Agricultural Systems 179 (2020) 102764

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Systems
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy

T
Scaling practices within agricultural innovation platforms: Between pushing
and pulling
Edmond Totina, Barbara van Mierlob, Laurens Klerkxb,
⁎

a
Ecole de Foresterie Tropicale, Université Nationale d'Agriculture du Benin, Kétou BP 43, Benin
b
Knowledge, Technology and Innovation Group, Wageningen University, the Netherlands

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Growing empirical evidence suggests that innovation platforms can be effective in enhancing agricultural re-
Innovation platforms search impact by creating an enabling environment for scaling of innovations such as novel technologies,
Agricultural innovation systems practices and busines models . However, efforts to understand how these innovation platforms operate to scale
Agricultural transformation innovations are insufficient. Such knowledge is critical for improving the design of agricultural innovation
Technology adoption and diffusion
systems, specifically within the context of a rising interest in the innovation platform approach to support the
Institutional change
transformation of agriculture across Africa. This paper investigates the scaling approaches employed by in-
novation platforms established in Rwanda. The study focused on four innovation platforms created as part of the
Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Program and analysed their activities and the resulting scaling outcomes. The
findings show that two approaches can be effectively combined during the intervention; (1) the innovation
process that resembles a traditional, linear approach of finding short-term solutions to specific problems (push
approach) and (2) the network building process where platforms employed multi-level, transdisciplinary pro-
cesses (pull approach). In two areas, the platform activities appeared to have contributed to increased revenues
of farmers. The alignment of the innovation platform activities with political agendas or broadly, the extent to
which the scaling strategy considers the existing conducive context is shown to play a critical role in the scaling
process. The study shows that a balanced combination of both push and pull approaches and a strategic linkage
between the platform activities and external development – government policies and interventions – are critical
for a productive agricultural transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa. The findings also indicate that the scaling
processes require a “protected space” to materialise, and the scaling approach needs flexibility to accommodate
the complexity of each innovation.

1. Introduction scientific and development communities to understand when and how

A growing body of literature suggests that multi-stakeholder plat-
forms can be a practical approach to enhancing the impact of agri-
cultural research beyond its initial development (Sartas et al., 2018;
Schut et al., 2018). In general, innovation platforms (IPs) are expected
to bring together key players to achieving impact at scale, but this is not
yet a widely accepted fact (Davies et al., 2018; Schut et al., 2016) and a
lot of the existing literature has looked more at analysing processes of
innovation before the stage of scaling (Kilelu et al., 2017; Kilelu et al.,
2013). The premise of IP with regards to scaling is described more
specifically as creating an enabling environment for the adoption of
innovations, such as novel technologies, practices, and business models
(Hounkonnou et al., 2018; Klerkx et al., 2013).
The rising interest in IP coincides with an increased need for the
innovations move across scales to generate greater benefits (Eneku
et al., 2013; Wigboldus et al., 2016), or how best to connect innovations
across scales to produce significant system changes (Moore et al., 2015;
Hermans et al., 2016). Scaling processes are conceptualised in various
ways. Generally, two types of scaling processes can be discerned: (1)
scaling out, which involves the geographic spread of technologies and
practices over time (Millar and Connell, 2009); and (2) scaling up, which
refers to the creation of an institutional environment that enables
multiple impacts or broader system changes (Akhtar-Schuster et al.,
2011). While enabling institutional factors such as access to credit and
supportive policies are a prerequisite for the increased use of technol-
ogies across scales (Akhtar-Schuster et al., 2011), it is recognised that
development projects do not always pay enough attention to creating
an enabling institutional environment (Ika, 2012). Sometimes, when

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Laurens.Klerkx@wur.nl (L. Klerkx).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102764

0308-521X/ © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
Received 21 January 2019; Received in revised form 12 November 2019; Accepted 30 November 2019

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
E. Totin, et al.
institutional limiting factors are addressed, the solutions are either only
partially implemented or are short-term solutions, leading to failure
beyond the lifespan of projects (Christensen, 2013; Douthwaite et al.,
2001).
There is a rich body of empirical evidence indicating that IPs have
indeed facilitated the adoption of new agricultural technologies and
therefore, can be an effective mechanism to establish institutional
changes across scales (Bisseleua et al., 2018; Hounkonnou et al., 2018;
Pamuk et al., 2014; Schut et al., 2018). For example, Van Paassen et al.
(2014) showed how IPs were used to break the institutional lock-in
within the cocoa value chain in Ghana. Economic studies focusing on
broad diffusion of innovations indicate that where IPs were active,
there was increased use of newly promoted technologies (Abate et al.,
2011; Bisseleua et al., 2018; Pamuk et al., 2014). Most of these studies,
however, focus more on the scaling outcome than on the activities of
the IPs that led to the outcome. As a consequence, scaling remains more
or less as a black box (Wigboldus and Brouwers, 2016; Wigboldus et al.,
2016). The overarching objective of this study is to address this gap in
the literature by investigating how innovation platforms make spaces
for scaling processes, broadening earlier work from Lamers et al., 2017
who already found that research for development innovation platforms
followed a research- and dissemination-oriented sequence.
Based on the assumption that scaling processes require a combina-
tion of both ‘pull’ and ‘push’ approaches (Wigboldus and Brouwers,
2016; Wigboldus et al., 2016), the study explores whether and how
these two approaches – pull and push – can be identified in the practices
employed by IPs promoted with the Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge
Programme (SSA CP) in Rwanda. This article then addresses two re-
search questions: (1) How did the two types of scaling approaches – pull
and push – materialise in the activities of four IPs promoted by the SSA
CP? And, (2) how did these scaling activities, in combination with ex-
ternal developments, contribute to scaling outcomes in these case-stu-
dies?
The meaning and operationalisation of push and pull approaches to
scaling are described next, followed by a description of the research
design of this study and key findings. The discussion reflects on these
findings and paves the way for future research that can elaborate on
uncovered aspects of this study.
2. Theoretical framework: push and pull approaches to scaling
Even though the understanding of scaling processes has evolved
over the past few decades, the literature is still unsure about what is
scaled (technology, practice, or regulation), and what the outcome is
(higher quality impact, multiple impacts, or system change). Wigboldus
et al. (2016) suggest a distinction between two extreme types of scaling
approaches. The ‘push approach’ assumes that the technology or new
service has value (e.g., awareness-raising through various forms to
promote climate information services), and puts a variety of efforts in
place to promote the technology or service that provides more benefits
at scale, without considering broader systemic factors. At the other
extreme is the ‘pull approach,’ which takes a desirable outcome as the
point of departure. In the pull approach, activities usually start by
conceiving a desirable vision. Then, scaling champions orchestrate the
process by stimulating enabling conditions for the broader use of po-
tential innovations (both technical and social) that help achieve the
envisionioned outcome (Wigboldus et al., 2016). For example, when
working towards the vision of local rice production meeting domestic
demand, the Nigerian Government made strategic investments to offer
tax relief for industries engaged in local rice processing and marketing.
These measures resulted in increased local rice production from
2,818,000 MT to 4,662,000 MT between 2010 and 2017 (Udondian and
Robinson, 2018). Conceptually, the pull approach tends to be indirect
and oriented to institutional changes to achieve a desirable vision, re-
sulting in it being flexible enough to accommodate uncertainties (Hagel
III and Brown, 2008). Conversely, the push approach tends to start from
2
Agricultural Systems 179 (2020) 102764
a specific technology or service, building on assumptions about optimal
solutions, and involves a considerable level of risk as it has little flex-
ibility to accommodate unpredictable situations. Consequently, it may
yield limited improvements or have undesirable effects when innova-
tions reach a certain scale level (Wigboldus and Brouwers, 2016). In
this study, we consider a simplified understanding of the push approach
being technology-driven and the pull approach institutionally-oriented.
We acknowledge that this perspective may ignore other features of the
push and pull approaches.
For decades, the scaling of agricultural innovations was understood
to be a function of a push approach only. Taking the example from the
Green Revolution in Asia, many Sub-Saharan African countries have
made substantial investments in technology development, such as high-
yielding varieties, planting practices and irrigation infrastructure, as-
suming that agricultural productivity and food security could be
achieved through access to these technologies (Van den Ende and
Dolfsma, 2005). However, studies suggest that this push perspective
limited the scope of the strategic options that were considered. Most of
these initiatives did not achieve their expected outcomes because of the
lack of institutional embedding (Ndjeunga and Bantilan, 2005). More
recently, it has been suggested that to be effective, scaling may need to
expand beyond the historic, single-minded focus of push approaches, to
include changes in the institutional context (‘pull approach’)
(Hounkonnou et al., 2018; Quisumbing and Pandolfelli, 2010).
Since innovation platforms have emerged to facilitate the scaling of
innovations by stimulating both technological and institutional in-
novation (Hounkonnou et al., 2018; Sidibé et al., 2017), in this re-
search, we applied the lens of push and pull approaches to scrutinise the
scaling activities and outcomes of the four IPs studied. This theoretical
perspective guides our study of how the pull and push approaches took
shape in the operation of the IPs and how they combined to achieve
scaling outcomes. Building on the work of Totin et al. (2015), which
showed that social changes happen through a dynamic interplay be-
tween local and external interventions, our research aims to go a step
further to explore whether the scaling outcome was a sole result of the
IPs or it also related to the contribution of external developments (e.g.,
government projects).
3. Cases and research design
3.1. Research cases
The Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme (SSA CP) introduced
the IP approach to scale agricultural innovations and to enhance the
impact of research and development interventions (Kefasi et al., 2012).
Stakeholders with the potential to address local bottlenecks in the
agricultural value chain, including representatives of farmers' associa-
tions, traders, researchers, extension workers, civil societies, and gov-
ernment policymakers, were invited to form district innovation plat-
forms. The IPs were established in four districts – Gataraga, Mudende,
Rwerere, and Remera - to promote potato, milk, and organic chilli value
chains, and land consolidation to increase maize productivity and
competitiveness.
Gataraga, in Northern Rwanda, is a major producer of potatoes;
however, in the last decade, production has declined due to inadequate
seed systems. In Mudende, farmers struggle to make a living producing
and selling milk locally because of inadequate processing and storage
facilities and under-developed markets. Organic chilli production was
promoted as an alternative source of income for farming households in
Rwerere, a remote area with severely eroded agricultural lands and
limited access to market infrastructure. Maize is a major cash crop for
farmers in Remera, but they face high production costs and are unable
to be competitive on the market. In such a challenging farming context,
the IP approach emerged as an opportunity to contribute to the broader
government strategy of land consolidation and agricultural in-
tensification (Giertz et al., 2015).
E. Totin, et al. Agricultural Systems 179 (2020) 102764

Table 1
Characteristics of the innovation platforms.
Area Gataraga Mudende Rwerere Remera

a a
Period November 2008–2013 November 2008–2013 September 2009 – February September 2009–February 2012
2012
Value chain Potato Milk Organic chilli (new) Maize and beans
Composition Extension officers; NGOs; farmers' associations; banks; input suppliers; researchers; processing companies; local authorities
Constraints Limited access to inputs (including Land degradation, poor soil fertility and Erosion and poor soil fertility Limited access to inputs, poor
improved seed potato) and poor market predominance of small plots Lack of a market for farmers' market facilities
facility harvest
Land degradation and poor soil fertility Difficulty accessing high priced inputs Lack of a Difficulty accessing Land fragmentation; Erosion and
market for potatoes and locally-produced milk agricultural production inputs poor soil fertility

a
At the time of the study, the platforms in Gataraga and Mudende still existed.

3.2. Research design The second question about the possible contribution of both IP ac-
tivities and external developments to scaling outcomes was addressed
The study was conducted 18 months after the end of the SSA CP. by identifying relevant changes in the institutional context that enabled
This was assumed to be sufficient for any possible changes related to the scaling outcomes. We then explored the interplay between the IPs' ac-
programme intervention to materialise. Seven focus group discussions tivities and the interventions of the government projects through the
(FGDs) were held with 75 platform members (63 men and 12 women), timeline of each IP.
in mixed groups of men and women; two each in Gataraga, Mudende,
and Rwerere, and one in Remera. Since the platforms were all opera-
4. Findings
tional and members used to working together, we did not find it ne-
cessary to have separate meetings for men and women. Topics discussed
4.1. Operation of the innovation platforms
included the establishment and the composition of the IPs, their
agendas, relevant outcomes perceived by members as meaningful, and
At the early stage of the formation of the IPs, there were stakeholder
other external interventions, including the government programmes.
workshops in each district during which major constraints, opportu-
The FGDs helped document the process in each IP and assess the type of
nities, and potential partners to engage within the agriculture sector
scaling approach used in the implementation of the IP's agenda.
were identified.
To explore specific conditions that led to scaling outcomes in the
In all four districts, platforms had an operational role of bringing
two successful IPs, additional individual interviews were conducted
together a diverse set of stakeholders engaged in agriculture value
with 45 platform members in each area (Gataraga: with 30 men and 15
chains. The composition of the four platforms changed over time, based
women; Mudende: with 27 men and 18 women). With a snowball
on key issues they needed to address. The platforms were first com-
sampling procedure, the interviewees were selected by asking initial
posed of the actors involved in agricultural production at the commu-
members to identify other potential interviewees until the information
nity level, including farmers, local authorities, researchers, and exten-
collected become redundant (Biernacki and Waldorf, 1981). The di-
sion officers. Later in the IP process, new members, such as processing
versity of the two cases provided opportunities for comparison and for
companies, market agents, and bank operators, were engaged. The IPs
deriving lessons about the conditions under which innovation platforms
in Gataraga and Mudende were more diverse and composed of input
are effective in facilitating scaling processes. On average, each inter-
suppliers, NGOs, and banks, while in Rwerere and Remera, about 85%
view lasted for about 25 min. Each was digitally recorded and tran-
of the platform members were farmers.
scribed. Transcribed responses were thematically analysed based on the
Outcomes of the stakeholder workshops are synthesised in Table 1.
two research questions investigated in the study.
In all four areas, access to production inputs (e.g., fertiliser and seeds)
The first question about how the approaches of pull and push ma-
and the weak market system were prioritised as some of the major
terialised in the practice of the IPs was addressed by analysing the
barriers to agricultural intensification. For instance, in Gataraga, most
scaling activities and the timelines of key events for each IP, as drawn
farmers sold their products to intermediaries at the relatively low ‘farm
from interviews. The scaling activities were categorised as a push or a
gate’ price, and about one-third of respondents (33%) received an ad-
pull approach based on the typology of Wigboldus et al. (2016), fo-
vance payment from intermediaries before harvesting. The community
cusing on (1) the innovation process strategy, including problem or-
analysis showed that market vulnerabilities are partly caused by in-
ientation, scaling strategy, and innovation focus, (2) the network
adequate credit systems for farmers and the small size of the local
strategy with both types of actors involved and the interactions. Ac-
market.
tivities with a focus on technology (e.g., traditional technology transfer)
Platform members identified opportunities for introducing new
were clustered as ‘push’ approaches, while those with a more institu-
agricultural options such as high-yielding seed, harvest conservation
tional orientation (e.g., where strategic partnership development or
techniques, and new practices for soil fertility management to prevent
capacity building contribute to the scaling vision) were categorised as
soil and land degradation. There was also recognition that effective
‘pull’ approaches. The study investigated the scaling outcomes in terms
market access can improve the living conditions of farmers.
of increasing numbers of users and relevant institutional changes. In the
Accordingly, the SSA CP team supported the market linkage with new
two successful IPs (Gataraga and Mudende), the study examined the
networks of urban supermarkets to enable access to an attractive farm
ultimate impact of scaling activities on farmers' revenues. For the 45 IP
gate price.
members in each of these two areas, we estimated the production costs
and average selling price based on data recorded by Rwanda Farmers
Federation (Imbaraga). We also assessed the average yield and amount 4.2. Activities of the innovation platforms
sold by building on the responses of the interviewees and their records.
We calculated the average revenue per IP members during the opera- Figs. 1 and 2 provide an overview of the activities of the IPs. Three
tion of SSA CP to assess the impact of scaling activities on farmers' platforms started with interventions directly aimed at changing farmers'
revenues. practices with the traditional transfer of technology approach, in-
cluding the introduction of new varieties, input supply, training, and in-

3
E. Totin, et al. Agricultural Systems 179 (2020) 102764

Fig. 1. Timeline of innovation platform activities in Gataraga and Mudende.

situ experiments.
In Rwerere, the IP activities focused on erosion control with the
promotion of terrace farming and the production of organic chilli to
supply a private company of the district. It was agreed that farmers
would produce and supply the chilli company with a stated amount of
harvest and in return, the company would provide the farmers with
adequate organic seeds, technical advice and buy the resulting pro-
duction for 1000 Rwf per kg, an improvement over the local market
price of 600 Rwf. Extension officers conducted trials on terrace
construction, the use of organic manure, and bio-pesticides extracts in
demonstration plots. Regular meetings were organised with farmers,
researchers, and extension agents to discuss emerging problems. For
instance, during the interviews, a farmer explained that before the ex-
perience with the IP, he was not aware that the use of organic manure
could influence weed emergence, which was a challenge for him on his
plots, especially with the labour commitment.
The IP in Remera focused on strategic options to build new cost-
competitive plans for farmers. The activities aimed at encouraging

Fig. 2. Timeline of innovation platform activities in Rwerere and Remera.

4
E. Totin, et al. Agricultural Systems 179 (2020) 102764

45 innovations. The activities of the platforms aimed at improving potato

40 production through access to quality seeds and promotion of the
market-preferred varieties, facilitating access to remunerative market
35
outlets for milk, organic chilli, and stimulating agricultural land con-
30 solidation.
25

20 4.3.1. Scaling outcome of the access to quality seed and market-preferred

potato varieties
15
In Gataraga, the activities of the platform focused on the combi-
10 nation of access to market-preferred varieties (Kinigi & Kirundo) and
5 higher-quality seed. The use of improved potato seed was a major
challenge as a farmer mentioned during the group interview: “We know
0
PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4 PY5
the value of high-quality seeds, but it was difficult to get them in our village.
Some people managed to go to the research station, which is about 15 km
Fig. 3. Number of farmers using quality potato seed per project year (PY) in from here […] It was not easy!” (Focus group discussion at Gataraga,
Gataraga (N = 45 farmers). October 2013). Difficulties associated with access to a reliable seed
supply system prevented many farmers from using high-quality seeds.
farmers to grow major crops, especially maize and beans, in the same Before the formation of the seed farmers association, only 9% of par-
area to reduce their production costs, in line with the government land ticipants interviewed were using high-quality seed regularly. Since the
consolidation policy. Extension agents organised demonstration plots to IP supported the construction of a commercial multiplication unit in the
show how the land consolidation would improve crop productivity, village, the use of the high-quality potato seed was then possible for
labour efficiency, and economy of scale. almost all potato farmers, not just those trained (Fig. 3). Moreover,
In Gataraga, the platform aimed to accelerate access to quality seed market facilities have increased farmers' revenues (Table 2) and their
of market-preferred potato varieties. The IP started with a market di- willingness to use high-quality seeds to meet the markets' conditions.
agnosis to identify the consumers' preferences. The platform also got Likewise, before the establishment of IP at Gataraga, farmers pro-
leverage from the government's seed programme through the distribu- duced a broad range of potato varieties (See Fig. 4). Since the project
tion of mini tubers to farmer associations and training sessions on seed year 1 (PY1), there was a gradual shift to the increased use of the most
potato multiplication. Building on the government's seed programme, preferred potato varieties (Kinigi and Kirundo).
researchers provided the seed of the most preferred varieties - Kinigi and
Kirundo - to four members of the IP for seed multiplication. The re- 4.3.2. Scaling outcome of the access to remunerative market outlets
sulting seeds produced were sold to farmers in the community at a The main activities of the platform at Mudende were organised
subsidised price of 125 Rwf per kg. Given the anticipated increased around the milk value chain.
potato production and the low conservation facilities available, From the PY1, the average revenue of the milk producers has gra-
Imbaraga - the farmers' confederation – co-funded the construction of dually increased (Table 3). The increased selling price (from 95 to 140
adequate storage areas to reduce post-harvest loss. Rwf) was the main driver of the change. In Mudende, all the milk
The need for attractive markets became apparent for the IP mem- producers continued using the milk storing facility and conforming to
bers after the seed challenge was addressed. The IP conducted a market the higher milk quality standards to obtain a premium price and sell
study at this stage to identify attractive market opportunities. their milk collectively rather than individually (as was done pre-
Supermarkets and restaurants in Kigali agreed to pay a premium price viously). Before the partnership with the dairy companies, farmers only
of 150 Rwf per kg against 120 Rwf offered by the local traders, if the produced a relatively low volume of milk because of the lack of suitable
harvest is cleaned, graded, and packaged in appropriate containers. processing and storage facilities. They explained during the interviews
Fifteen farmers of the platform were trained on market standard pro- that the conditions provided by the construction of the milk storing
cedures to meet the market requests. infrastructure and the government's initiative for the “One Cow per
In Mudende, the priority of the IP was to address the poor milk Family” project enabled the increased production of local milk. In PY1,
market conditions along with inadequate milk processing practices. The the IP collected only about 12,000 L of milk, but since the PY2, it
platform, hence, started with a market study to determine potential collected almost 60,000 L each month because of the increase in the
urban market niches. Fifty producers followed a training programme on quantity of milk produced in the community.
milk handling procedures to meet the standards requested by new cli- With the group dynamics, the platform diversified its activities by
ents. Besides, the SSA CP supported the IP members to obtain a loan to
co-fund the construction of a modern milk collector. The government of Table 2
Rwanda also subsidised this infrastructure as part of its Dairy Average revenue per farmer (in Rwf) at Gataraga for potato production (N = 45
Development Project aimed at raising rural incomes by intensifying farmers).
dairy production and improving market access. Milk processing com-
PY1 PY2 PY3 PY4 PY5
panies contracted with the IP members to supply them with milk for a
premium price of 140 Rwf per litre (compared with 95 Rwf per litre a
Production cost (per Kg) 80 82 82 83 85
from the local market). The platform also benefited from the “one cow Average selling price (per Kg)b 82 122 127 143 163
Margin (per Kg) 2 40 45 60 78
for each rural family” project initiated by the Rwandese government for
Average area cultivated (ha) 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.13
food security and childcare. The project was launched almost at the Average amount sold per farmer (Kg) 829 1014 1092 1039 746c
same time with the SSA CP and facilitated the donation of cows to the Average revenue per farmer (in Rwf) 1658 40,542 49,160 62,320 58,162
poor rural families.
Note: PY = Project year.
a
Costs reported by Rwanda Farmers Federation (Imbaraga).
4.3. Scaling outcomes of the activities of the innovation platforms b
We consider only the price offered by the new market niche for the cal-
culation.
In this section, we further explore the outcomes of the activities c
The amount sold was low because of the drought that occurred during the
implemented by the IPs, in terms of the scaling of the promoted season.

5
E. Totin, et al.
PY1
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Fig. 4. Number of farmers cultivating different potato varieties in Gataraga (N = 45 farmers, PY = project year).
setting up a veterinary pharmacy to facilitate access to animal care in
the community. A privileged condition was offered to IP's members. For
example, while the non-platform members paid for their medicines
with cash, IP's members could delay their payment. With the trust en-
vironment built among members, they also initiated a rotating money-
saving system for paying health care insurance and buying new cows
for each IP member.
In Rwerere, during the first growing season, 17 IP members pro-
duced organic chillies. They sold around 2.5 t of chilli and made an
attractive profit, as illustrated in the following quotation: “We did not
produce chilli before the platform was established at Rwerere. Our experi-
ence during the first growing season was very encouraging. The yield was not
too high as expected, but we were able to sell our harvest to the company and
received the money spot cash” (Farmer, member of the IP-Rwerere,
October 2013). It happened that, the chilli company decided to renege
on the contract. Organic chilli production is a new activity in the dis-
trict, and since farmers were not familiar with the production practice,
most of them were not able to get the amount contracted, which was
not economically profitable for the company.
Farmers explained that during the second growing season, more
people joined. About 30 farmers were involved in the production of the
organic chilli, drawing on the experience of PY1, but they did not
harvest as much as the first season as a result of a water shortage
combined with pest infestations. Farmers complained that in the same
period, the company failed to fulfill its commitments, as reported
during the interviews: “I decided to stop chilli production because I could
not deal with the weed infestation. It was too demanding, and the private
company did not cooperate as we agreed. I am sure; if the partnership has
continued, many farmers would have produced more […] even with the
pressure of the weed.” (Farmer, member of the IP-Rwerere, October
2013).
4.3.3. Scaling outcome of the land consolidation practice
The emphasis on agricultural land consolidation aimed at achieving
efficient use of farming space. In Remera, over three-quarters (75%) of
the study participants emphasised the difficulty of land consolidation,
Table 3
Average revenue per farmer (in Rwf) from milk (N = 45).
PY1
Average milk sold (l per week) 51
Average production perioda (weeks) 24
Total average milk sold per year (l) 1228
Average selling price (Rwf per l) 95
Average revenue per farmer per year (Rwf) 116,630
Note: PY = Project year
a
Building on farmers' responses, we estimated that farmers collect the milk for only 6 months each year.
Agricultural Systems 179 (2020) 102764
PY2 PY3 PY4 PY5
since the relocation of farmers was required in some cases. At the initial
stages of implementation, they were reluctant to engage in land con-
solidation, which is complex to undertake. The land innovation was a
top-down directive rather than an initiative coming from the farmers
themselves. Only about a quarter of the farmers interviewed in the IP
were able to consolidate their croplands. The government provided
facilities such as the distribution of high-quality maize and bean seeds
and fertiliser to stimulate the scaling of the land consolidation practice.
At the time of the study, the consolidated land under cultivated maize
and beans was estimated to 29 Ha, about 5% of the total cultivated land
in the district.
4.4. Scaling approach of the innovation platforms
Given the specificities of the four platforms, their activities could be
clustered in (1) the innovation process strategy (including design,
problem orientation, scaling strategy, and innovation focus) and (2) the
network strategy (including both types of actors involved and types of
interactions).
Regarding the innovation process strategy, agricultural technologies
and practices were the main entry-point in most platforms. They started
with the introduction of high-yielding seeds, organic manure, terrace
construction, and post-harvest options, for instance. Through this ap-
proach, the SSA CP assumed that increased use of proven technologies
would lead to improved rural livelihoods, food security, and sustainable
natural resource management (Nyamilinda et al., 2011). On the one
hand, the agenda of the platforms was purely technology-driven and,
therefore, close to a push approach. On another hand, the design of the
IPs started with a diagnosis of potential opportunities and constraints,
although during their course, the two successful platforms (e.g., Ga-
taraga and Mudende) responded to a few new challenges and oppor-
tunities as well. Even though the SSA CP aimed to support innovation
processes to respond to key constraints and emerging challenges – as
the framing of the programme seems to indicate, it, however, failed to
pay appropriate attention to an articulated scaling strategy right from
the start. At the beginning of the programme, the scaling thinking was
PY2 PY3 PY4 PY5
56 52 51 55
24 24 24 24
1340 1241 1213 1325
105 110 110 140
140,730 136,525 133,395 185,505
6
E. Totin, et al.
not part of its agenda. The focus was on strategies to address pressing
and emerging challenges that hindered agricultural intensification with
emphasis on the transfer of new or proven technologies. The push ap-
proach was at the heart of the design of the SSA CP activities. Platforms'
outcomes show that in the successful platforms, in Gataraga and Mu-
dende, the innovation focus consisted of a mixture of hardware and
orgware, with at the start a focus primarily on hardware changing to-
wards orgware. The platform in Mudende was an exception, starting
with the exploration of market opportunities. The platform built its
strategy by anticipating the quality standard requested by this parti-
cular market outlet – milk processing company.
In their network strategy, the platforms employed more of a pull
approach (for instance, when developing a new market outlet).
Although they regarded themselves as the key change agents in their
domain, and consequently their role-definition was close to ‘get the job
done together,’ within their sphere of influence, overall, the platforms
mainly used pull strategies during their operations. At the start, most
prospective partners were contacted because of their particular position
in the value chains or institutional power. Moreover, sense-making
capabilities became critical over time, especially in the successful
platforms.
The collaboration was transdisciplinary given the many types of
actors involved, but not very trans-sectoral, since there was no in-
tegration of activities even in cases where the focus was on more than
one value chain. Finally, the membership of actors at the district level
(processing companies, extension officers, and local authorities) and
national level (researchers, input suppliers, and the farmers' federation)
alongside the farmers express the multi-level orientation of all four
platforms.
The two successful platforms also seem to have contributed to the
institutionalisation of new farmers' practices in two ways. First, the
opportunity for training on quality seed production in Gataraga led to
the formation of a seed association and the establishment of local rules
regarding prices, quality, and guarantee of locally produced seeds. For
instance, to improve the quality of their harvest, farmers agreed to keep
potatoes in the field for four months before harvesting instead of the
typical three months practised.
Secondly, as the interviews indicate, regular platform meetings in
Gataraga and Mudende stimulated the participating farmers to set up a
rotating saving system. By saving part of their income, they were able to
pay for health insurance (mandatory in Rwanda) and buy new cows for
the IP members. The collaboration within the platform also stimulated
the emergence of unplanned activities. For instance, at Mudende,
platform members managed to create a veterinary pharmacy to facil-
itate access to animal care for herders in the district. This development
was not part of the agenda of the IP at the beginning. This outcome can
illustrate the unexpected transformation that scaling mechanisms can
lead to because of the interconnectedness of social systems (Wright and
Meadows, 2012).
5. Analysis and discussion
Innovation platforms hold the promise of being a suitable approach
to scaling, with effects going beyond mere local adoption of innovations
in the form of impact, to lasting effects, or even wider system change
(Schut et al., 2018). In the literature on agricultural innovation systems,
innovation platforms are expected to trigger a conducive process to-
wards systemic change by bringing together key players for effective
interactions (Hounkonnou et al., 2018; Sartas et al., 2018; Schut et al.,
2018). In the following section, we analyse the scaling activities of four
IPs to explore whether the focus was either technology-driven (push) or
more institutional oriented (pull) and the extent to which the scaling
outcomes benefited from other external developments.
7
Agricultural Systems 179 (2020) 102764
5.1. Innovation platform activities between push and pull scaling
approaches
The Sub-Saharan Africa Challenge Programme's platforms were in-
itiated to facilitate the scaling of proven innovations from a system
perspective by using the IP approach. To address the production chal-
lenges that farmers were facing, the agenda of the platforms had gra-
dually shifted from knowledge transfer towards strengthening institu-
tional capacity of platform members with (1) connection to market
facilities and (2) enabling access to production inputs, including access
to credit and high-quality seed, to enhance the scaling of the innova-
tions promoted. The most successful IPs contributed to scaling out-
comes by focusing more on the pull approach in the way they built the
network, identified new opportunities, stimulating collaboration and
giving the ultimate impact of scaling activities on farmers' revenues. In
Gataraga, the use of clean potato seed was not possible, but by setting
the seed associations in the village, the platform enhanced the scaling of
improved potato seed, which became more accessible for many potato
farmers (Pannell et al., 2006).
Moreover, the market facility with a premium price was an in-
centive that supported the increased use of market-preferred varieties
and high-quality seeds. With a guaranteed market opportunity, farmers
were motivated to invest in high-quality potato seed. The enabling
conditions of market availability, the premium price offered, and the
establishment of seed farmer associations directly in their communities
contributed to reducing the risk of farmers to invest in this type of seed.
In Mudende, by facilitating the connection of the farmers with milk
markets, the platform contributed to addressing a major institutional
constraint that prevented farmers from investing in the local milk
production, as described above. Overall, having in place a setting that
secures investments or reduces risk is a precondition for an effective
scaling process. Moreover, the scaling of the potato and milk produc-
tion systems were successful as they are both existing products for
Rwanda farmers with more or less a stable market demand, while the
organic chilli was a new product for a new market, so its investment –
both production and marketing- was too risky.
In Gataraga and Mudende, the average revenue per farmer has
significantly increased between PY1 and PY4 (Table 2; Table 3), be-
cause of the seasonal variation of commodities' price as almost always
occurs, but also as a contribution of the new marketing arrangements
(e.g., payment of a premium, access to secured market). In these two
areas, beyond the traditional technology transfer, the strategic part-
nership had created room for the scaling outcomes. Therefore, the
platforms have balanced the two approaches by employing a combi-
nation of push (e.g., promotion of new varieties and agricultural
practices) and pull approaches to facilitate the development of new
partnerships.
The findings also suggest that there was room for the IPs to become
systemic instruments of pulling by opening new windows of opportu-
nity, seeking alliances with other change initiatives (e.g., government
projects in each region) by building wide networks around platforms,
developing plural options for improving smallholders' livelihoods. In
Remera, however, the IP was not successful in supporting the land
consolidation, partly because it was a government initiative, with a top-
down decision rather than a farmer up priority. The land consolidation
is complex and may require more than a classic transfer of technology
with seed and fertiliser distribution. It would also need institutional
support in the form of a pull approach to create the condition for
farmers to relocate or to reorganise their cropping practices. The ty-
pology used by Wigboldus et al. (2016) inferred that in the case of
complex problems – land consolidation in the African context could be
considered as complex – a more ‘complete’ pull-approach involving
many complementary institutional interventions would be more con-
ducive to scaling.
E. Totin, et al.
5.2. Interactions between innovation platform activities and external
developments
The IP activities happened at the same time as many other gov-
ernment projects. In this section, we discuss the extent to which the IPs'
activities would interplay with other external interventions to create
conditions for scaling outcomes.
Despite the success observed in Gataraga and Mudende, the spread
of the new technologies would not have gone far with the platform
activities alone. The conducive conditions provided by the govern-
ment's Crop Intensification Programme (CIP) had enhanced the scaling
process (Cantore, 2011). Through CIP, the government subsidised the
construction of new infrastructures to boost smallholder dairy pro-
ductivity and provided support for access to clean seed for the farmers
(Nyamilinda et al., 2011). These opportunities, which happened at a
higher-level, offered additional values to platform activities.
The scaling process can be seen as specific for each innovation to
promote, which may require different packages of supporting facilities.
The land consolidation innovation in Remera was an illustrative case.
This innovation did not yield significant success, even with the gov-
ernment incentives (e.g., access to quality seeds and fertiliser). These
facilities may not be appropriate to stimulate a scaling of land con-
solidation because of the complexity of the innovation that involved
possible resettlement or re-organisation of the land allocation practice.
This type of innovation asks for fundamental transformation, such as
tenure arrangement. This finding shows that supportive conditions for
scaling should be specific to each innovation, and they need the flex-
ibility to accommodate local realities.
In sum, in Gataraga and Mudende, the platforms were successful
partly because of the institutional conditions provided at a higher level
by the government interventions that were conducive to scaling.
Therefore, the scaling outcomes cannot be assessed in isolation, and
innovation platform activities alone cannot lead to sustainable changes
at scale (Swaans et al., 2013). Such a conclusion is particularly im-
portant given the growing demand for innovation platforms as a fra-
mework that guarantees success. The IP approach is becoming a hot
topic, and many scholars/donors recommend it as a pathway for greater
impact (Faure et al., 2018; Sanyang et al., 2016; Vissoh et al., 2017).
These findings show that the IP approach cannot be a universal recipe
for success or panacea (Sparrow and Traoré, 2018). Its effectiveness
highly depends on the institutional environment within which it is used
and the levels at which it is established.
6. Conclusion
The study confirms that a push approach alone cannot bring in-
novation at scale. There is, instead, a need for a combination of push
and pull approaches for effective scaling processes. Such integration is
essential, as scaling processes typically require a context-based ap-
proach rather than following standard processes to address the com-
plexity of social dynamics and specific conditions needed for each in-
novation to scale. While the IP approach is acknowledged as facilitating
such a balanced mix of these two approaches, in practice, the IP makes
more space for push approach. By bringing key players together, IP
enabled a shared vision and helped to make strategic decisions about
specific needs for capacities and conditions to consider for active and
responsible scaling.
Regarding the core debate about the scaling mechanism that the
paper aims to contribute to, it emerged from this study that scaling
processes require a “protected space” to materialise (see also Pigford
et al., 2018; Smith and Raven, 2012). Aspects such as stakeholder trust
and commitment are part of this space. It is about how key partners are
mobilised to contribute effectively to the scaling efforts. The case of
Rwerere is illustrative of how mistrust or lack of commitment among
parties can lead to failure of the scaling initiative. Scholars suggest that
IP can create conditions for scaling (Hermans et al., 2017; Pamuk et al.,
8
Agricultural Systems 179 (2020) 102764
2014), but the study shows that external developments happening
above the local level also contribute to the scaling outcome. The
alignment of the IPs' activities with political agendas or broadly, the
extent to which the scaling strategy considers the existing conducive
context, either political, economic, cultural, or social, can further en-
hance scaling efforts. Results show, however, that using the platform
approach in research and development programmes cannot be a pa-
nacea for effective scaling of innovations. In this research, not all four
platforms were successful in scaling the promoted options. Finally,
some reflections on limitations and future work. The work presented in
this paper, though addressing the broad subject of the science of scaling
, has still been limited in scope. This was due partly to our simplified
interpretation of push and pull approaches to scaling, and this would
require further attention in future studies. Also, in our study we did not
fully elaborate on the central role of facilitation agents – brokers or
intermediaries - for the scaling process,. It may be interesting to in-
vestigate in future research how their profile, identity, or institutional
connection shapes the scaling outcome (see also Klerkx et al., 2013).
Deepening knowledge on this topic would help to refine the practice of
scaling innovations.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the CGIAR
Research Programme on Integrated Systems for the Humid Tropics
(Humidtropics), which funded this research. They are also grateful to
Desire Kagabo and Leon Nabahungu for facilitating the fieldwork in
Rwanda. They wish to thank Michelle North, Alcade Segnon, and
Samuel Partey for providing editorial assistance and constructive
comments on earlier versions of this paper.
References
Abate, T., Shiferaw, B., Gebeyehu, S., Amsalu, B., Negash, K., Assefa, K., Eshete, M., Aliye,
S., Hagmann, J., 2011. A systems and partnership approach to agricultural research
for development: lessons from Ethiopia. Outlook Agricult. 40, 213–220.
Akhtar-Schuster, M., Thomas, R.J., Stringer, L.C., Chasek, P., Seely, M., 2011. Improving
the enabling environment to combat land degradation: institutional, financial, legal
and science-policy challenges and solutions. Land Degrad. Dev. 22, 299–312.
Biernacki, P., Waldorf, D., 1981. Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain
referral sampling. Sociol. Methods Res. 10, 141–163.
Bisseleua, D., Idrissou, L., Olurotimi, P., Ogunniyi, A., Mignouna, D., Bamire, S., 2018.
Multi-stakeholder process strengthens agricultural innovations and sustainable live-
lihoods of farmers in southern Nigeria. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 24, 29–49.
Cantore, N., 2011. The Crop Intensification Program in Rwanda: A Sustainability
Analysis. Overseas Development Institute, pp. 1. Available online. http://dspace.
cigilibrary.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/31634/1/ODI-% 20The% 20Crop%
20Intensification% 20Program% 20in% 20Rwanda.pdf.
Christensen, C., 2013. The innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great
Firms to Fail. Harvard Business Review Press.
Davies, J., Maru, Y., Hall, A., Abdourhamane, I.K., Adegbidi, A., Carberry, P., Dorai, K.,
Ennin, S.A., Etwire, P.M., McMillan, L., 2018. Understanding innovation platform
effectiveness through experiences from west and central Africa. Agric. Syst. 165,
321–334.
Douthwaite, B., Keatinge, J.D.H., Park, J.R., 2001. Why promising technologies fail: the
neglected role of user innovation during adoption. Res. Policy 30, 819–836.
Eneku, G.A., Wagoire, W.W., Nakanwagi, J., Tukahirwa, J.B., 2013. Innovation platforms:
a tool for scaling up sustainable land management innovations in the highlands of
Eastern Uganda. Afr. Crop. Sci. J. 21, 751–760.
Faure, G., Barret, D., Blundo-Canto, G., Dabat, M.-H., Devaux-Spatarakis, A., Le Guerroué,
J.L., Marquié, C., Mathé, S., Temple, L., Toillier, A., Triomphe, B., Hainzelin, E.,
2018. How different agricultural research models contribute to impacts: evidence
from 13 case studies in developing countries. Agric. Syst. 165, 128–136.
Giertz, A., Gray, G., Mudahar, M.S., Rubaiza, R., Galperin, D., Suit, K., 2015. Rwanda
Agricultural Sector Risk Assessment. World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 120.
Hagel III, J., Brown, J.S., 2008. From push to pull: emerging models for mobilizing re-
sources. J. Serv. Sci. 1, 93–110.
Hermans, F., Roep, D., Klerkx, L., 2016. Scale dynamics of grassroots innovations through
parallel pathways of transformative change. Ecological Economics 130, 285–295.
Hermans, F., Sartas, M., van Schagen, B., van Asten, P., Schut, M., 2017. Social network
E. Totin, et al.
analysis of multi-stakeholder platforms in agricultural research for development:
opportunities and constraints for innovation and scaling. PLoS One 12, e0169634.
Hounkonnou, D., Brouwers, J., Van Huis, A., Jiggins, J., Kossou, D., Röling, N., Sakyi-
Dawson, O., Traoré, M., 2018. Triggering regime change: a comparative analysis of
the performance of innovation platforms that attempted to change the institutional
context for nine agricultural domains in West Africa. Agric. Syst. 165, 296–309.
Ika, L.A., 2012. Project management for development in Africa: why projects are failing
and what can be done about it. Proj. Manag. J. 43, 27–41.
Kefasi, N., Pali, P., Fatunbi, A.O., Olarinde, L.O., Njuki, J., Adekunle, A.O., 2012.
Stakeholder participation in innovation platform and implications for Integrated
Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D). Int. J. Agricult. Forest. 2, 92–100.
Kilelu, C.W., Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., 2013. Unravelling the role of innovation platforms in
supporting co-evolution of innovation: contributions and tensions in a smallholder
dairy development programme. Agric. Syst. 118, 65–77.
Kilelu, C., Klerkx, L., Omore, A., Baltenweck, I., Leeuwis, C., Githinji, J., 2017. Value
chain upgrading and the inclusion of smallholders in markets: reflections on con-
tributions of multi-stakeholder processes in dairy development in Tanzania. Eur. J.
Dev. Res. 29, 1102–1121.
Klerkx, L., Adjei-Nsiah, S., Adu-Acheampong, R., Saïdou, A., Zannou, E.T., Soumano, L.,
Sakyi-Dawson, O., van Paassen, A., Nederlof, E.S., 2013. Looking at agricultural in-
novation platforms through an innovation champion lens: an analysis of three cases
in West Africa. Outlook Agricult. 42, 185–192.
Lamers, D., Schut, M., Klerkx, L., van Asten, P., 2017. Compositional dynamics of mul-
tilevel innovation platforms in agricultural research for development. Science and
Public Policy 6 (1), 739–752.
Millar, J., Connell, J., 2009. Strategies for scaling out impacts from agricultural systems
change: the case of forages and livestock production in Laos. Agric. Hum. Values 27,
213–225.
Moore, M.-L., Riddell, D., Vocisano, D., 2015. Scaling out, scaling up, scaling deep:
strategies of non-profits in advancing systemic social innovation. The J. Corpor.
Citizenship 67–85.
Ndjeunga, J., Bantilan, C., 2005. Uptake of improved technologies in the semi-arid tropics
of West Africa: why is agricultural transformation lagging behind? J. Agricult.
Develop. Econom. 2, 85–102.
Nyamilinda, B., Bizoza, A., Rukazambuga, D., Wanjiku, C., Buruchara, R., Mugabo, J.,
Murorunkwere, F., Ntizo, S., Musana, B., Ngaboyisonga, C., Gafaranga, J.,
Habumugisha, P., Tuyisenge, J., Birachi, E., Adekunle, A.A., Fatunbi, A.O., Tenywa,
M.M., 2011. Agricultural post-harvest innovative technologies and access to niche
market: experience from Gataraga IP, Rwanda. Learning Publics J. Agricult. Environ.
Stud. 2, 1–23.
Pamuk, H., Bulte, E., Adekunle, A.A., 2014. Do decentralized innovation systems promote
agricultural technology adoption? Experimental evidence from Africa. Food Policy
44, 227–236.
Pannell, D.J., Marshall, G.R., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F., Wilkinson, R., 2006.
Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural land-
holders. Anim. Prod. Sci. 46, 1407–1424.
Pigford, A.-A.E., Hickey, G.M., Klerkx, L., 2018. Beyond agricultural innovation systems?
Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and de-
velopment in sustainability transitions. Agricultural Systems 164, 116–121.
Quisumbing, A.R., Pandolfelli, L., 2010. Promising approaches to address the needs of
Agricultural Systems 179 (2020) 102764
poor female farmers: resources, constraints, and interventions. World Dev. 38,
581–592.
Sanyang, S., Taonda, S.J.-B., Kuiseu, J., Coulibaly, N.T., Konaté, L., 2016. A paradigm
shift in African agricultural research for development: the role of innovation plat-
forms. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 14, 187–213.
Sartas, M., Schut, M., Hermans, F., Van Asten, P.J.A., Leeuwis, C., 2018. Effects of multi-
stakeholder platforms on multi-stakeholder innovation networks: Implications for
research for development interventions targeting innovations at scale. Plos One 13
(6), e0197993.
Schut, M., Cadilhon, J.-J., Misiko, M., Dror, I., 2016. Do mature innovation platforms
make a difference in agricultural research for development? A meta-analysis of case-
studies. Exp. Agric. 1–24.
Schut, M., Kamanda, J., Gramzow, A., Dubois, T., Stoian, D., Andersson, J.A., Dror, I.,
Sartas, M., Mur, R., Kassam, S., 2018. Innovation platforms in agricultural research
for development : ex-ante appraisal of the purposes and conditions under which in-
novation platforms can contribute to agricultural development outcomes. Exp. Agric.
1–22.
Sidibé, A., Vellema, S., Dembelé, F., Traoré, M., Kuyper, T.W., 2017. Analyse d'une plate-
forme d'innovation dans la filière karité au Mali. Cah. Agric. 26, 45001.
Smith, A., Raven, R., 2012. What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions
to sustainability. Research Policy 41, 1025–1036.
Sparrow, A.D., Traoré, A., 2018. Limits to the applicability of the innovation platform
approach for agricultural development in West Africa: socio-economic factors con-
strain stakeholder engagement and confidence. Agric. Syst. 165, 335–343.
Swaans, K., Cullen, B., van Rooyen, A., Adekunle, A., Ngwenya, H., Lema, Z., Nederlof, S.,
2013. Dealing with critical challenges in African innovation platforms: lessons for
facilitation. Knowl. Manag. Dev. J. 9, 116–135.
Totin, E., van Mierlo, B., Mongbo, R., Leeuwis, C., 2015. Diversity in success: interaction
between external interventions and local actions in three rice farming areas in Benin.
Agric. Syst. 133, 119–130.
Udondian, N.S., Robinson, E.J., 2018. Exploring agricultural intensification: a case study
of Nigerian government rice and cassava initiatives. Int. J. Agricult. Econom. 3,
118–128.
Van den Ende, J., Dolfsma, W., 2005. Technology-push, demand-pull and the shaping of
technological paradigms-patterns in the development of computing technology. J.
Evol. Econ. 15, 83–99.
Van Paassen, A., Klerkx, L., Adu-Acheampong, R., Adjei-Nsiah, S., Zannoue, E., 2014.
Agricultural innovation platforms in West Africa: how does strategic institutional
entrepreneurship unfold in different value chain contexts? Outlook Agricult. 43,
193–200.
Vissoh, P.V., Tossou, R.C., Akpo, E., Kossou, D., Jiggins, J., 2017. Innovating a system for
producing and distributing hybrid oil palm seedlings to smallholder farmers in Benin.
Cah. Agric. 26, 15002.
Wigboldus, S., Brouwers, J., 2016. Using a Theory of Scaling to Guide Decision Making.
Towards a Structured Approach to Support Responsible Scaling of Innovations in the
Context of Agrifood Systems. Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen.
Wigboldus, S., Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., Schut, M., Muilerman, S., Jochemsen, H., 2016.
Systemic perspectives on scaling agricultural innovations. A review. Agron. Sustain.
Dev. 36, 1–20.
Wright, D., Meadows, D.H., 2012. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. Routledge.