 This is the next hour, I'll introduce Lenard. Sure, thanks, Ian. So we have with us online from Mexico, Lenard Walter Ring, who works with CIMIT and is also part of the group of ISED scaling community, which embeds people in various CG centers. So he has two very interesting perspectives for us. One in his role as overlooking scaling and scaling approaches in one of the CG centers and another coming to it from the GIZ, one of our donor communities and how they look at the issue of scaling. He's also the co-author of one of the tools that we're looking forward to hear more from him on, but I'll also mention tomorrow when I present the proposed ILRI function, it's one of the tools that we are looking to embed into our processes, the scaling scan. And so hopefully, Lenard, in your talk today, you'll be able to give us some of the broad views on scaling, but also a little bit of an intro to the scaling scan and your experiences at CIMIT and elsewhere. So we have about 10 or so people in the room here in Nairobi and we have another 15 or so people online with us and we very much appreciate you making the time and looking forward to hearing what you have to say. So over to you, Lenard. So thank you, thank you, Ido. It's a pleasure and an honor to present to you and thank you for the opportunity. I listened in on the last few minutes of Larry's presentation and yeah, what he said is true. I think getting more clarity on what scaling is and how to do it, I think is of great importance and anybody who is interested in that and is interested to hear more or different kind of viewpoints, I think that's something that we should really try to support that as much as possible, no? So yeah, so I was happy to do this and my title of the presentation is Scaling of Agricultural Innovations, the what, why and how and then this morning I added or coming to terms with scaling in the context of CIMIT, C-J-I-R. And I've been with CIMIT now for, as you said, as a GIZ integrated expert, I think you have, no, you don't have integrated experts of the task force on scaling within Ilri, not yet. I mean, I'm part of that. So I'll focus a little bit on really, let me see if I can move, yeah, okay. Basically, actually, I could summarize many of the things that I was trying to do is saying, what is actually meaningful scaling? And then I will talk a little bit about scaling scale and then there's a lot of time for Q and A, which is of course an interesting part, right? So I think one of the things that we are faced with, the clarity of scaling is really not matched with clarity on the concept. And even now, you can almost call it the buzzword. And this is of course risky because people are using it in a superficial way. And also you could also do a lot of harm with it. So it's important, I think that we have a clear understanding or at least a clearer understanding of what scaling means. And in the environment, I think the CJR environment, especially of course, but also other development actors, it's very much about maximized adoption during the project. And you can see this is coming from, I think, a history of doing discovery. Some kind of amazing seed, of course, this is a summit example. You do the proof of concept. You do the piloting in some locations and then you go to scale, no? Like a very linear process and it's all about getting that seed all the way through to the end, no? But what it appears to be is that this transition from piloting to scanning is really a black box. And I think Larry also talked a lot about this. And that's why you have people saying pilots never fail to scale or you have also another one here recently, many pilots, but there are no planes taking off or something, there are many jokes about it. But this one, I think, sounds nice. And actually there are two major problems for that. So the first one is that even though the project would maximize adoption, but the world actually needs sustainable system change. They don't need ex-adopters on the last day of the project, right? And the second big problem with this is pilots, they happen in very controlled environments while scaling happens in the real world. And I'm gonna go a little bit deeper into those two major issues. So scaling up versus going down to Earth. Most of the pilot projects operate in very, very controlled environments. Expensive external experts, they come in, often parallel to a local system. It's a bit of a black-white picture I'm trying to push here just to provoke a little bit of discussion now. So there's heavy support for partnerships, right? Often a very transactional feature. You do this for me, I do that for you, et cetera. Expensive and intensive capacity strengthening, relying on grants that can end also, they have a fixed start and an end date and they're often shielded from politics and market forces. I mean, the donor is behind it or is basically finding their own market forces or shielding it from corruption, et cetera, right? So it is kind of like this picture where, oh, of course you don't see my finger if I pointed it, but you can see the fish in the bowl at the environment, there are no waves, and the water is clean, et cetera. And we say, well, it works here, let's throw it into the sea, but in the sea, there are, of course, many other things and actors going around. There might be other external factors that you didn't have in a pilot environment, right? So there's no guarantee that this fish will survive, right? And I think one of the major points and also Larry is articulate in this is to say the context is the king. So context is king, not only in the environment where we want to scale, because I think that the clarity is there, but also in the pilot environment that we basically create, right? So both environments are determining basically for the success of those innovations. Another element is that scaling is actually been quite complex. I think the people from IIT, they formulated it nicely. So they said the successful scaling of an innovation requires as much, at least as much attention to complementary, non-technological requirements. And that's actually actually also what I just heard the last few minutes of Larry, even 10% technology or 90% non-technological, right? And all these processes and all these other innovations need to scale kind of in a coherent way. And maybe one example, this is an example also from Mark Schoet, I think he's gonna speak to you tomorrow. And I think the long-term discussion on electrical vehicles has been around technology, right? It's about the battery strength and how many kilometers can you go, et cetera. But really without any innovations in infrastructure, how do you set up charging stations network? How do you, what kind of market innovations can you, people are incentivized basically to buy such a car? Subsidies for clean vehicles, like for example, in Beijing, in China, but also in many other places. Innovations in the value chain, innovations also in design. And that's a picture I think how an electrical car looks like if it was designed by engineers, much less attractive, of course, then of course what you see on the right. But there's a lot of other innovations and of course one big one managed to fossil fuel low. So it was not really the limiting factor has not been, it might as well be in the other elements, right? And they all somehow come together and they all take time and resources. And I think that's something that we at CIMIT and I think it's quite a general for the CGR. We focus a lot on improving the technology and really tweaking it to a state of perfection almost. But we forget about percent of innovation that is also required to support such an innovation to basically have the impact that we want to have. So scaling is a bit more complex than just pushing something out. And well, basically if you wanna really simplify it a lot, you can get quite far if you just talk about scaling up, scaling out and we use here the analogy with the pyramid and saying, well, the scaling out is really reaching more people, right? You multiply, you disseminate extension, et cetera. These words come into the discussion. Scaling up is really having others support that process and do basically scaling out for you kind of. So it's really, and also lift it up to another level. So it's basically making a scaling out much more efficient. And then one of the things which I think is very important in our context and that I think doesn't get really enough attention. It's always attentional more on an anecdotal level or on a sideline. But I think it's really core to what we do is the scaling deep is really to change the behaviors, changing the minds. And I'm really not focusing only on the farmers because that's what we like to do. It's very much is also changing the mindsets of us, the scientists, the people in development projects, the donors, value chain actors also, I mean, convince somebody to provide services to a poor farmer. This also changes the mindset, no? And kind of that scaling deep basically provides the stability of that pyramid. Because I think there's a lot of projects that go and build up very nice pyramids, but really they never made it into kind of like a new normal for all the players in the value chain to keep doing this, right? So then the one the project is over, basically the pyramid topples over. So looking at those three elements and basically every intervention should have, pay attention to all three of these dimensions. Why scaling? So it is all part of the meaningful scaling. Why scaling? I mean, the CJR was set up in the 60s. I just had a shot at it to have development impact, right? But of course we are not a development organization and you get into long discussions and I think useful discussions, like where are we on the R4D spectrum? And maybe in the questions we can come back to that, but let me continue with this story. I'm getting distracted already because of this. So we're not a company, we're not like Coca-Cola that says, okay, we need to have operational scale and growing market share. That that's, it's not wrong, I think for what we do, but it's not enough. I think we focus on social impact and public good. I mean, we contribute to the SDGs. We cannot, let's say have adoption of a fantastic innovation if thereby the whole environment is going, you know, is being destroyed or something, right? So we have to go a step further than thinking on this industrial way of scaling or this commercial success factor of scaling and how scaling is used in, let's say the startup industry or our scaling is used in the industry in the 1800s or in the 1900s and the pharmaceuticals, just getting bigger market share. I think for us it's a bit more complex and I think also more useful. And people from the IDRC, I think they formulated it very nicely. So I might as well just use what they said and I adapted it a little bit, but like an organization like Ilri also, we want to optimally scale the impacts of innovation. So we don't want to scale the innovation. We don't want to scale, basically the innovation program. We won't want to scale the sales or the coverage of the policy. Often they don't really correlate with the good change that people endorse actually, right? So there's a difference there. What matters is the positive impact the innovation creates for the people and the environment. And also more complex and far reaching look at scaling than I think, like I said, the commercial way of looking at scaling, right? But I think this is more appropriate for the kind of institute that we work for. And I think actually the mandates of many of our donors and development partners. And just one example, I mean, it's a graph that I've been using, but and every time I say, I'm gonna make it nice, I never did it. So it looks a bit shabby, but I think focus on the message please. So let's say we have an irrigation project and we have many irrigation farmers and they're doing great. But at a certain point in time, of course, let's say the water runs out and of course the benefit of the irrigation farmers goes down, right? But if you look at the fishermen already from day one with this project because the nutrients came into the water and people were putting pumps everywhere, et cetera. The community was happy with more vegetables, but they had let's say less fish and maybe less drinking water. And of course then when the lake ran dry, of course they were not happy at all, right? And I think many of the projects, they focus basically on what happens in the yellow box. They say, well, let's do for three, four years, look great project. Our target is our these irrigation farmers and look Yacuba and look at Miriam. They're having so much more vegetables and doing great. Look, so many more people are now irrigating. And I think what basically follows a lid from that previous slide, I think our objective should be to look at, what would be the optimal scale for that community and for the environment there? And not only focusing on those irrigation farmers. And I think that's something that many projects are basically kind of like a problem if you really focus so much on reaching more and having more is better, et cetera, you might lose out on this perspective. So trade-offs and negative consequences happen and there are beyond for target population as well. And even within your target population and beyond the project boundaries often, right? So you could even question, is it maybe a blessing in disguise that we have not been very successful in really scaling? Like, I think Larry probably showed that, no? Like 5% of the project normally maybe go to scale, right? So what we are working on, and also with Larry and also with S&V from the Netherlands and colleagues here at CIMIT is how do we actually in the agenda of these SDGs like this social impact into what we do and into basically definition of scaling or working with scaling. So the title of that article is From Reaching Many, no? I think that's a big focus of many people, scaling, okay, just go for many. To sustainable systems change at scale and I will say a little bit more of what I mean there. So one thing about the element of sustainability and it's not the same as reaching scale, right? You can do a project where you hand out a lot of seeds or machines or whatever you want to scale. Doesn't mean that it's sustainable, right? I mean, if you just give it away. So there's a difference between reaching scale and sustainability. And I think in the frame of scaling, sustainability refers to kind of like a change that perpetuates itself. That's basically the new normal beyond the project, right? By the local actors. And also, I think that idea of okay, the reward for a successful project is another project. I think also this means that projects, because the scaling process is so complex, one project cannot scale something. It's a process, it's accumulation of different projects and many projects you're probably not even aware of that contribute to something going to scale and things that are not within projects, but just happen within the country, right? The element of system change. So I just talked about the element of sustainability. The element of system change. I think it's important to realize that, like we said, I mean, if you introduce a technological innovation, the whole system needs to operate differently. The system can basically, what is the system, right? Do we talk about a household? Do we talk about a supply chain? Do we talk about the every food system? This whole system of actors and rules and regulations and relationships and history, they all need this in some way, some way or another, right? And therefore, I think this instead of like or adding maybe in that spectrum of discovery, proof of concept, piloting, scaling, maybe between the piloting and scaling, I think we can insert kind of like this framework, the sector transformation framework where you basically think about, okay, something happens, first movers, critical mass, and then you get some kind of institutionalization, which then lead to scaling. So rather than like a linear process, it's more like really people coming together, relationships being for networks being built, things becoming, demands coming from society, et cetera. And then basically the change kind of happened. So I always find this a very useful, basically framework to show, okay, how can change kind of happen, right? Another thing is also scaling is not a linear process. And I think a lot of projects or colleagues also think, well, this works here, and then we just extrapolate it linearly, and then we make a log frame, and then everything we can plan out for the next five years, and probably some impact in 10 years, et cetera. I think that's a thing that we have to accept, that it's not something that we can control so much as we can control pilot environments. And I think that's maybe also one of the elements why we love to do pilots and control the environment so much, because we kind of predict what we can do, right? So scaling is not a linear process, and you'll see that I'm from the Netherlands pull up this picture. And this is kind of like the story, okay, if you wanna go somewhere in the Netherlands and you, well, you're alone, you just take your bike, you can still go there to the bakery or wherever you wanna go with four people, right? But if you have more people, you need to switch to a car, right? And there are also limits to how many people you can bring, but that transition, it's not a linear process. You basically need to get a driver's license, you need to go from the small bicycle lanes to the big road, you need to learn how to park, you need all kinds of new things, new regulations come into play and a new environment and new actors come into play. And the same continues, of course, if you again reach the limits of that, you have to move to learning how to drive a bus and follow those rules and make sure that you're not getting into fights with other bus drivers, et cetera. So there's a whole different range of rules, processes, relationships, but also just technology that you have to have the money to buy the bus, of course, right? So the thing is not linear, the growth is not linear, it goes in kind of like phases, you might also fall back, but every time, sorry, the point is basically the rules that apply to the woman on the bicycle are not the same as the driver of this bus, right? And when you put this all together, the last month, actually, we did a lot of interviews, like 36 interviews with colleagues here at SIMIT, all the program directors and other colleagues here, we asked them 10 questions about scaling and this was, well, I think this was the first three questions were about this. And when you ask people about scaling, basically everybody says, okay, well, you have to do more, it's more adoption, it's more, more, more. So basically 100% of the people really focus on this element of scaling out and included in their responses. Only half of the colleagues here say, okay, well, it also has to do with scaling up elements, like working with partners, also making things up to another level, et cetera. Let's of course talk about the scaling deep, like we add value to people's lives, create positive impact and at least ensure that we do no harm. That also has to do, of course, with the responsible scaling. So very few people have that actually on the radar. If you ask them, okay, what is scaling? What are success factors? What you would do describe as successful scaling? Half of my colleagues were referring to, okay, scaling is also not only about more, but it's also really something that continues beyond the project, right? And letting go, sharing success, making other people do different choices and then basically that continues after we go. And then we compared a bit, okay, are people really focusing on outputs? Like, okay, the adoption of my innovation is kind of like what we want, or are people focusing on basically the impact that we have? And really what basically one person says, okay, it's really reaching the vision and the vision, right? And going from outputs to shaping outcomes, et cetera. So I think this was a nice overview from my colleagues here on what scaling is and what basically comes to mind immediately. And I think it's probably not very places. I think people scaling, they jump immediately to, okay, it's something more. People, yeah, some people focus still, okay, it's something that has to go beyond the project, but few people think about this, okay, maybe more is not always better, right? And so I think maybe we're probably even linking to what Larry said, it's kind of complex what we're doing, right? It's making it much more difficult than just getting things adopted, right? And doing a big project. So we try to simplify it as much as possible. And I think that that is so important because scaling is really important. I think a lot of projects are happening and things are good initiatives are happening, but they're not the level of where they really have an impact on their own, right? So I really think it's very important that everybody, colleagues, collaborators, probably have a bit of a better understanding of scaling or have a bit of a greater own understanding of how we're, but understand a little bit what actually we're looking for because I mean, after all, the scaling is done by local actors, no? I mean, we can push something, but in the end it happens in those countries that we work. So the first one would be the case, scaling should be attractive. So the business case in the sense for all value chains or value chain actors. So I think the innovation should not be only interesting for the farmer, but maybe it's more important that it's even interesting for the service provider or for a policy advisor or somebody in the government and that I think what's happening, right? Not always the best innovations get promoted. It's many other things come into play. So I think we should be aware there. I think the other one is the entry strategy is the exit strategy and keep asking, what if we pull out tomorrow? And I think the idea of a project should be, okay, we wanna change the normal. We don't change something within that controlled environment and then we go away and then, you know, the real environment basically sucks up that controlled environment and the things doesn't don't work anymore because context is king. So really think, okay, what do we pull out tomorrow? What are all the benefits that we provide to those people in the pretty? What if they've all fall away? What happens? Go far, go long, go far, go together. I think of course the right place in Africa. And it has to do with the scaling up, no? Do scaling up to be more efficient than scaling out? Work with collaborators, make sure that other people are excited or even more excited than you about going in this direction. And the science of scaling, I think, go beyond what works. So a lot of pilots, okay, this works, but really go and understand the influence of the context and how can you make things work because that also inform even the design of what we're doing, right? And also one very important point, which is I think often overlooked, scaling for me, it's not a hard science. It's very much also an art. It also requires pulling and pushing and making things work because in the end, the local actors have to do it, right? And you have to convince people, you have to work with the existing system. So that's an art also, right? Now I'm coming to the last part of the, and that's the scaling scan. So we developed it together with the PPP Lab, Water and Food, their consortium of Wageningen University, SNV, the Netherlands, Aquafrol and the Erasmus University in Rotterdam. And I like really working with them because they're very hands-on and they're very practical and they're all the time like, okay, don't make it too complex. Let's make it 80% right for everybody rather than 100% correct for only a few. And I think that was an important guiding principle and I learned a lot from that process. And I think that's maybe kind of to the success of this tool, keep it simple basically. So we basically have three steps and three steps for people to come to terms with what scaling means in their context. How can you work with scaling? How do you get your partners on board in discussing about scaling, right? So the first step would be defining a realistic scaling ambition. It's kind of like a project objective, but now maybe looking a little bit more ahead. Then we assessed the critical scaling ingredients and then you look at actually what are the next for your project or your intervention, right? So getting a clear idea of what the desired impact is, who is involved and why is it relevant, right? So really asking the question, what, why, how many? And we thought, okay, it's kind of, let's start the workshops and just jump straight and give maybe 10 minutes for this. Turns out it takes a lot of time for people to really agree on it. And if you have a diverse group of partners, to collaborate or even in your project team, many times people, I was shocked to see how many times people have a different understanding of actually where they work or why they're actually doing this, right? So this is an important thing to get the noses in the same direction. And it tells you, okay, what actually do we want to, what is our ambition? Then we look at, we say 10 ingredients, what you basically need to pay attention to if you want to scale. And it's just ingredients because in every context it's different. Some people might like yellow curry and some other people like green curry. Sometimes you need to go to the shop to get an ingredient. Sometimes you already have something in your cupboard. So we can pull this ingredient analogy very far. Okay, look at the status of these ingredients and see to what extent this is gonna hamper or promote kind of like the scaling, right? So the 10 ingredients are the technology, the practice, which I think a lot of people focus on and a lot of other tools also focus a lot on this element, like kind of like the Rogers, okay, is this comparative advantage, the use of the technology, right? But in scaling, I think nine elements are as important or even something more important, right? People should be ready to use it. There should be a active proposition, not only financial but people can also be interested in it for social good or even like sim it, we're not necessarily in it for the month. We have our mission to do that, right? Does it actually also work in reality, just there and are the roads there to make this happen? Finance, of course, this is one of the major bottlenecks every time we do this, even though people focus, all the work focuses on the technology and practice tweaking it, but the finance is often the weakest link. Knowledge and skills, of course, collaboration, collaboration, evidence and learning, especially in our context, I think super important to be providing this kind of evidence that really get the support for this, kind of like to create a movement towards people for people to support the solution. Leadership and management and that's something that is also very important. I think the effective coordination and navigation of a process, it's a complex process and people have to basically coordinate all these kind of elements and more and this requires coordination, right? And of course, a public sector governance. So how it works, basically, we have, this is kind of like still the long version, but for each ingredient, we have four questions and each question goes a little bit into those principles that I showed before, okay? Do you go beyond the project? Do you think about the sustainability? Do you, is your entry strategy your action strategy? So those elements kind of come back into the question. So taking it a little bit out of the cocoon of the project. So that's how the questions are designed and basically people then score with one to five. So very simple, one is okay, no, and five, yes, this is definitely the case, no? And what you can, what you have, for example, this is an example from what we did in India, I think this is a rush shoot. And basically we had a lot of people doing the assessment of one team, so a team of like, say 20 people and they all filled it in and then we put the averages together and even the standard deviation is a complex example I have, right? But they had a very interesting discussion because they said, okay, well, we all tend to agree that the technology is not so much the problem, it's very high, but there tends to be, the issues tend to be around knowledge, awareness, but also finances is kind of like the bottlenecks, right? But then again, you can have a discussion saying, well, a lot of people tend to disagree about the value for finance. Let's have a discussion about that here, why is that there? And then basically you can guide a discussion and chop up the discussion into important elements for that scaling. And I think that's useful and that's the feedback also we get otherwise people keep focusing on the technology. People like to talk so much about the technology, but here they're kind of forced to talk about other elements and say, well, actually we don't know enough about this. And then of course the next steps would then be interesting. So you look at the strong weak ingredients, also look at the questions that were interesting or that stood out for you. Maybe you just take through all the questions and then by the end say, well, this question was super important actually. And then you focus on that, right? You don't have to always follow the overall structure, but then then the question is of course, okay, what can we do? What is in the sphere of our control? What can it collaborates to? And what actually can we not do? Because many times in most projects, I think, we are geared not really to scale. We are really limited in what we actually can do. And we are so affected by the environment that we're in that we also have to be realistic in what we can do, right? And getting that realism is, I think, also an important step. So what we've done, we know that barrel, what we like to do in workshops, we let teams of four or five people then draw up their barrel and then explain to the others why it's going on and what they're thinking that they can do to make the barrel a little bit fuller by fixing, let's say, the weakest links. In Nepal, we also used it to have a discussion among different groups. What we've been doing recently, which might also be interesting for you, this is what we set up for a CSAP project, the Big Pillow McGates project. We put all the questions of the scaling scan in Google Forms, and people can then just do it online on their own and then come together actually next week. And then we help analyze the results and you see standard deviations and then they have a useful discussion about, okay, let's talk about finance but this is really the major bottlenecks or let's talk about collaboration and have a talk about this. So this is, we do this as a preparation for a workshop. Here on the bottom, we have a picture of a workshop we did with Ikarda. And we also use it as a framework, kind of the scaling ingredients. We use it as a framework to compare projects, we say. Here we used, in this article, we used to compare project in Africa, Asia and Mexico, as in, okay, well, how are they doing if you look at it from a scaling perspective? And then we basically had people score it and then compare a little bit, okay, well, in Latin America, it's like this in Asia or Mexico versus Bangladesh. So discuss more, I think, well, we're active on Twitter and we have a blog research page, we're also active. And of course, this paper describes a little bit kind of what I presented here. So thank you very much. This was my presentation. I'm thinking a little bit over time, but I'm really happy to take some questions. Thanks very much, Leonard. And I think what you've just said and presented is compliments very much to the introduction we got from Larry in earlier on this afternoon. And it's good that you were able to highlight particular, you know, the scaling scan tool as an example of some of the tools that are available that might help us. So let me open up for questions again, as we did last time. Let's see if there are any questions here on Nairobi and then I'll come to those of you online. Anyone in the room here? Steve? Hi, thanks. This is Steve Kemp in Nairobi. So both you and Larry made emphasize that the technology was only a component of what's ultimately needed for delivery as if you imagine that we imagine a magical silver bullet. That is true in some cases, some other stuff we do. I mean, inventing a vaccine or inventing a transgenic cow, but a lot of the stuff we do, that's not true. We're looking at bundles of technologies and we're looking all the way around that circle there. And so for us, I think it's fair to say the scale. Scaling is not qualitatively different, but quantitatively different. So I mean, for instance, we engage with farmers about asking them what should the breeding goals be? We don't, so I think we engage pretty much all the way around that circle, but on a pilot scale. I don't know if that's a fair comment. No, I think you're right, of course. There's much more going on than that. And of course, it's a bit of a provocative way of presenting, okay, we focus on the technology, but it is, I think, a strong culture that I see here. I think that what you're mentioning, I think the bundles of technologies, yes, that's also a lot what people do. I think that the challenge really is the pilot environment, the control environment that we're in or the limited focus that we have. I mean, in the case of SIMIT, we say, okay, we do breeding for the farmers, but we do that for a particular group of farmers, right? Are they really the target group at scale? Are we also including the whole system, the people that basically have to support adoption or make changes that are required in the real-world condition? So I think in that sense, that discussion of the control environment versus the real-world environment, I think that's something that is really the key of what we're trying to say rather than, okay, it's kind of like a technology focus, because I think even within that patrol environment, we still tend to focus a lot on the technology and the other elements around it, but still in that control environment. Is that a little bit of a response to what you're... No, I think we would agree. It's true, we do tend to work with tame, tame sets of farmers in a controlled environment, but it would push back on, it's not completely driven by one magical technology. No, exactly, yeah. Okay, anyone online? Please just go ahead if you've got a comment or a question. I see Peter, oh, sorry, go ahead. I'm Helen, I'm in the area in this. I was just interested in, you mentioned in the pilot environment, there's a lot of emphasis on partnerships and on kind of stimulating partnerships, and I was just wondering if you could say more about that. I mean, my assumption in our program is that if you do put emphasis onto partnerships or working with stakeholders at the developing stage, then that means the initiative is gonna be more sustainable after the end of the research funding. Yeah, I think you're exactly right, and that's also kind of like, I think the point. I think what we're trying to picture here is that in these controlled environments, in these pilot environments, we work with partners that are basically paid to be a partner for the duration of the projects, and often these are the transactional nature, right? I mean, it's not necessarily their vision or mission to actually contribute to what we're trying to do here. Also, they're often, what we see is like, other research institutes or universities, right? Whereas what we're trying to say is that in these, try to mimic as much as possible the real-world condition at scale. So you would need partners that can actually reach the kind of scale that you want to have. You need to have partners that have the mandate to do the kind of thing that needs to be done. You need to have partners who have the same kind of drive or motivation to do this without your project intervention. And of course, they should then be part in the project phase where you're starting this, but on those kind of terms, right? And it means also preparing the ownership of this coordination to those actors that will take it up later. And I don't see that often. I see it often like, okay, we're leading this from now until 2023. And after me, you know, whatever happens happens kind of. So it's important to have stakeholders part of the pilot, but there should be those stakeholders who have a potential to continue this beyond the project. Hello. Yes. This is me again, impactor scope program, Elriadis Ababa. Thanks very much, Leonard, for the presentation. The more I look at this scaling discussion and making it happen, I continue to find it difficult to eat from the role of the government, their development agenda. In your experience, how much influence would you put on the role of government? I know private sector is very important, but government policy can influence the private sector to be in the value chain, to be partners in the value chain. The other is the cost, the cost of the innovation itself, the cost of its adoption. I would think that technologies, because many people, many of the people we are dealing with in R4D are considered to be poor, their resources are limited. Emphasis of how they use those resources are also conditioned by their priority scale. Would the cost be factor that researchers should be looking at when proofing a technology ready for scale? Yeah, thank you for that question. I think, yes, we should take into consideration all the design parameters that make a solution good for the kind of target users that we have in mind, and cost is a major factor. It doesn't mean that it has to be cheap, but it has to be affordable within the system. And I think that's what we try to portray also here, is okay, it has to be attractive for farmers, but also for the value chain. And sometimes you get into a kind of like a catch-22 is where the solution is so cheap that the value chain doesn't want to provide it, because there's no incentive for them to do that, right? So then you need to innovate in that area. So, yeah, you should design an innovation. Basically, I think our role as CJR is to design or come up with scalable innovations. And scalability depends also on the cost, but it also depends on the other factors that I put here on the screen. And that's for me your second question. This is just how you pick out, for example, the governance, right? A lot of people, technology, or people that work in the private sector here in the value chain group, they pick on the value chain is the most important. And I think that's exactly the point that we try to make and we try to say, okay, if you have a group of people, a project team, get a broad set of disciplines in the room, because everybody will talk like you know the governance is the most important. No, technology is the most important. And then you get a rich picture and you get a good and nice understanding. Because yes, in some cases, the governance may be the limiting factor. And you have to just check based on the context and the situation. And maybe even the time, maybe today governance is not an issue, but maybe in two years, it suddenly is a huge issue, right? So I would say, yes, but just as much as there's lack of evidence could be a problem, just as much as lack of the working value chain could be a problem. That's one thing, I think. So we have to maintain that broader view. Second point is, and I think Larry mentioned it because I think he shared his presentation with me. Larry likes to say, okay, scaling basically happens through two channels, either through the government or through the private sector, not through us, let's say the development agents, let's call it. And I think that that's very right. I think we, especially as a CGR Institute, we should not do scaling projects. I think what we can do is pilot the scaling or learn around the scaling and understand it and make sure that other people do the right things. But in the end it's the mandate, or it's a mandate of the private sector or some kind of mix between them, right? But it's local, it's local. And I think that's what we tend to forget sometimes because we think we are so important sometimes, no, it's us that. Okay, any final comments before we wrap up the session? Ian, I have a question. Bonnie here with Ilri Utopia. Thank you, Leonard, for your presentation. In looking at practical ways on the what, why and how of scaling, we're showing this process, the issues of attribution have come up and that's how we are trained as researchers we pay attention to this. So have you thought or have you had practical experience in thinking through some of the performance metrics that includes paying attention to all these other things that we bring on board in this scaling process? What are your thoughts about attribution? This is a great question and thank you for that because last night when I drove home I thought, oh, I forgot to include this in the presentation and then this morning I forgot about it again. But yeah, thank you, that's a great point. And I think the difficulty for people to think beyond scaling is adoption of an innovation and looking at it as a more, as a sustainable system change and the social responsibility that comes with it is because we are basically trapped in a system of attribution and we have to say, okay, well, Simet did this or Ilri did this and basically the whole success of what we're doing is based on that. No, donors say, okay, if you have an option of 100,000 farmers, you're a success and then it has to be you, of course, so let's filter it out. And I think that's exactly the biggest problem and that basically keeps the system in place and makes it difficult for us to really reach the impact and really contribute to the SDGs as I think we could and we should do more efficiently. So that is a big issue and that's why actually in most of the workshop we focus on one of the ingredients where we focus on is the leadership management but also the evidence and learning because that's an important role that we have. And what you can do and what we see more and more often is to measure things that happen outside of the project context. So I think a lot of the monitoring goes on the direct beneficiaries. But actually in scaling you should look at the indirect beneficiaries because these are real world people. They are not biased or they're not tempted about the project or they get some whatever advantages from that, no? The real people are adopting it. That's more important for me than the direct benefit. So people are looking at, well, of course, if you control environments, et cetera. But what you also see an example that we have in Bangladesh, a USAID project that they're supporting service providers provide machinery to farmers. But what they also did, they looked outside of the project areas to service providers and if they're actually changing their habits and if they're suddenly including the kind of machines that we were promoting in their portfolio and they did. And this was a very strong motivation for USAID to say, okay, let's continue with this because this is a real change in the system as such. So the monitor, the thing is it's very difficult. It's difficult to say, okay, this is because of the project or somehow related. But I think we should let go of that a little bit. And we should really say, okay, well, what is important is that this impact happens and it will be difficult to say because maybe the impact in a village came because of a health intervention that made people less worried about this and this so that they could put time on farming, et cetera. So the world is kind of like complex but I think we should also embrace that complexity by giving into that and say, okay, let's maybe look at some higher level indicators. So even household or livelihood indicators and do kind of like a hybrid of remote sensing data like looking at a bigger picture and then contributing ground truthing it with kind of things that we have been intervening in and the kind of change that we've seen maybe on the farm or at the farmer level. But it is, to me, this is really the holy grail and slowly the thinking is really going into that direction of how to capture the system change. And I think it's gonna be difficult and it's gonna take a few years. But once we get there, I think the whole issue about scaling is gonna flip over because we don't have to attribute it so strictly anymore. We don't have to draw linear lines but if the farmer adopts this, this impact is gonna be like that because that's also a very tricky thing that we're doing. Okay, on that optimistic note, there's two, a close, it's five o'clock East Africa time. So, Leonard, thank you so much for joining us this afternoon and contributing to this workshop we have this morning, sorry, this afternoon and tomorrow morning. And I'm sure this will only be the beginning of more interaction with you and others. So, thanks very much, everyone. To those of you online, thank you very much as well. And we'll reconvene tomorrow morning, Edo. Nine. Nine. Nine, really nine. We'll reconvene tomorrow morning at 9.45 to wrap up by about 12 o'clock. So, tomorrow we'll link up with Mark Shoot and then we'll have an hour to present some preliminary ideas about how do we begin to embrace some of this thinking within Il and have a more general discussion about that. So, thanks very much, everyone.