The MoFA Innovation Challenge: Last Thoughts

As much as I enjoy writing about the “life” parts of my placement, I guess I should share with you a bit of a conclusion about the “work” I did.

And so I present a few closing thoughts on the MoFA Innovation Challenge. (Thanks to the fellow MIC/MoFA EWBers who helped shape these observations).

We recognized that MoFA innovations really fell into 3 categories:

1. Idea Generating

Idea generating innovations are defined as innovations that are designed to generate feedback or new ideas from the field level. This indicates that there is a desire in MoFA to provide more feedback and information upwards. These innovations include:

• Suggestion Box – The innovation was to establish a suggestions box in the district office where staff can anonymously offer feedback or new ideas. The suggestions are read at each district meeting and a committee of staff are created to follow-up on actions that arise.
• Farmer’s Day Survey – The innovation was to conduct a survey to uncover what elements of National Farmer’s Day are motivating for farmers and what kinds of prizes they would find encouraging. Currently, the same prizes are offered to farmers every year.
• Workshop evaluations – The innovation was to create and use a general evaluation form to be filled out by field staff after attending a workshop. The evaluation form is used to inspire reflection on what works and what doesn’t at workshops.

These innovations were proposed by the District Directors, showing that there is room within the organization for upwards influence. However, there must be continual encouragement for staff members to use these tools. The emphasis on identifying and incorporating internal ideas into operations suggests that MoFA wants to be a learning organization and is open to improvement. Therefore, the challenge may come in having the resources available to implement proposed ideas.

2. Technical Projects

The second category of innovations are those which are technical in nature or agricultural field projects. These projects include:

• Mango Nursery – develop a privately owned and operated mango nursery to offer farmers the opportunity to purchase mango seedlings should they wish to plant mango trees
• No Tillage Demonstration – a demonstration of the benefits of applying no tillage technology compared with traditional land preparation techniques
• Bee-Keeping Demonstration – a demonstration of the benefits and risks of bee-keeping as a business

These projects were driven by AEAs who saw a need or opportunity for additional extension services. Approved projects were typically not new to MoFA; field staff determined the projects were relevant to farmers, but the projects didn’t currently have a source of funding. This implies that field staff are in a position to develop and promote field level interventions that are relevant for farmers.

3. Administrative Improvements

The third classification of innovations is administrative or managerial improvements. These projects include:

• Supervision Scheme – This innovation addressed the challenge that that district management rarely visits the field to supervise. The innovation was to provide prizes for staff that visit the field most often and regular tracking of improvements to supervision over time through anonymous surveys.
• Job Description Review – This innovation addressed the challenge that there are imbalances in the distribution of work. The innovation was to organize a discussion on how workload is distributed between officers in a district.
• Internet Connection Study – This innovation addressed the challenge that district directors spend a disproportionate amount of time driving to the regional capital to submit reports. The innovation was to compare the prices of various methods that can be used for connecting district offices to the internet and to measure the amount that each district can save by connecting to the internet, thus saving on expenditures for gas/phone calls.

The presence of this category of innovations implies that MoFA is identifying ways to improve operations. It can be argued that these are not innovative, but rather tasks that should be completed normally. Regardless, they have been identified as important tasks to complete, which should be taken as a positive indication of MoFA’s interest in improving the effectiveness of its operations.

The types of innovations highlighted that field staff are in the best position to evaluate and replicate successful technical projects.

Many of the innovations that came from the MoFA Innovation Challenge were not new or unique, but were activities that were being conducted elsewhere in the district or region (either funded through MoFA or other non-governmental partners). The MoFA Innovation Challenge was used as a source of funding to further extend these programs. In particular, mango nursery and bee-keeping projects are currently being funded in Lawra district as part a program implemented by the Japan Development Agency (JICA). Two field staff, who were not in the participating operational areas, identified these projects as something that would be of interest and beneficial to one of their farmer groups. Through the application of funds from the MoFA Innovation Challenge, these projects are now underway. Similarly, Wa West used MoFA Innovation Challenge funding to conduct a no-tillage demonstration, which was also conducted in other districts in the Upper West Region through various programs.

Despite the fact that the field staff projects were not novel, the willingness of the field staff to propose and take on additional projects highlights the fact that they are people who are dedicated to working for the betterment of their farmers. The use of funds for project-based extension efforts, to provide the appropriate inputs and learning-through-doing, highlights the importance of this approach. Field staff did not propose seminars or learning modules for their farmers, but tangible projects. They have worked alongside farmers to help ensure the appropriate training and actions are taking place.

What we learned from the MIC

1. High cost effectiveness can be achieved when resources are directly available to district staff.

The following two projects cost less than $15/farmer. When targeted at the field level and used properly, minimal resources can open up large opportunities for beneficiaries.

• Bee-keeping – The costs included hives which are $45 (for local basket) or $192 (for more durable version), two pairs of bee-keeping protective clothing and a four weeks training program. This allowed 16 beneficiaries the opportunity to access a new source of income.
• Mango nursery – The cost was $120 which placed an emphasis on using local methods and materials for the nursery. This allowed 30 farmers the opportunity to acquire the skills and resources required to run mango nurseries.

2. Competition for most innovative district was not an incentive. What motivated people to develop innovations was the opportunity and resources provided to execute on projects.

Based on the monitoring and evaluation conducted, the promise of awards or recognition for the most innovative projects and/or district did not seem to be a driving factor behind the conception or execution of the innovators’ work. The projects implemented using the innovation fund were driven by opportunity and resources, which came in the form of both funds and encouragement to take action. This demonstrated that staff are motivated to address these problems because they care about their farmers and want to see MoFA become a more effective and efficient organisation. The ownership to realize success comes more strongly when the program design is done largely in the district.

3. Regular checkpoints throughout the project lifecycle help to ensure maximum results are obtained from the MoFA Innovation Challenge.

Many of the innovators were very independent in implementing their projects. They needed little to no coaching and proactively kept appropriate records for their project implementation. However, this was not the case for all innovators and innovations. It is recommended that, in the future, the innovator set a timeline for the implementation of the project. From that original timeline, checkpoints can be scheduled at regular intervals. This allows the innovator to retain control over his or her schedule, but gives additional accountability to an external party. Unfortunately, the ability to play this management role is not widespread within MoFA. Therefore, until MoFA improves its management capacity, it is necessary for an outside party such as EWB to play this role.

4. Management needs to oversee the Innovation Fund to ensure that application and selection processes continue efficiently.

In addition to the individual guiding and coaching, EWB oversaw the overall process of announcing the innovation fund, accepting applications, and coordinating a selection committee. In the absence of this role it is expected that the implementation of the innovation fund would not have occurred efficiently.

Overseeing of the innovation fund is also essential to keep track of common challenges across innovators and share problem solving processes to continue to develop field staff capacity to innovate..

Conclusions

The MoFA Innovation Challenge expected three outcomes to emerge. The results in each of these outcome areas are summarized below.

1. A selection of innovative ideas, best practices and projects which can be scaled up.

Currently these innovations are still being implemented. Some innovations have not, to date, been implemented to completion because the innovators faced unforeseen challenges e.g. not enough time to implement demonstration plots due to other extension duties that need to be completed.

MoFA Management and EWB are still supporting the districts to implement innovations to completion. Once the implemented innovations reach completion and a period of time passes (6 – 12 months), the results of these innovations will be evaluated by MoFA and shared with other districts and the regional level. Ideally, those innovations which are visibly successful will be adopted in other districts.

For the field level innovations, such as bee-keeping demonstrations, it is expected that MoFA will share the results with donors when they are conducting feasibility studies.

2. Increased capacities of district level staff to problem solve and innovate, built through experiential learning.

This experience provided 14 district staff with the opportunity to problem solve, create an idea and implement their innovation. The learning for each staff varied, depending on their abilities to problem solve, innovate and implement. For all, the learning was valuable. However, for the field staff the learning was much greater as this was among the first time this experience was provided to them. The issue of lower capacity of field staff was managed through coaching and guidance from EWB.

3. Demonstration of a model that provides more resources, incentives and opportunities to districts to innovate and drive change.

The model successfully demonstrated that districts are able and well placed to innovate and drive change. Based on the four main learnings about the model, the following conclusions can be drawn about the model.

1. A small amount of funding needs to be made available directly to the district to ensure cost efficient interventions.

2. The funding should be unrestricted to ensure the districts have ownership over the successful use of the funding.

3. Management needs to guide and motivate field staff through the process of analyzing problems, developing ideas and learning from their experiments.

4. Management needs to oversee the Innovation Fund to ensure that application and selection processes are efficient and that learning can be shared across innovators.

In the end, I’m not really sure what’s next for the MoFA Innovation Challenge. I would love to see it take shape, grow and be redeployed in a better format. That would be entirely awesome.