLEConsult AdviserHenriettaOseiTutu MLGRD MinistryFocalContactAnthonyMensah AccraMetropolitan

AssemblyApplicant/winner

HamiduOsman AtiwaDistrictAssembly Applicant/winnerAbu OffinsoDistrictAssembly Applicant/winnerRichard MampongMunicipal

AssemblyApplicant/winner

TheresaBaahEnnumh

PlanningDeptKNUST,Kumasi

Judge

FrankRomeoKettey WaterandSanitationforUrbanPoor

Privatesectorpartner

Dr.KwakuAddai KITAInstitute,EjisuJuabeng

Privatesectorpartner

DanielOsei AdjeiKumEnterprise Privatesectorpartner

of68

AnnexD: Exampleinterviewprotocol

INTERVIEWPROTOCOL4of7:LOCALIMPLEMENTINGAGENTS

RoleinrelationtoI2I

1. Whatdoesyourroleintheprogrammeentail?

Overviewofprizeobjectivesandprogress

2. Howwouldyoudescribetheprize’smainobjectivesandisitontracktoachievethem?3. Whatevidenceistherethattheprizeisstimulatingthedevelopmentof[energy/WASH/climate

adaptation]solutionsforlow-incomeconsumers?4. Whatevidenceistherethattheprizeisresultinginsolutionsorapproachesthatareneworhaven’t

beentraditionallyappliedinthisarea?

Headlinesreprizedesignandimplementation

5. Howdidtheprizegoaboutidentifyingtheproblemtobeaddressed?6. Whatdoyouthinkismostinnovativeabouttheprize?7. Whatwouldyouidentifyastheprize’skeyachievementssofar?8. Andwhathavebeenthekeychallengesand/orlessonslearned?9. Whatopportunitiesexisttostrengthentheprize?

Applicationandawardprocess

10. Whataretheincentivesforapplicants?Arethesesufficient/appropriate?11. Howappropriatearetheprize’sjudgingcriteria?Howeffectivelyhavethesebeenapplied?12. Isthejudgingprocessefficientandeffective?Coulditbeimproved?Ifso,how?13. Aretheproposalsofsufficientdetailanddepthtojudgepotentialandenableassessmentof

viability?Iftherearesignificantnumbersofproposalsthatcannotbeadequatelyjudged,dotheyfalldownincommonareas?


14. Whoarethetargetgroupfortheprize?Howweretheyselected?15. Howmanyproposalsweresubmittedandbywhom?Whichwereawarded?16. Aretherepatterns(e.g.demographic/organisational)inthetypesofsolvers(applicantsand

winners)thatstandout?Howdoesthiscomparewithyouroriginalexpectations?17. Whatevidenceistherethatmarketingactivitiesarereachingsolversthatmightotherwisebe

challengingtoreach?Couldmarketingactivitiesbeimproved(e.g.reach,quantity,qualityandmeansofcommunication)?

18. Isthelevelofsupportprovidedtoapplicantsappropriate?Shouldnon-prizebasedsupportbeusedtosupportapplicants?

19. What typeof risksdo solvers faceduring theapplicationprocess?What could theprizedo tominimisethese?

20. Howwellhastheprizeanticipatedthetypesofresourcesorcapacityneededbysolversandsetareasonablerisk/rewardcurvei.e.aremilestonesappropriate?

21. Arethereanypatternsinthesolutionsbeingproposedthatareunexpected,surprisingorunwanted?

22. Whatishappeningtoproposalsthatweresubmittedbutnotawarded?

of68

Prizeecosystem

23. Aretherepatternsinthesolutionsbeingproposedorcommunicationsfromsolversthatmightindicatedeficitsintheprizeecosystemi.e.theresourcesavailabletosolvers?Ifsohowcouldthesebeaddressed?

E.g.:§ workforce/capacityneededbysolution§ information,data,statisticsetc.,relatingtotheproblem§ facilities(testing,IT,officeetc.)neededbysolvers§ infrastructure(utilities,equipmentetc.)neededbysolution§ materialsavailability(ifsolutionrequiresspecificmaterials)§ collaboration/networkingwithothersolverstofindpartners§ seedfinance,potentialinvestors,marketresearch,neededbysolvers§ localisation(language,culturalreferences)neededforsolvers§ regulatory/legalassistanceneededbysolvers§ qualityofeducation/disseminationnetworkifsolutionrequiresit§ other

Programmemanagement

24. Aremanagementarrangements–governance,levelofinput,degreeofoversight/delegation,riskmanagement–effectiveandappropriate?Howcouldthesearrangementsbestrengthened?

25. Whatarethemajorriskstothesuccessoftheprize?26. Hastheprizechangedandadaptedinresponsetochangingrisksand/orlessonslearned?27. Hasthesizeandstructureoftheprizebudgetbeenappropriate?Coulditbeimproved?28. Howwouldyoudescribetherelationshipsbetweentheprizeteamandprogrammemanagement

unit/in-houseprizemanagers?Couldthesebeimproved?29. How would you describe coordination with i) other prize teams and ii) other relevant donor

initiatives?Couldthisbeimproved?

M&Eandresearch

30. Are monitoring and verification systems appropriate for applicants’ capabilities and resourceconstraints,aswellastheneedsoftheprogrammeforverification,judgingandaward?

31. Howwouldyoudescribethebalanceandrelationshipbetweenprizedesign/implementationandM&E?

32. What data is being collected for prize levelM&E?How can youmeasure the impact of prizesrelativetootherfundingmechanisms?

33. Istheprizecapturinglessonsforwiderknowledgesharing?Whathasbeendocumentedsofarandhow?

Valueformoney

34. Doestheprizeoffergoodvalueformoney?35. Howisthismeasured?Aretheretypesand/orinstancesofVFMnotcurrentlybeingcapturedby

thesemetrics?36. Howcouldtheprize’sVFMbeimproved?


37. Whatevidenceistherethatprizeoutcomesareimpactfuland/orsustainable?Includinganyevidenceofadditionalityi.e.achievementsthatwouldnothavehappenedinprize’sabsence.

38. Whatevidenceisthereofsocialinclusioni.e.howsolutionsimproveaccessforpoorandvulnerablegroups?

of68

39. Whatelsecouldtheprizedotoenhanceimpactand/orensuresustainability?Shouldtheprogrammeshouldbroadensupportiveactivitiestofacilitatethesegoals?

40. What opportunities are there for prize winners to secure inward investment? How could thelikelihoodofthisbeimproved?

Programmedurationandtargetingfutureinvestment

41. Isthetimeframeforprizeimplementationandevaluationsatisfactory?Ifnot,whatwouldbethespecificbenefitsofextendingthetimeline?

42. Istheresufficientevidencetoinformadecisiontoscaleuporreplicatetheprize?Ifso,mightscaleupand/orreplicationbeasuitableoptionfortheprize?Ifnot,atwhatpointofevidencecollectionshouldscaleuporreplicationbeconsidered?

43. IstherescopetoleverageinwardinvestmentfromsourcesotherthanDFIDtosupportreplicationand/orscaleup?Ifso,whatsourcesoffundingwouldbemostappropriate?

44. Inyourview,shouldfutureinvestmentsintheprizeprioritise:§ Prizemanagementandadministration

Ø BetterprocessesØ LearningandknowledgesharingØ Supporttoimplementingagents

§ Replicationand/orscaleup§ Capacitybuildingofapplicants§ Donorandinvestorengagementtohelpleveradditionalinvestment§ Other