Working Groups: Review and Discuss the Technology Assessments Tool

Working groups came together to review and discuss a draft USAID-ATAI technology assessments tool.

Groups provided feedback in terms of the positives of the tool (what was useful and how practitioners

could envision using the tool), how to improve the tool (improvements and questions about the tool),

and possible additional questions to include in the tool itself.

POSITIVES

Groups highlighted the following as the positives of the tool:

Identifies learning areas without preventing a project from moving forward;

Is helpful for donors as it provides the technical information required to scale-up;

Focuses on credibility (magnitude of benefits);

Poses a good set of questions;

Gets people thinking;

Provides some criteria for thinking about technology in specific contexts; and it

Allows for assessment and comparison among technologies.

IMPROVEMENTS

Groups noted how the tool can be improved:

Tailor it into three separate tools – different assessment tools for different categories of

technology:

1. Inputs

2. On the farm

3. Post-harvest

Provide case studies in each category with sample answers that demonstrate how to use the

tool.

Add rankings so those viewing the tool can determine whether or not it will be useful for their

specific needs/contexts.

o How do you decide which category you are in?

o Rankings should be on a quantitative scale that can be aggregated. Define low, medium,

and high rankings.

The definition of technology should be broader and terms should be defined as much as

possible.

Maybe misses the big picture – it is unclear what the purpose of the tool is. Specifically, what

problem is the tool trying to solve?

o Are there alternatives to the problem that it is addressing?

o There should be criteria that lead to a decision.

The tool seems to be focused on technology and not on the problem. Instead, technology should

be second order.

The tool is only focused on small farmers. Can it be broadened to food and ag producers?

It is unclear what “magnitude of benefits” means. It would be more useful to list the benefits

rather than assigning magnitude “value”.

The tool needs to take into account: context, change, and shifting realities and goals.

Include a more direct question on whether the technology is accessible to and affordable for

farmers.

Cause and effect should be more transparent.

Specify the audience for the tool. Is it the technology developer? The donor? The implementer?

There should be a better distinction between Q2 and Q4. And between Q3 (this should be

cultural) and Q8 (physical).

Some questions need language changes, e.g. “yields” in #6 and #7.

Question 7 should be more about seasonality.

Clarify #10: how specific or transferable is the technology to different geographic locations?

If the technology worked in one setting, what evidence convinces us that it will work elsewhere?

QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TOOL

The following questions were raised about the tool:

Can the tool be locally adapted easily? Does the tool have enough flexibility and adaptability

built into it?

Does the tool take into account policy constraints?

What is the functionality of the tool? Is this a diagnostic tool or is it a tool to stimulate discussion

among stakeholders?

o At what stage should this be used and by whom?

o Remember that different stakeholders have different goals.

How do you account for risk?

Is there a time scale?

QUESTIONS TO INCLUDE IN THE TOOL

Finally, groups suggested the following questions to be included in the tool:

Think about sustainability: Is the technology supporting a declining crop? Where is the market

headed?

Where did the idea for the technology come from? Was it demand driven? Can we identify

preferences?

In your context how would you rank these questions?

What are your own solutions and how do they measure against those provided in the tool?

Does the technology fit in the local context and with the environment?

Where did the problem and solution come from? Who presented it and what is/was their

evidence? Is this a real problem/failure?

Additional questions that may be useful:

o Is there demand for the technology and where is it coming from?

o Are there competing technologies?

o Does adoption require demonstration of success at pilot scale?

o Is it clear what has failed before? What can we learn from this?

o What are the existing institutions (Q#4) and how can we link with them?

o What is the opportunity cost of technology adoption?

o Does this tool offer too little guidance? Too much?