HUMANITARIAN ENTREPRENEURIAL INNOVATION SPACE

Establishing a

2

Licensing Information

“Establishing a Humanitarian Entrepreneurial Innovation Space” by Katie Whipkey and Andrej Verity, is licensed under

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported.

3 January 2016

Establishing aHUMANITARIAN

ENTREPRENEURIAL INNOVATION SPACE

Katie Whipkey (katiewhipkey@gmail.com)MSPPM ‘16 Carnegie Mellon University Heinz College

Andrej Verity (verity@un.org | @andrejverity)Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)

United Nations

Design

Ignacio G. Rebollo (igrebollo.arq@gmail.com) M.A. ‘15 CICE - Professional School of New Technologies

B.S. ‘12 IE University - School of Architecture

by

January 2016

Thank you to the following contributors:

• Lilian Barajas, UN-OCHA.

• Andrew Billo, UN-OCHA.

• Willow Brugh, Aspiration, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, MIT Media Lab.

• Ian Gray, Consultant.

• Joshua Harvey, UNICEF Innovation Labs Kosovo.

• Heather Leson, PeaceGeeks, Qatar Computing Research Institute, Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team.

• Roxanne Moore, DHN.

• Josiah Mugambi, iHub.

• Nuno Nunes, IOM.

• Shadrock Roberts, Ushahidi.

January 2016

ESTABLISHING A HUMANITARIAN ENTREPRENEURIAL INNOVATION SPACE

KEY MESSAGES 02INTRODUCTION 03

PART I : THE BASICS OF INNOVATION, ENTREPRENEURSHIP, AND INNOVATION SPACES

DEFINING INNOVATION 04 HUMANITARIAN ENTREPRENEURSHIP 04 UNDERSTANDING INNOVATION SPACES 06

PART II : MODELS OF INNOVATION SPACES

RATIONALE 07 CONSIDERATIONS FOR SELECTING A MODEL 08 EXAMPLES OF INNOVATION SPACES 10 CASE STUDIES 12 LESSONS LEARNT 13

PART III : ESTABLISHING A HUMANITARIAN ENTREPRENEURIAL INCUBATOR (HEI)

OUTPUTS AND VALUE PROPOSITION 17 THE BENEFITS FOR HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE 18 BENEFITS TO ORGANISATIONS AND ENTREPRENEURS 19 THE RISKS AND MITIGATING MEASURES 20 HOW TO BE A GOOD AGENCY FOR ENTREPRENEURS 22SELECTING THE RIGHT MATCH 23 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 25

EVALUATION, SUSTAINABILITY, AND REPLICATION 26

conclusion

part IV: ANNEX

EXAMPLES OF EXISTING INCUBATORS 28EXAMPLES OF HUMANITARIAN INNOVATION 30 CHECKLIST FOR ESTABLISHING AN HEI 31 ENTREPRENEUR QUALIFICATIONS 32 EXAMPLE CONCEPT NOTE 32FUNDING OPTIONS FOR ENTREPRENEURS 34REFERENCES 36

CONTENTS

02 January 2016

HUMANITARIAN ENTREPRENEURIAL INNOVATION SPACE

KEY MESSAGES

• The humanitarian system as it stands is currently facing more pressure and potentially debilitat-ing challenges with the increase of natural disasters and escalating conflicts. The growing gap between number of affected people and sufficient resources is one of the greatest challenges to the humanitarian system.1 Costs are rising, amount of people affected is growing, crises are lasting longer, and funding is decreasing.2 3 4 5 6

• Humanitarian entrepreneurship is a vehicle for humanitarian innovation that uses an experi-mental approach to crisis management. Humanitarian entrepreneurship brings the ‘consumers’ (affected people) to the forefront by developing innovations ‘with’ and ‘by’ users rather than delivering ‘to’ and ‘for’ them.7

• Innovation spaces are growing in popularity worldwide, including within international organisa-tions, and they have many models including labs, hubs, hackerspaces, science/technology parks, and accelerators.7 8 9 10 Although organisations should determine the model that fits best within their organisation, this paper highlights an incubator programme because of its focus on local, new startups in a shared space.

• The Humanitarian Entrepreneurial Incubator (HEI) would be a partnership between humanitarian organisations and humanitarian entrepreneurs. Organisations host entrepreneurs within their office and provide resources and insight to them as they develop and implement an innovative product or service related to humanitarian response. This departs from a traditional incubator as a stand-alone entity and instead enables deeper collaboration between humanitarian entrepre-neurs and organisation staff.

• There are many benefits both to the organisation and the entrepreneur as well as many risks to consider. Organisations should carefully determine the approach to take, how it would align with-in the mandate and mission, needed resources, and mitigating measures for risks.

• An innovation space will not solve a long and complex history of humanitarian crises. It is one potential option in the humanitarian innovation toolbox to work in tandem with other response mechanisms.

Establishing a

03 January 2016

INTRODUCTION“"What business entrepreneurs are to the economy, social entrepreneurs are to social change. They are the driven, creative individuals who question the status quo, exploit new opportunities, refuse to give up, and remake the world for the better."“David Bornstein, Author

This paper aims to explore the idea of humanitarian organisations creating an innovation space. It will discuss the role of social innovation within the context of humanitarian response as well as how organ-isations can build a positive ecosystem for entrepreneurs. It should serve as a guidance document for humanitarian organisations to set up their own version of an entrepreneurial innovation space to en-able innovative collaborations.

This paper provides an overview of the concept and is in no means comprehensive and one-size-fits-all. Each organisation must decide how to adapt this concept to its own organisation and continue to do further research and analysis on each part of the implementation. The proposed model of the Humanitarian Entrepreneurial Incubator (HEI) is a partnership between humanitarian organisations and humanitarian entrepreneurs where organisations host entrepreneurs within their office and provide resources and insight to them as they develop an innovative product or service related to humanitarian response. The HEI is just one model and approach, but there are alternatives that are outlined in this paper.

This paper will focus on the HEI because it is hypothesized and designed to address two issues facing humanitarian response: the growing needs of the affected people and the ability of the humanitari-an community to meet those needs, as well as the need for more direct collaboration between local innovators and humanitarian practitioners.11 It serves two imperatives: to create organisational change toward a culture of innovative practice and to enable communities to lead their own changes for opti-mal impact.12 The paper should be read with the understanding that an innovation space can be one tool in the humanitarian toolbox to use alongside traditional methods and is not a standalone solution to addressing complex humanitarian issues.

The primary audience for the paper is humanitarian response organisations across the globe, primarily in locations that face constant crisis, who are looking for new and innovative ways to combat difficult crises. It may also be useful to development agencies, policy makers, or other international organisa-tions interested in implementing incubators and/or social entrepreneurship into their business model. It is intended to foster a more robust spirit of collaboration and spur innovation amongst humanitarian organisations, communities, and the private sector. For the purpose of this paper, the term ‘entrepre-neur’ will be used throughout with the understanding that it represents one or more individuals, as determined by the host organisation.

04 January 2016

The Basics of Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Innovation Spaces

DEFINING INNOVATIONInnovation is defined as “a means of adaptation and improvement through finding and scaling solutions to problems, in the form of products, processes or wider business models” by UN-OCHA. It can be ap-plied to any area, including humanitarian response, with varying degrees of impact either immediately or incrementally over time. Innovations can be novel creations or adaptations of existing products or services to a new context.3

Innovation can be described as a mindset that allows people to see beyond the present and into what could be.13 As people become increasingly aware of the gap between the needs and what is provided by traditional sources, the drive to innovate becomes more prominent and humanitarian entrepreneurs emerge.14 This gap is growing rapidly with the emergence of new technologies and greater scientific knowledge.15

HUMANITARIAN ENTREPRENEURSHIPHumanitarian entrepreneurship is a vehicle for humanitarian innovation. The concept is founded on the joint principles of social innovation and social entrepreneurship, with innovation being conceptual and entrepreneurship being an actionable item. Social innovation is defined in many ways, but largely refers to the broad concept of generating new ideas that work to meet social objectives.7 It aims to resolve existing social, cultural, economic, or environmental challenges by changing systems or inventing prod-

PART I:

05 January 2016

ucts that permanently alter some of the structures that gave rise to the issues.16 Social entrepreneur-ship also has varying definitions, but the core philosophy is that it is driven by a combination of a social and a financial return.17 18 19 It combines multiple disciplines and actors across the non-profit, private, public, and international organisation sectors.7 16 Therefore, the best way to define a social entrepreneur may be by their characteristics:20

1. Social mission: Having a mission to create social value20 21 and long-term, lasting impact for the public good rather than a profit-driven mission.

2. Entrepreneurial attitude: Recognising and tirelessly pursuing new opportunities to serve the so-cial mission by thinking through the lens of being uninhibited by financial constraints.20

3. Innovative: Having a strong culture of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning to combat critical social needs.20 21

4. Financial independence: Having a financial strategy in place and taking calculated risks to reduce potential (or ongoing systemic) harm, while aiming to maintain a sustainable business model.

5. Accountability: Having strong relations with the people and communities they serve. This close relationship leads to heightened accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created.18 20

Humanitarian entrepreneurs would embody these same characteristics with a goal to create, develop, adopt, and integrate innovative, possibly profit-generating concepts and practices that create long-last-ing humanitarian impact by making innovation a priority in relief and response tools.16 22 Their innova-tions are generally designed with a specific community or crisis in mind, but could be adapted to be used in other humanitarian crises worldwide.

Humanitarian entrepreneurship uses an experimental approach to crisis management. It understands there are boundaries and limits to existing knowledge and therefore assumes the role of taking an ev-idence-based approach to experimentation.7 Experimentation takes the form of hypothesizing about new methods of tackling humanitarian challenges and obtaining effectiveness data before taking a product or service to full scale.7 In order to innovate, humanitarian entrepreneurs take calculated risks and accept the risk of initial potential failures in order to learn important lessons for improvement.7

Humanitarian entrepreneurship brings the consumers to the forefront by developing innovations ‘with’ and ‘by’ users rather than delivering ‘to’ and ‘for’ them, as it often requires substantial development of the product or service in the community it serves.7 Humanitarian entrepreneurs can innovate pro-grammes, products, processes, and partnerships, all of which harness new ideas and technology to meet the needs of populations affected by crises and have a strong focus on equity, efficiency, and ef-fectiveness.23

06 January 2016

UNDERSTANDING INNOVATION SPACESInnovation spaces are places that bring together people to co-work on ventures within a universi-ty, for-profit or non-profit centre, hackerspace, company, or other organisation.24 They are typically physical spaces but can occasionally take the form of digital communities. Openness, collaboration, and experimentation are central to their working philosophy.12 23 Innovation space environments are efficient and effective due to the ambient cross-pollination of ideas fostered by space sharing. They assist innovators and entrepreneurs by fostering an encouraging environment and helping them to understand and reinvent rules and best practices.

Innovation spaces can be known by many names including incubators, hubs, labs, co-working spaces, science/technology parks, accelerators, or hackerspaces and all can function with varying differences.7 Sometimes these terms are used interchangeably, and there is contestation around definitions, but there are some key differences. For the purpose of this paper, the following definitions will be used:

• Incubators: Spaces designed for local and new start-up entrepreneurs.25

• Hubs: Communal centres designed to be self-organising, non-hierarchical, and enabling of innova-tors through donor support.26

• Labs: Spaces where experimentation is tried “rapidly and iteratively”, where people learn from each other, and where knowledge is contributed to a larger ecosystem.27

• Co-working Spaces: Shared office spaces that encourages creativity by interaction.12

• Science/Technology Parks: Complexes designed to support more mature entrepreneurial ven-tures in a shared workspace.24

• Accelerators: Shorter programmes that quickly move startups from one stage to the next, often through funding in exchange for equity, and generally global in nature.25

• Hackerspaces: Less formal, “hobbyist-tinkering labs” that provide resources for technology-driven projects.12

An incubator has been chosen as the model for this paper because of its focus on local community members and start-up entrepreneurs. There are other key characteristics of incubators that make this model well-suited for the humanitarian community such as their funding and support services strategy. Incubators do not directly fund entrepreneurs,25 rather they provide services including shared office space, meeting rooms, shared support services, networking opportunities, trainings, events, business support, and mentoring.23 24 28 Incubators also provide the support framework necessary to get entre-preneurs’ innovations into the mainstream 7 and move them toward becoming a self-sustaining busi-ness.25 Housing an incubator within an organisation could inject new ideas and energy into traditional practices and should not place great additional financial strain on organisations.

07 January 2016

Models of Innovation Spaces

Combining humanitarianism with entrepreneurship is a challenging concept for many.14 Humanitarian services are generally viewed as “global public goods” because they benefit not only the consumer, but all governments and humanitarian actors.3 As such, humanitarian goods are largely believed to be the responsibility of governments and international partners and many believe that they can only be delivered by these closed and tightly regulated suppliers. By bringing in humanitarian innovators and entrepreneurs into the space of humanitarian organisations through an innovation space, organisations could bring together traditional and nontraditional actors and minimise this intuitive juxtaposition.

RATIONALEINCREASED DEMANDS ON THE SYSTEMThe humanitarian system as it stands currently is facing more pressure and potentially debilitating chal-lenges with the increase of natural disasters and escalating conflicts.36 United Nations Secretary-Gen-eral Ban Ki-moon has declared the growing gap between the number of people in need and sufficient resources as one of the greatest challenges to the humanitarian system.1 In the last ten years, the cost of international humanitarian aid has more than tripled and the amount of people affected by human-itarian crises has nearly doubled.12 Additionally, emergencies are lasting longer: 17 years is the average period of displacement; and six countries over the past eight years have needed assistance every year.3 Funding is diminishing, but “the average duration of a humanitarian funding appeal has increased to seven years.”45 The increase in natural disasters in the past century has been enormous, with big disas-ters taking larger amounts of aid resources.6 Additionally, social media is increasingly bringing attention to and scrutinizing the actions of governments and aid agencies, so there is greater accountability and greater means for citizens to communicate with these entities.7

HUMANITARIAN INNOVATION AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES Innovation in humanitarian response is becoming more widely discussed amongst prominent hu-manitarian organisations worldwide. UN agencies, NGOs, and other humanitarian organisations have adopted formal innovation processes, labs, grants, staff, and other initiatives supporting innovation in

PART II:

08 January 2016

humanitarian response through “grants and finance, research and development, and collaborations and networks.”3 Many organisations are adopting the approach of utilising new technologies, private sector innovations, or collaboration with other organisations to improve the humanitarian system.3 Using technology has become more prominently promoted in the field to tackle increasing challenges because these developments enable organisations to more quickly understand and address issues effectively. New technologies also increase connectivity, build capabilities to interact with the frontline population, address surge capacity needs, and more.

HUMANITARIAN INNOVATION AND NEW TECHNOLOGIESInnovation incubators and hubs are increasing in popularity worldwide 29 and humanitarian entrepre-neurship is becoming increasingly recognized as a valuable and effective means of solving pressing problems. Organisations such as UNICEF, UNHCR, USAID, UN OCHA, and more have created pro-grammes promoting the concept and development labs have been started all over the world.5 8 9 10

Humanitarian organisations should be proactive in recognising this trend and stepping in to encourage and collaborate in order to execute services more quickly. There are many entrepreneurs, particularly in local communities, who have innovative ideas and are not currently in the humanitarian response space whose energy should be harnessed.29 30 By using positive deviance, the practice of recognising that locals have advantageous community knowledge, organisations can assist in capturing and accel-erating the already existing community innovations as well as promoting new ones. Humanitarian or-ganisations have been slow to make changes and to open up the system, so creating an entrepreneurial innovation strategy could be an opportunity for addressing the increasing challenges.3

CONSIDERATIONS FOR SELECTING A MODELFostering a collaborative and inclusive environment between humanitarian organisations and other sectors is the primary objective of an innovation space. Organisations including UNICEF, MIT, NYU, and standalone spaces such as Geeks Without Bounds and iHub have all established innovation spaces with varying differences. Organisations are encouraged to discover the model that works best for their mission, resources, and organisational structure. The following are factors to consider when selecting and building a model:

• Mandate: The organisation should carefully evaluate its mandate to determine how the model and approach will link to the affected population. For example, the organisation could be seeking an innovation space that creates products that solve set problems by using the best and brightest minds. Alternatively, the mandate may move the organisation toward serving the most marginalised popula-tions and allowing them to generate solutions to problems they identify.

• Location: Entrepreneurs can have a physical or virtual presence with the organisation. Physically, they could have a space in residence or externally. The external space could be of their own finding or provided by the organisation. Organisations can choose to have a space for a single entrepreneur or establish a hub for multiple entrepreneurs. Alternatively, virtual collaboration could bring together organisations and entrepreneurs in more of an information sharing relationship rather than a day-to-day collaboration.

09 January 2016

• Duration: Contract or collaboration periods between the organisation and entrepreneur can vary be-tween short term, accelerator-type programmes, longer-term partnerships, and casual collaborations on an as-needed basis. Selecting a duration can be based on the type of entrepreneur selected and the resources the organisation has available.

• Size: The size is dependent on the model, whether it is entrepreneur in residence or a separate innova-tion space. Determining size means to decide how many entrepreneurs the organisation can support in regard to physical space limitations, budgetary considerations, and staff support capabilities.

• Support/Budget: Organisations can provide a wide range of support to entrepreneurs including financial, research, material or digital resources, mentorship, networking, etc. Putting together a robust financial plan and conducting an evaluation of staff capacity to determine what resources can be allo-cated is important for organisations to do before selecting a model.

• Type of Entrepreneur: An organisation can elect to collaborate with one or many entrepreneurs from many different backgrounds and demographics. Entrepreneurs could be locals who can create a stronger tie to the local community or internationals who can bring an external perspective. They can be young and creative or older and more experienced. Organisations can pre-determine the type of entrepreneur they want, such as a technology innovator for example, before starting the application process or keep options open for any humanitarian entrepreneur. Also, organisations can choose to sponsor newer startups or more mature businesses.

FOR HOW LONG?

Where?

HOW MUCH?

Who?

How?How many?

10 January 2016

HEI Model (Theoretical)

UNICEF Innova-tions Lab Kosovo

Geeks With-out Bounds

CMU CREATE Lab

iHub

Location In the field. Pristina/Prishtina, Kosovo. Digital Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States

Nairobi, Kenya

Innovation Space Model

Incubator; entrepreneurs in residence of humanitarian organisation.

Lab; established space for resident entrepreneurs and staff and shared space for affiliates.

Accelerator; entrepreneurs connected digitally

Community Lab; researchers and entrepreneurs in residence

Part co-working space and part incubator; established space for entrepreneurs

Duration of in-novators’ stay / partnership

As determined by organisation; rec-ommended two years.

3 weeks - 1 month of idea develop-ment and 3 months of implementa-tion.

Six months Goal is to sustain partnership as long as possible

6 months - 1 year, renewable, depending on the level of mem-bership

Support Services Office space, networking, mentoring, assistance finding funding, shared resources.

Designated mentor, coworking space, equipment, up to €2000 of funding, trainings, access to legal, marketing, product and engineering, technology, strategy, and operational support, and networking support.

Mentorship in business devel-opment, funding acquisition, user experience and engage-ment, and ethical usage of technologies

Workshops, trainings, technology installations, technology lending library, technical support, grant writing, residencies, and estab-lishing connections with external partners to provide further devel-opment and training

Co-working space, networking, shared resources, events, brain-storming sessions, newsletter, jobs board, web presence for entre-preneur, office hours mentorship, server space, library

Focus of Entre-preneur/Humani-tarian

Innovative humanitarian relief prod-ucts and processes.

Youth, technology, and communica-tion.

Technology Robotics, technology, community engagement, community empow-erment

Technology

Defining the Problem or Op-portunity

- Growing gap between services need-ed by affected people and services organisations can provide.- Need for more collaboration be-tween local innovators and practi-tioners.

- Initially, a push for deriving innova-tive solutions to problems. - Reinvention to work with the most marginalised youth in society to ad-dress local issues.

- Conceived as a “help desk for the world” then became a hackathon facilitator. - Restructured when hack-athon projects were not being completed to become an ac-celerator for some hackathon teams.

- Identified problem with research being conducted for the purpose of academic publication only.- Established to create sustainable community partnerships with researchers and technological advancements.- Goal to make robotics more accessible to everybody.

- Originally founded as a part of the Ushahidi strategy.- Created to fill gaps in the tech ecosystem.- Grown to include iHub Research and the m:lab, iHub Consulting and the UX Lab, and Gearbox with BRCK and Sanergy.

11 January 2016

HEI Model (Theoretical)

UNICEF Innova-tions Lab Kosovo

Geeks With-out Bounds

CMU CREATE Lab

iHub

Location In the field. Pristina/Prishtina, Kosovo. Digital Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States

Nairobi, Kenya

Innovation Space Model

Incubator; entrepreneurs in residence of humanitarian organisation.

Lab; established space for resident entrepreneurs and staff and shared space for affiliates.

Accelerator; entrepreneurs connected digitally

Community Lab; researchers and entrepreneurs in residence

Part co-working space and part incubator; established space for entrepreneurs

Duration of in-novators’ stay / partnership

As determined by organisation; rec-ommended two years.

3 weeks - 1 month of idea develop-ment and 3 months of implementa-tion.

Six months Goal is to sustain partnership as long as possible

6 months - 1 year, renewable, depending on the level of mem-bership

Support Services Office space, networking, mentoring, assistance finding funding, shared resources.

Designated mentor, coworking space, equipment, up to €2000 of funding, trainings, access to legal, marketing, product and engineering, technology, strategy, and operational support, and networking support.

Mentorship in business devel-opment, funding acquisition, user experience and engage-ment, and ethical usage of technologies

Workshops, trainings, technology installations, technology lending library, technical support, grant writing, residencies, and estab-lishing connections with external partners to provide further devel-opment and training

Co-working space, networking, shared resources, events, brain-storming sessions, newsletter, jobs board, web presence for entre-preneur, office hours mentorship, server space, library

Focus of Entre-preneur/Humani-tarian

Innovative humanitarian relief prod-ucts and processes.

Youth, technology, and communica-tion.

Technology Robotics, technology, community engagement, community empow-erment

Technology

Defining the Problem or Op-portunity

- Growing gap between services need-ed by affected people and services organisations can provide.- Need for more collaboration be-tween local innovators and practi-tioners.

- Initially, a push for deriving innova-tive solutions to problems. - Reinvention to work with the most marginalised youth in society to ad-dress local issues.

- Conceived as a “help desk for the world” then became a hackathon facilitator. - Restructured when hack-athon projects were not being completed to become an ac-celerator for some hackathon teams.

- Identified problem with research being conducted for the purpose of academic publication only.- Established to create sustainable community partnerships with researchers and technological advancements.- Goal to make robotics more accessible to everybody.

- Originally founded as a part of the Ushahidi strategy.- Created to fill gaps in the tech ecosystem.- Grown to include iHub Research and the m:lab, iHub Consulting and the UX Lab, and Gearbox with BRCK and Sanergy.

12 January 2016

CASE STUDIES

UNICEF INNOVATIONS LAB KOSOVO

UNICEF Innovations Lab Kosovo began in 2010 as a mechanism to utilise innovation to address issues the organisation identified. Its focus was primarily on data and technology. Many models were considered at the beginning including to physically and programmatically locate the lab within a university or to be hosted by the Ministry of Culture, Youth, and Sport. These models were ultimately not chosen due to operational and political challenges and the constraint they would have on the reach of the Lab into marginalised and insurgent (hackerspaces, advocacy, etc.) communities.

In 2013, the organisation made a fundamental shift in the lab’s approach to more closely align with its mandate and become more focused on youth and social programmes. The lab decided to enable the most marginalised youth in the country to be the innovators for their problems at the grassroots level rather than incubating more advanced ideas from often more privileged members of society. The lab uses a human-centered approach to eliminate the barriers to problem solving in order to build capacity within the target population. The strategy is for the Lab to serve as an intermediary between youth, in-surgents, and authorities to translate the needs, wants, ideas, energy, and capacity of the community’s youth and insurgents into the language and capacity of the authorities.

The Lab is looking to grow by scaling and institutionalising the programme for helping youth implement innovations. This would be done through building support structures, growing the network of facilita-tors, and moving the Lab into a technical assistance and quality assurance role. Additionally, the Lab is considering growth as an incubator and providing engineering and development, design, manufactur-ing, marketing, financial, human resources, management, and legal support to innovation for UNICEF and for external partners and innovators that have shared objectives.

To date, more than 130 youth-led projects have achieved success. These projects have taken the form of NGOs or social ventures and have achieved success based on the target and impact measurements they set for themselves.31

13 January 2016

IHUB

iHub, Nairobi’s innovation hub for the technology community, was founded as a part of the Ushahidi strategy and has grown into its own entity with 16,663 members as of 2015. It categorises itself as a co-working space, investor and volunteer vector, and incubator.32 The government has planned for ICT to contribute to 25% of Kenya’s GDP by providing support to entrepreneurs to start their own business-es. iHub helps to achieve this goal, so it has a positive relationship with the Kenya ICT Board. A three-month 2012 study on iHub found positive results on its contributions to its members and the commu-nity. 100% of members reported appreciation of the space and the resources it provides and that they have made new friends and connections. The highest satisfaction reported was for iHub’s environment as being conducive, energetic, and collaborative. Other relevant findings include:30

• 50% of green and red members, which are members who are registered to use the physical space, go to iHub daily and 40% go at least once per week.

• 95% report that their skills have improved or have gained new skills as a result of iHub.

• 38.5% began start-ups after joining and 61.5% had a start-up before joining.

iHub’s success is in its ability to serve as a platform for innovators. It hosts over 120 events per year including build nights, pitching competitions for start-ups, legal workshops, and more. It has also pub-lished research, created infographics, brought in notable speakers, formed partnerships with universi-ties and corporations, grown initiatives, and spurred start-ups.33

14 January 2016

LESSONS LEARNTEstablished innovation spaces have learned many important lessons regarding critical success factors and barriers to success. These factors have been highlighted based on conversations with staff, consultants, and affiliates of various innovation spaces worldwide.

MISSION AND MANDATE ALIGNMENT UNICEF Innovations Labs are well-established and respected in the field. They have years of experience that have led them to determine the most important success factors for a lab. First and foremost, ensuring the lab’s mission matches the organisation’s mandate is critical. The lab must ask itself for whom are we solving problems? The answer should determine with whom to solve problems. By working with the people who are closest to the problems, the end product will be most relevant to what is needed on the ground. People are experts in their own experience and the innovation space should facilitate ownership of the process.31

INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERSOvercoming institutional limitations and barriers has been an important barrier to success that has been identified by many people. Institutions can be powerful and rigid, making innovation and social change difficult.34 The key challenges are maneuvering the structural barriers in the system to achieve behavioural change.12 Organisations could end up being detrimental to the entrepreneur if the entrepreneur is responsi-ble to too many policies and procedures. The innovation space will be most successful if it keeps its bureau-cracy out of the innovation space and resists being parochial. Also, if the strategic plans of the organisation are too firmly rooted to allow space for innovative changes, there could be a problem making the most of the innovation space. Innovators and entrepreneurs may have ideas that are mission-aligned but not strate-gy-aligned, which could be a barrier to success if the organisation does not remain adaptable.34

LOGISTICSThere are many logistical considerations that are both barriers to success and success factors. Branding becomes an issue when working with large organisations. It can be detrimental to local collaboration because it perpetuates existing dynamics. It should be designed to be affiliated, but separate.31 Additionally, licensing expectations should be clearly established. Despite being affiliated with an organisation, entrepre-neurs should be given rights to license their innovations.35 Also, diversity should be prioritised. GWOB has found that accepting teams with a balance of skills generates the greatest success.35

COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATIONCommunication between staff, locals, entrepreneurs, and experts is critical. It must be done clearly and with everyone’s best interests at heart. Providing feedback to entrepreneurs and innovators regardless if they are selected to be a part of the innovation space should be done. Often those not selected will become the strongest candidates to be chosen in the next application cycle.35 The opportunity for local entrepre-neurs and innovators to work with experts can be an ideal match for success and the organisation should serve as a facilitator for this collaboration.31 Many experts are already advising entrepreneurs through contracted services or volunteer time. For example, researchers at Stanford give ten hours per month to mentor entrepreneurs in humanitarian technology and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) worked directly with Deloitte experts for two months facilitate innovation.36 Also, the CREATE Lab builds

15 January 2016

partnerships with experts to provide professional development and trainings to community leaders to foster community empowerment. CREATE Lab believes in collaboration without an end date because they found that in the past, when funding dried up and collaborations ended, communities were often left stranded and sustainable change was not achieved.37

INTERNAL INTEGRATION The innovation space does not need to be a formal space with solely external people; intrapreneurs and the operations team can be introduced into the space as well.34 38 Projects are often isolated from the space where innovation occurs rather than within operations, which creates a barrier for adoption and scaling up.38 IOM has found that by embedding innovation and entrepreneurs within the operations team, adop-tion of items/approaches developed is faster than those coming from the standalone hubs.38 Innovations Lab Kosovo has also identified resistance in innovation adoption by the central office as an issue due to the separate nature of the lab.31 Intrapreneurs could be an option for the greatest cross-fertilisation of ideas and approaches. Intrapreneurs are organisational staff who work most closely with the entrepreneurs and who tend to be innovators or maverick-types themselves. This combination of internal and external staff working closely together could be the best combination of factors for success.34

PEOPLEiHub has identified people as being the most significant success factor and barrier to success. Putting the people who are involved in the space at the center of the strategy and engaging with them throughout the process will result in the best end product for the community.39 UNICEF Innovations Lab Kosovo has noted that having experts design solutions instead of community members who are embedded in the context and doing research firsthand has been the primary source of project failures.40 Additionally, having a critical mass of the right people involved is important when starting an innovation space. Leadership then becomes important to move toward creating a shared vision and mission. Leadership continues to be important throughout and finding the right leaders who are willing to put in the time and effort without necessarily immediate (if any) monetary compensation is a critical success factor. Having the critical mass of people and leadership can be a matter of timing, so recognising that timing is an important factor can help overcome potential barriers or provide the necessary boost to get the process moving.39

16 January 2016

Establishing a Humanitarian Entrepreneurial Incubator (HEI)

The Humanitarian Entrepreneurial Incubator (HEI) would be a partnership between humanitarian organisa-tions and humanitarian entrepreneurs. Any type of humanitarian organisation could participate including international agencies, traditional and newer donors, INGOs, NGOs, or others. The proposed concept is for humanitarian organisations to host entrepreneurs, either individuals or small teams, within their office (headquarters, regional, or country) and provide resources and insight to them as they develop and imple-ment an innovative product or service related to humanitarian response.

Although organisations should determine the model that fits best within their organisation, an incubator programme is suggested for this concept because of its focus on local, new startups in a shared space. The HEI is a new model and approach and has not been tested in practice. It is hypothesis-driven based on the evidence from analysing existing models.

By having the entrepreneur in residence, it helps avoid the possibility of innovation happening in a silo, which would discourage the imperative of changing the organisational mindset and the close collabora-tion with the local community.12 It promotes change from the inside out, and the outside in. The intended impact of the incubator is to foster collaboration and increase the effectiveness of relief operations while minimising added costs to organisations by formally opening the door to the private, local entrepreneurs to contribute to traditional relief efforts. This departs from a traditional incubator as a stand-alone entity and instead enables deeper collaboration between humanitarian entrepreneurs and organisation staff.

PART III:

17 January 2016

Entrepreneurs Organisations

Component 1: FACILITATION OF RESOURCES

Component 3: HIGH IMPACT HUMANITARIAN PARTNERSHIPS, OVERSIGHT, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Component 2: EFFECTIVE INFORMATION EXCHANGE ACROSS SECTORS

Space: Dedicated space to work and access to meeting spaces.

Education: Access to trainings, meetings, and events to gain

insight into how relief is being delivered to the community.

Funding: Assistance in obtaining funding via information about

different options (grants, loans, CSR, etc.), help completing

paperwork, and potential endorsement of application.

Network: Connections to professionals that will help the inno-

vation be well-received by the aid community, gain a sounding

board for ideas, and open up potential possibilities for invest-

ments or future clients.

Connections: Access to expertise, insight, and creativity and

the opportunity to make connections with other community

members through entrepreneur.28

Extra Hands: Extra help wherever needed in the event of a

sudden emergency or need.

Pilot: Once the product or service has been developed in the

incubator, the organisation can choose to pilot the innovation.

Adopt: Opportunity to utilise the innovation as a central part of

operations if desired, with the privilege of being the initial adopt-

ers of a revolutionary tool in humanitarian response.

Perspective: External perspective to current programmes,

dilemmas, or new situational developments.

Experimental: Opportunity to learn from the experimental

learning and innovation approach of entrepreneurs to develop a

more robust and successful solution in the end.12

Innovations: Chance to see a new innovation being developed

and learn from the entrepreneur about other innovations they

have discovered from research.

Control: Ability to maintain control over relief services through

monitoring the entrepreneur and terminating the contract as a

result of inefficiencies or damage to the population if necessary.

Accountability: Method to increase accountability to the desires

and needs of the affected people by demonstrating organisa-

tional trust in the community to innovate their own solutions.

Participatory: Community-centred response approach will

become increasingly participatory, transforming information

into new response mechanisms.

Access: Access to as much information as appropriate and ability

to participate in staff discussions.

Mentoring: Scheduled times for meeting and brainstorming

with staff members and receiving mentoring.

News: First-hand accounts of what is happening in the field,

news and updates, and new innovations and by other organisa-

tions in real-time.

Oversight: Structured and informed oversight between the

organisation, grant funder/investor, and impacted population by

a well-established provider of humanitarian services.

Contract: Commitment to resources and services for a defined

period of time through piloting and initial scaling.

Monitoring: Assistance in monitoring progress of innovation

process and accountability in adhering to a timeline and all

necessary protocols in service delivery.

18 January 2016

THE BENEFITS FOR HUMANITARIAN RESPONSEREINVIGORATE THE HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE SYSTEMInnovators can think differently than traditional practitioners because they have the space, and oftentimes the mindset, to think radically and to come up with new ideas.7 An incubator within an organisation will help to question and restructure the barriers between the practitioners, protocols of the organisation, and the local entrepreneurial community. There are innovative ideas that result from every emergency that often do not progress through life cycle assessment. Tapping into the different sectors to buy into and support these innovative ideas can progress humanitarian response mechanisms.11 It will help make the shift from the traditional coordination system to a functional ecosystem that prioritises collaboration, especially with local innovators, by combining the internal and external perspective.3

FOSTER COLLABORATION AND SHARE OWNERSHIPHumanitarian entrepreneurship places the responsibility of addressing needs in the hands of everyone through the collective approach, rather than only a select group of experts.7 Collaborating with local en-trepreneurs shares ownership with the community for creating their own solutions for improvements and assists in reducing dependencies on humanitarian support.12 By bringing the private sector approach into humanitarian services delivery, it opens up the market to utilise these new innovations worldwide. Entre-preneurs can collaborate with each other as well to share lessons and ideas. The soon-to-be-launched Innovation Exchange from UN-OCHA will be a platform for entrepreneurs and organisations to share ideas and projects worldwide, minimise duplication of efforts, and receive advice and input through virtual, and perhaps physical, networks that organisations can connect with as well.

CREATE BENEFICIAL COMPETITIONEntrepreneurship creates a source of “controlled competition”, which can encourage an increased amount of contributions to the field.3 I Additionally, it enables the market to come into play as many products deliv-ered in the humanitarian sphere can have additional commercial uses.3 Humanitarians typically operate in closed markets, but entrepreneurs can be encouraged to develop products or services that organisations or affected people can purchase that are an improvement on what is already available. It could also be of great benefit to local communities as the products and services will likely be produced and maintained in the area, especially in crisis prone locations, which will grow the economic capacity of the region.

INSTITUTIONALISE CHANGE Failure is discouraged in the humanitarian response sector because raises concerns about ethics and ac-countability12, but it is an integral part of entrepreneurship and innovation.7 11 Incubators create a safe space for risk taking. By finding a balance of accountability and risk taking, both organisations and entrepreneurs can integrate ethically learning from failure into operating procedures. For example, UNICEF Innovations

I. Exemplified by the Humanitarian Innovation Fund’s WASH Challenge, the UN Foundation Global Accelerator, and

The Gates Foundation and Government of Canada Grand Challenges.

19 January 2016

BENEFITS TO ORGANISATIONS AND ENTREPRENEURS

has ‘Failure Fridays’ where staff members share one failure from the week in order to encourage cyclical learning.12 Instituting these cultural changes enables organisations and entrepreneurs to be more innova-tive and flexible, and therefore more able to provide effective services for the target population.

Benefits to Humanitarian Organisations

Benefits to Entrepreneurs

1. Having the ability to collaborate with inno-vative individuals

2. Bringing in an external perspective to cur-rent practices and work41

3. Having initial access to new and innovative products that could make response more effective and efficient

4. Being challenged to learn and adapt

5. Networking with other local entrepreneurs

6. Gaining financial savings from the reassign-ment of recovery services or products being allocated to the private sector

7. Having the ability to more quickly under-stand the local systems and needs

8. Having input in the creation of new innova-tions in the field

9. Gaining increased trust and respect by local communities because a local entrepreneur is directly involved in the shared space of the agency

10. Creating more appeal to the private sector and strengthening fundraising activities

11. Expanding reach of humanitarian relief ser-vices beyond the crisis-impacted region due to market forces of the private sector

1. Increasing likelihood of success

2. Having the ability to collaborate with hu-manitarian organisation staff

3. Getting relevant and useful information about the humanitarian situation in the field in real-time

4. Participating in the cycle of continuous learning and adaptation

5. Having a very appealing and marketable product because of its relevance and timeliness

6. Networking with UN, government, NGO, and other related staff

7. Having access to office space at no cost

8. Participating in meetings and trainings to inform product production

9. Having access to scheduled office hours for questions and advice

10. Connecting with people who could become potential funders

11. Learning more about aid delivery in con-junction with local language, culture, and traditions, making their product or service more relevant7

12. Fostering growth in local and regional econ-omies through new job creation to produce and promote the innovation

20 January 2016

THE RISKS AND MITIGATING MEASURESHumanitarian organisations must be cognizant of the challenges involved in establishing an HEI. They must approach risk wisely and take necessary precautions to mitigate.28 Very little academic research has been conducted on the success of incubators on social entrepreneurs and social innovation has not been tracked long enough to precisely measure economic impact.41 42 The research done on for-profit business incubators in the United States has not produced favourable results, showing that businesses in incubators do not have a high success rate once leaving the incubator and many never leave at all.43 Since this is a rel-atively new and untested field, taking cautious steps and doing meticulous research will be of great benefit to the organisation in implementation.

Risks Mitigating Measures

Uncertainty in innovation pro-cess, community conditions, and human behaviour.

• Monitor trial and error process and cyclical learning incorporation.

• Remember: the uncertain environment cannot be controlled, part of the innovation process is failure, and not all projects will be successful.

Policy changes may need to be instituted by governments regarding the establishment of new businesses or develop-ment funding.5

• Research local and federal laws in order to be informed of the proce-dures.44

• Urge staff not to attempt to act as a legal advisor to entrepreneurs other than to encourage them to seek information about legal regulations.

Logistical constraints faced by the organisation including finding space, added costs, legal issues, etc.

• Incorporate the entrepreneur into the plan for allocating workspace and tell the entrepreneur upfront that there may be times when shar-ing space will be necessary.

• Determine visa needs of the entrepreneur before making a final selection.

• Factor in potential additional costs and resources in the initial incuba-tor start-up plan.

Humanitarian organisation staff resisting relinquishing control over aspects of relief efforts.

• Emphasize that the relinquishment of some ownership will be re-placed by the equally important role of facilitating innovation.7

• Put safeguards in place to ensure that the relinquishment of control happens through a smooth and thoughtful transitional mechanism.

• Promote the push for innovation from the core of the organisation rather than as an external injection with structured knowledge trans-fer and incentives.12 31

21 January 2016

Conflict of humanitarian prin-ciples by involving private sec-tor profit-making motives.18

• Make clear before the application process what criteria will be used when selecting an entrepreneur.

• Select entrepreneurs who align with the mission of the organisation.3

• Train the entrepreneur in the expected principles of ethics and insti-tute a code of conduct.

• Capitalise on the closed nature of the humanitarian market by dis-couraging detrimental profit-making ventures.

Draining resources of the or-ganisation in a time where all staff are needed for delivering relief services.

• Schedule time where the entrepreneur can meet with staff members, which is subject to change due to emergencies.

• Allow staff to work within their knowledge area without needing to invest in new areas of expertise.3

• Ask entrepreneurs to take a hands-on role in the response delivered by organisations if necessary.

Aversion by donors of having an entrepreneur within a humanitarian organisation because costs of failure are high and approaches are untested. 7 18

• Speak with donors before the entrepreneur arrives.

• Make it clear to all parties that the innovation will not be used in an emergency setting until it has been appropriately piloted and tested to ensure its robustness and usefulness.

• Inform donors of how the entrepreneur is being funded and that organisation dollars are only sponsoring the workspace.

Exacerbation of problems facing the affected people.3

• Ensure the entrepreneur has a financial plan and solid ethics in place before being accepted into the incubator programme.7

• Require entrepreneurs to test innovations on a small scale in a rela-tively controlled environment initially.41

• Create a plan before pilot is launched to manage any of the damage that could result from a failure.

• Prioritise selecting innovators that come from the local community.

Duplication of already existing innovations.

• Require entrepreneur to conduct market research at the beginning of the incubation period to identify all similar innovations worldwide.

• Hold entrepreneur accountable for any intellectual property viola-tions or duplication of efforts.

• Provide a network of mentors for the entrepreneur to utilise for sup-port and insight.

22 January 2016

HOW TO BE A GOOD AGENCY FOR ENTREPRENEURSThe first and most important step in being a good agency for entrepreneurs is for the organisation to do all of the necessary initial research to fully understand their role as a host. Entrepreneurs are the individuals or small teams making the innovations, but the organisation is the backbone as it provides the mandates, contracts, administration, and resources that can make or break the collaboration.45 Once that has been established, there are a number of critical components of a good host organisation:

• Clarification of expectations from the onset: Have an initial dialogue that makes each partner’s ex-pectations of the collaboration explicit, covering all aspects of the process including resources, ethics, transparency, flexibility, ending a project, etc.45 The organisation must develop a code of conduct for the entrepreneurial endeavour and require entrepreneurs to uphold the same ethical standards as organisation staff.3

• Communication with staff: The organisation is responsible for making sure that all staff members have the opportunity to provide feedback for how the incubator could work.41 Their buy-in will be the most critical success factor for both the organisation and the entrepreneur, as they are the people on the frontline in the field and in collaboration with the entrepreneur.45 46

• Desire to make innovation a priority: If the innovation agenda is not important to the staff, the entre-preneur will not feel welcome in the environment and will be less likely to succeed.41 Just by having an entrepreneur in residence will not guarantee the incorporation of innovation into organisational pro-grammes. The organisation should create structured opportunities for knowledge and skills transfer alongside incentives for staff to incorporate innovation.31 II

• Creation of an inclusive culture: It is important that organisations remember that success is not solely dependent on their own competencies, so relinquishment of some autonomy and power of practitioners is vital.7 46 Also, the culture must accommodate different personalities and work styles to combat issues of understanding each other, a lack of predictability, and a difference in core competencies.7

• Willingness to learn new skillsets: Aid workers may not have training in project management and innovation, which relate greatly to working successfully with entrepreneurs. Organisations should facilitate practitioners to take part in courses related to social innovation and entrepreneurship.7 III As such, the entrepreneur should be a self-starter since few staff members will have relevant knowledge to make the best use of their skillsets and provide guidance.46

II. Adobe Kickbox is one example of an incentive.

III. There are a number of free courses online including one by Nesta called “Learn how to innovate”. There are also

MOOCs available, some of which result in certifications at the end, including one from the Wharton School on Coursera

called “Social Entrepreneurship”.

23 January 2016

• Creation of systems for information sharing: Organisations must develop a more thoughtful system for sharing and understanding the “roles, incentives, capacities, principles, financing, skills, knowledge, mindsets, research and development, and resources” of all involved parties.3

• Prioritisation of diversity: Understanding that diversity can help inform of the varying needs of com-munity members will have a substantial impact on humanitarian response.41 Keeping an appropriate representation of gender and people from differing backgrounds is necessary. Research has found that women actually benefit more from an incubator environment than men, so selecting women may result in a greater likelihood of success.43

• Clarification of the rules and the reasons behind them: Innovation may often result in a breaking of the rules. It is important that organisations and staff understand the rules of the humanitarian re-sponse system so they can best know which rules are vital for the health and wellbeing of communities versus which exist due to tradition and are ready to be modified.47

• Education on technical jargon: Humanitarians constantly use industry-specific jargon that could be a barrier to entrepreneurs. Using too much of this language without giving entrepreneurs the opportuni-ty to learn it could hinder the creation of relevant innovations.47 Entrepreneurs should also be cautious of using jargon and organisations should request information about specific terminology from the onset.

• Communication with staff: Mentorship is a critical component of the incubation process, as it incentivises and encourages the entrepreneur by making the learning journey collective. In addition to mentorship provided by organisation staff, organisations should facilitate connections with external mentors, in person or virtually, for business development and innovation development. Also, organ-isations could facilitate connections with local hubs or incubators to ensure the pulse of creativity is provided for the entrepreneur.

SELECTING THE RIGHT MATCHThe organisation must invest time and energy in selecting the right match to host within their office space. The following are factors to consider when choosing an entrepreneur:

• Does the entrepreneur’s mission fit within the mission of the organisation?

• Does the organisation feel good about having an affiliation with the entrepreneur?

• Can the organisation provide the appropriate types of resources needed by the entrepreneur to succeed?

• Can the organisation learn from the entrepreneur and adopt learnings into their best practices?

• Does the organisation see value in what the entrepreneur is proposing?

• Do the value systems and personality types of organisation and entrepreneur mesh?

• Will failure(s) happen gracefully without detrimental damage to the affected people?

24 January 2016

Entrepreneurs should be selected based on three key criteria:

The first and most important step in being a good agency for entrepreneurs is for the organisation to do all of the necessary initial research to fully understand their role as a host. Entrepreneurs are the individuals or small teams making the innovations, but the organisation is the backbone as it provides the mandates, contracts, administration, and resources that can make or break the collaboration.45 There are a number of critical components of a good host organisation:

1. Organisational alignment with the entrepreneur’s mission and values and the ability for the organisa-tion to support the entrepreneur for the necessary amount of time and needed resources.

2. Effectiveness of the idea to deliver humanitarian relief in a more efficient manner than alternatives available.

3. Entrepreneur’s plan for financing the idea through the scaling process, which should be in alignment with organisation’s purpose and systemic betterment.

Organisations should aim to only accept entrepreneurs who have already defined the problem they wish to address and have some ideas for research and development.3 Also, selecting someone who is a self-starter is essential until the point when the HEI is more well-understood by staff and established within the organi-sation.46

The organisation should also ensure that the entrepreneur will have the funding to continue for the agreed upon contract time, whether they are grant-funded, self-funded, or have an investor. Organisations can choose to accept an entrepreneur that is not already funded and assist him or her in obtaining funds as well as long as the entrepreneur can ensure personal financial sustainability for long enough until other funding becomes available.

The HEI should be established wherever it adds the most value, whether that is at headquarters or in regional or country offices.46 If the innovation relates to broad humanitarian response delivery, the organ-isation’s headquarters could serve as the incubator. Applications should be lodged through the office that will host the innovator. Any applications lodged through headquarters should be channelled to the proper regional or country office locations. The application process will be facilitated by offices wishing to partici-pate with regular correspondence back to headquarters about developments. Headquarters must sign off on the selected entrepreneur for approval upon selection.

It is important to have a clear understanding of the needs of the community as well as the entrepreneurial climate. Successful organisations will find a match between the services they already provide with the needs of the local entrepreneurs.48 Entrepreneurs already beginning the start-up phase of their innovations would be ideal candidates to encourage to apply. Organisations should select a candidate that truly serves the most pressing needs of the community rather than a candidate that may have a terrific idea but lacks a sufficient market for their innovation.48

25 January 2016

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONSFor the organisation to be successful implementing an HEI, it must be willing to use some resources for its success. The major costs the organisation would incur include the following:

• Office Space: The organisation would need to have dedicated space for the entrepreneur. This may detract from the space that current staff utilise and could require that the office reorganise, restructure flexible work hours, or relocate to a bigger facility.

• Staff Time: The entrepreneur would be entitled to regular meetings with staff to discuss ideas, gather information, and ask questions. Staff must also train the entrepreneur on business practices, codes of conduct and ethics, and other office operations. Organisations can determine how much formal staff time they wish to allocate to entrepreneurs for meetings and services beyond basic operational obligations.

• Application Processing: Staff would need to create application materials and a website (where appropriate) dedicated to applying, to spend time answering questions via phone or email during the application process, to read applications and select recipients, and to process all necessary paper-work to get the entrepreneur ready to begin.

• Resources: Entrepreneurs will be using resources available in the office including office supplies, desk supplies, printers, and other equipment. There may be other costs involved such as visa fees or other unexpected needs. The organisation should consider maintaining a flexible budget to account for unexpected costs and for adopting innovations if they are deemed useful.

The entrepreneur would be responsible for all personal costs including transportation, accommodation, etc. as well as all costs associated with innovation aside from aforementioned organisation-sponsored resources. Upon completion of contracted time with the organisation, the entrepreneur will incur all future business costs. Organisations can elect to absorb some of the ideas of the entrepreneur if there is appropri-ate capacity.

Organisations choosing to establish an HEI could view their financial obligations as an investment in humanitarian innovation and potential future cost savings. This investment could return dividends if the entrepreneur develops an innovation that could be useful to the organisation. For example, the organisa-tion could utilise the product or service developed, which dramatically increases efficiency or effectiveness of relief delivery. More efficient or effective relief delivery results in cost savings. Alternatively, the innovation could shift a service that was previously provided by organisations into the private sector, therefore remov-ing the cost of that service from an organisation’s budget.

IV. UNICEF developed the Principles for Innovation and Technology in Development as best-practice ethics guidelines that

include: Design with the User; Understand the Existing Ecosystem; Design for Scale; Build for Sustainability; Be Data Driven;

Use Open Standards, Open Data, Open Source, Open Innovation; Reuse and Improve; Do No Harm; Be Collaborative.

26 January 2016

EVALUATION, SUSTAINABILITY, AND REPLICATION"There can be no innovation without evidence; unless we can measure the impact of pilots and have metrics standards for measurement for what suc-cess or failure mean, then attempts to innovate are likely to be dead-ends, and potentially even harmful."“Dr. Alexander Betts, Director, Humanitarian Innovation Project. Humanitarian Innovation Conference 2014.

EVALUATIONRoutine evaluation of a new humanitarian entrepreneurship strategy is essential for all organisations. An evaluation should estimate the alternatives of what would have happened without the incubator to the entrepreneur, organisation, and affected people. The community should be involved in defining the impact measures and providing input for a comprehensive and authentic assessment.11 Both the organisation and entrepreneur should complete summative assessments of the implementation at the conclusion of the contract to complete the feedback loop. The organisation does not assume official responsibility for the evaluation of the entrepreneur’s product itself, as this should be done by the entrepreneur and external mentors. Continuing the original plan is not a measure of success for entrepreneurial actions.

Humanitarian organisations may learn over time that some of the practices that are currently the responsi-bility of the agency to perform can be done more efficiently and effectively through humanitarian entre-preneurs. Agencies may begin a process of task-shifting some current practices to the private sector as promising approaches develop.7

SUSTAINABILITYInnovation is often very focused on the initial prototype or process development and faces difficulties with sustainability. Social innovators use the term ‘valley of death’ to describe the time following the pilot when the project is no longer brand new, but before the project can survive on its own and begin the process of scaling.7 Therefore, it is crucial that organisations can continue to support entrepreneurs through this ‘valley of death’ period until they are mature enough to be self-sustainable through the market. Organisations and entrepreneurs should use this time to determine if the innovation is truly useful and worthy of support if it continues to struggle to be sustainable.

V. The organisation should also decide if the entrepreneur will receive an email account in order to access the address

book, intranet, etc. or if they will be expected to use their own. If given an organisational email account, training should be

provided on how to present themselves externally using the account. [Médecins Sans Frontières, “GIS Support for the MSF

Ebola Response in Guinea 2014,” 2014, Logistics Department Case Study, 1st Edition]

VI. The Red Cross utilises hotlines, logbooks, SMS systems, and suggestion boxes supplemented by television, radio, and

print communication to collect information from the community. Utilising multiple channels has allowed them to reach a

wider diversity of community members including the disabled and elderly.

VII. The pilot of the project should clearly evaluate the potential end-user benefit and describe a concrete strategy for realising that

objective. It should relate to and learn from other innovation implementation programmes that have similar goals and audiences.

27 January 2016

REPLICATIONThe organisation could create guidelines for a standard structure based on lessons learned from the evaluations for other offices to use when establishing their own HEI.28 Also, if the innovation is deemed successful, organisations should assist the entrepreneur to replicate the project in other locations where it may be applicable.7 The organisation may want to consider coordinating with offices in other countries to continue the partnership with the entrepreneur in a new location. This could be done in a variety of ways including the innovator actually moving or the organisation assisting in identifying other local community members to replicate or franchise the business. Additionally, information and templates could be produced and published as open access for others to use, or through a platform such as RED Innovation, to continue to support innovators worldwide.11

CONCLUSIONThe next challenge after setting up an HEI or other innovation space would be to broaden the scope and scale of the concept. It has the potential to grow if successful by becoming larger within an organisation or by an organisation setting up an incubator connected to, but no longer inside its walls, that supports a va-riety of local entrepreneurs. The scope could broaden by supporting not only humanitarian entrepreneurs, but development entrepreneurs as well. Protracted crises have become the norm and natural disasters can destroy development instantaneously, so the humanitarian and development communities have become inextricably linked and must be considered simultaneously.44 9

It is important that organisations remember that an incubator will not solve a long and complex history of humanitarian crises. It is one potential option in the humanitarian innovation toolbox to work in tandem with other response mechanisms. Also, it is not immediate as impact is often slow to manifest.12 The com-bination of the organisation and the entrepreneur could work toward creating the best possible solutions for the community. Setting realistic goals for the program and investing the proper amount of time and resources into it would be vital to its success.48

In sum, humanitarian crises are recurring, protracted, and increasing. Simply put: humanitarian organi-sations cannot manage it alone. A fundamental shift is needed in how the most vulnerable people living in fragile contexts are supported.50 As humanitarians worldwide engage in dialogue about changes to the humanitarian system, there is an opportunity to transform the way in which organisations respond, by adopting innovative practices that foster collaboration and ultimately contribute to building capacity. The growth of innovation spaces could signal a positive change that communities, entrepreneurs, and organisa-tions are teaming up to make humanitarian response even better.

28 January 2016

Annex

EXISTING INNOVATION SPACESThere are numerous examples of innovation spaces in existence worldwide. While they have similarities in their approach to problem solving and innovation, they have vast differences in terms of methodology, services, and products.

A number of websites exist that compile incubators, hubs, co-working spaces, and more regionally and around the world. Reference the Global Coworking Map, Hubs in Africa, Coworking Wiki, Global List of Virtual Business Incubators, infoDev, and the Global Innovation Exchange for more examples.

CENTER AFFILIATION FOUNDED LOCATIONPURPOSE

/AIM

BANDWITHBARN N/A 1998 Cape Town, South Africa

Hub for technology inno-vation

BIHAR INNOVATION LAB

Center for Knowl-edge Societies’ and Ananya Partnership

2012 New Delhi, IndiaUser-centered program to address health systems design

CENTER FOR SO-CIAL INNOVATION N/A 2003 Toronto, Canada

and NY City, USASocial enterprise for any social innovation

CREATE LAB Carnegie Mellon University N/A Pittsburgh, USA

Social innovation and deployment of robotic tech-nologies through sustainable community empowerment

ENCHANTED FARM GawadKalinga 2011 Manila, Philippines

Farm for sustainable devel-opment centers and social entrepreneurs from the countryside

GEEKS WITHOUT BOUNDS N/A 2010 Digital

Six-month accelerator programme for digital hu-manitarian projects

iHUB Skunkworks and Ushahidi 2010 Nairobi, Kenya

Part co-working space, part vector for investors and VCs, and part incubator for tech entrepreneurs

PART IV:

29 January 2016

CENTER AFFILIATION FOUNDED LOCATIONPURPOSE

/AIM

IMPACT HUB N/A 2005 60+ Locations Innovation lab, business incubator, and community center for social entrepreneurs

INNOVATION LABS UNICEF 2010 10+ Locations

Varies, ranging from health, product development, re-porting, technology, youth, and more

InSTEDDiLAB N/A 2008 USA, Argentina, Cambodia

Social and technological lab for health, safety and sustainable development problems

JOZIHUB Praekelt Foundation 2013 Johannesburg, South Africa

Co-creation space for tech-nology and social innovation

KENNISLAND N/A 1998 Amsterdam, Netherlands

Identify innovators, maxi-mise knowledge develop-ments, share knowledge, and translate innovations into practical interventions

MaRS DISCOVERY DISTRICT N/A 2005 Toronto, Canada

Convene partners to assist entrepreneurs focusing on work, learning, health, and energy

OGRE INNOVATION N/A 2013 New York City,

USA

Design-led platform to assist organisations to innovate systematically

PULSE LAB JAKARTA

UN and the Ministry of National Develop-ment and Planning

2012 Jakarta, Indonesia

Cross-sectoral collaboration lab for applying data and re-al-time analysis techniques to social development

SOCIAL INNOVATION LAB

Lahore University of Management Science 2013 Lahore, Pakistan Lab for social innovation

THE AUSTRALIAN CENTER FOR SO-

CIAL INNOVATION

N/A 2009 Adelaide, Australia Increase innovation internal-ly in organisations that focus on child abuse and neglect, Indigenous disadvantage, and ageing and caring

U.S. GLOBAL DE-VELOPMENT LAB USAID 2014 USA and global

partnerships

Co-creation lab to develop solutions for extreme pover-ty elimination

30 January 2016

EXAM

PLES

OF

HU

MAN

ITAR

IAN

INN

OVA

TIO

N

Programme

Process

Partnership

Product

Kinetic Six and Motorola

Concrete Canvas Shelters

Humanihut Shelter System

Liter of Light

Life-Bed

3D Printing

STENGG Refrigerated Distribution Truck Bodies

Delivering as One

SkyLIFE

Eniware

Universal Anaesthesia Machine

Navistar

Smart Communications

Bullitt Group and Caterpillar

Wakati

LilyPad

Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves

SatCase

SES Techcom

INFO

RMATIO

N &

TECHN

OLO

GY

DISA

STER RESILIENCE

& ED

UCATIO

NESSEN

TIAL A

ID

& H

EALTH

CARE

SAFETY &

SHELTER

FOO

D &

WATER

LOG

ISTICS &

AID

DELIV

ERYCO

MM

UN

ICATION

S

Vietnamese GovernmentWorld Bank, and GFDRR

UNICEF and Psychic Factory

DAR-1

Safelet

Nippon Steel and Shimizu Corporation

Soko Mushrooms

CAPTURX

M-Pesa, Vodaphone and Safaricom

Digital HumanitarianNetwork (DHN)

31 January 2016

CHECKLIST FOR ESTABLISHING AN HEIThe following is an example of the necessary steps in establishing an HEI. Each organisation should adapt as necessary to the model chosen to suit the organisation.

BACKGROUND RESEARCH o Determine if opening an innovation space would add value to the organisation. o Select appropriate model and approach for the incubator space. o Evaluate resources of organisation to incubate entrepreneurs (location, size, staff time and expertise, bud-

get, resources, etc.). o Obtain necessary approvals from headquarters and country or regional offices.

o Create a budget.

APPLICATION PROCESS o Establish application committee.

o Create an application, process and guidelines, timeline, and accompanying materials.

o Determine mandatory and preferential selection criteria.

o Communicate opportunity widely through a marketing campaign and targeted networking strategy.

o Read applications and discuss with committee, conducting interviews if necessary.

SELECTION o Ensure candidate meets minimum mandatory and preferential selection criteria (individual or small team,

community member, humanitarian response knowledge, and has defined the problem).

o Match between the available resources of the organisation with the needed resources of the entrepreneur.

o Select based on key criteria (mission and resource alignment, effectiveness and efficiency, and financing and scaling plan).

OFFICE ENVIRONMENT o Design an onboarding process for the entrepreneur including providing trainings.

o Create office policies for enabling the success of the entrepreneur (ethics, information accessibility, resourc-es, mentoring, networking, funding assistance, etc.).

o Incorporate best practices for being a good agency for entrepreneurs.

o Provide oversight and accountability between organisation, entrepreneur, funder/investor, and impacted population.

EVALUATION AND SUSTAINABILITY o Establish system for ongoing evaluation of entrepreneurial progress, mission alignment, and organisation’s

learning cycle and begin as soon as incubator is launched.

o Create feedback loop between entrepreneur and end-users on innovation to improve the operation.

o Provide summative assessment of the implementation at the conclusion of the pilot.

o Be mindful that the innovation is scalable and ensure it can be self-sustaining before ending the contract period.

o Assist in replicating the innovation in other applicable locations or making open source resources available.

32 January 2016

ENTREPRENEUR QUALIFICATIONSOrganisations must determine the qualifications of the entrepreneur prior to beginning the application pro-cess. The qualifications will be highly dependent on the approach and model chosen by the organisation. The following is an example of recommended qualifications for an entrepreneur using the HEI model:

The entrepreneur must have an idea for a product or service that will result in more effective or efficient humanitarian response and relief. The entrepreneur can be an individual or a part of a small team. At least one person in the team would ideally be a member of the community for which they want to deliver humanitarian services or have had spent a considerable amount of time in the region. Ideally, the candi-date would be embedded within the community, with experience related to both the proposed innovation and the mission of the organisation in the context of the affected community. Preference would be given to entrepreneurs who have direct humanitarian response knowledge. Entrepreneurs could be seeking to establish any type of organisation including corporations, sole proprietors, non-profits, etc.

EXAMPLE CONCEPT NOTE

When drafting a concept note, it is crucial to remember that the local context is at the core of innovation. The model of incubation is country and context dependent, so modifications to all aspects of the concept note will be necessary to reflect these specialisations. Organisations may adopt varying differences in models and these differences should be reflected in objectives, scope, tasks, and costs. The concept note should be no more than two pages in length.

INTRODUCTIONHumanitarian response in [country] as it stands currently is facing more pressure and potentially debili-tating challenges with the increase of [natural disasters or escalating conflicts] leading to a growing gap in funding available. Innovation in humanitarian response is becoming more widely practiced amongst prominent humanitarian organisations worldwide including UN agencies, NGOs, and other humanitarian organisations. Partnerships have been formed with the private sector, donors, universities, and others to further move forward the innovation agenda. Innovation incubators and hubs are increasing in popularity worldwide and humanitarian entrepreneurship is increasingly recognised as a valuable and effective means of solving pressing problems. Humanitarian entrepreneurship brings the consumers to the forefront by developing innovations ‘with’ and ‘by’ users rather than delivering ‘to’ and ‘for’ them. Addressing the needs of all people affected by an emergency requires a comprehensive process that places importance of coordi-nated efforts by all parties that can assist.

The establishment of a Humanitarian Entrepreneurial Incubator (HEI) is designed to address two issues facing humanitarian response: the growing needs of the affected people and the ability of [organisation] to meet those needs, as well as the need for more direct collaboration between local innovators and [organisation].

33 January 2016

OBJECTIVESThe proposed model of the HEI is a partnership between [organisation] and humanitarian entrepreneurs where [organisation] will host entrepreneurs within its office and provide resources and insight to them as they develop an innovative product or service related to humanitarian response. [Organisation] will work with [regional office] to help establish the necessary policies, resources, and tools to foster collaboration be-tween the local community innovators and entrepreneurs around humanitarian response and innovation.The objectives are as follows:

1. To create organisational change toward a culture of innovative practice.

2. To enable communities to lead their own changes for optimal impact.

3. To foster collaboration between [organisation] and local community innovators and entrepreneurs.

4. To increase the effectiveness of relief operations while minimising added costs to [organisation].

SCOPE OF THE PROJECT

• Develop a policy framework and code of ethics for humanitarian entrepreneurs within [organisation] to enhance humanitarian response efforts.

• Set up a formal framework for incubation including all resources that [organisation] will allocate.

• Develop an operational mechanism (including necessary operational infrastructure) to foster collabo-ration between [organisation] staff and entrepreneur.

• Engage local community innovators and entrepreneurs to increase public awareness of the HEI.

• Catalyze the incorporation of humanitarian innovations into response activities both externally and inter-nally within traditional [organisation] operations. Such work would include methods to raise awareness, build relationships, create local partners, foster innovative problem solving, and/or academic research.

• Establish a feedback loop between [organisation], entrepreneur, and local community to gauge effec-tiveness of incubator and innovations and to make continuous improvements.

• Prioritise diversity; aim to accept entrepreneurs that represent a balance of the local community population.

OUTLINE OF NEAR-TERM TASKS

• Finalise the concept paper and obtain the concurrence of main stakeholders such as [stakeholders].

• Select appropriate model and approach for the incubator space and evaluate resources needed incu-bate entrepreneurs (location, size, staff time and expertise, resources, etc.).

34 January 2016

• Set up a governance framework for the management and sustainment of HEI in [country]. This frame-work will include a set of policies and ethical guidelines to govern the work process and communica-tion between [organisation] headquarters and [country office].

• Establish entrepreneur qualifications and application process.

• Identify local potential partners, innovators, and innovations in [country] to pilot the concept and application procedure.

ESTIMATED COSTSUpon acceptance by critical partners of the concept note, a detailed workplan and budget will be devel-oped. It is expected that initial technical, financial, and human resources support to the establishment of the [country] HEI will be provided by [organisation] headquarters and [country office].

FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENTREPRENEURSEntrepreneurs should be encouraged to look broadly for funding. Funding options include grants, loans, crowdfunding, corporate philanthropy, investors, or donors.

UN-OCHA has launched the Innovation Exchange, designed to be a platform for sharing innovative ideas knowledge, and resources related to innovation across OCHA’s network. One resource that will be included is an updated list of funding opportunities available to support humanitarian innovation. In addition, the Exchange will assist with funding proposals and applications. USAID has launched a similar network called the Global Innovation Exchange to provide these resources.

The following is a list of potential grant funding opportunities for entrepreneurs:

FUND NAME

SPONSORING ORGANISATION

AMOUNT QUALIFICATIONSAPPLICATION AND SELEC-

TION

Humanitari-an Innovation

Fund (HIF) Grant

ELRHA and ALNAP; host-ed by Save the Children UK

Varies across the different grants available for each area from £20,000 - £150,000

Focuses on addressing a specific humanitarian challenge or op-portunity through recognition, invention, development, imple-mentation, or diffusion stages of the innovation process.

Varies across the different grants available for each challenge area; all awarded through the HIF Grants Panel

35 January 2016

FUND NAME

SPONSORING ORGANISATION

AMOUNT QUALIFICATIONSAPPLICATION AND SELEC-

TION

Humanitari-an Research and Innova-tion Grant

Programme

OCHA Policy Devel-opment and Studies Branch

Up to $4,000 USD

Encourage and support original research and writing on issues and trends relating to humanitarian needs.

Given yearly with a specified deadline

Enterprise Development Programme Oxfam

Varies; funds distributed in phases

Provides a mix of loans and grants to small-medium enterprises in developing countries, focuses particularly on agriculture and women entrepreneurs.

Oxfam staff identify opportu-nities on ongoing basis, investment committee anal-yses applicants, and board makes final approval

Global Inno-vation Fund

UK Department for Inter-national Development

Between £30,000 to £10m

Open to ideas from any sector and any country provided that the innovation targets those living on or under $5, or prefer-ably, under $2 a day.

Offers grants, loans (includ-ing convertible debt), and equity investments; applica-tions on an ongoing basis

Amplify: Collaborative

Challenge Fund

UK Department for Inter-national Development

Up to £100,000; £100,001 to £500,000; £500,001 to £1,000,000; and more than £1,000,000

Uses online collaboration to source ideas, research and in-sights before testing promising concepts with end users.

10 challenges over 5 years with 3-5 challenges funded each time

Development Innovation

VentureUSAID

Four stages with funding ranging from $25,000 to $15,000,000 USD

Supports the most promising solutions that demonstrate cost-efficiency and the poten-tial to scale up for develop-ment issues worldwide.

Applicants can apply at any stage, and those who have received funding at a prior stage must compete to advance to the next stage

Partnering to Accelerate

Entrepre-neurship

(PACE) Initia-tive

USAID$50,000 to $5,000,000 USD

For small businesses that promote broad economic prosperity or address develop-ment challenges in the areas of food security, health, and energy access.

Open call for innovation con-cept papers under the GDA Annual Program Statement (APS)

Grand Chal-lenges USAID

Varies across the different grants available for each chal-lenge area

Focus on defining problems, identifying constraints, and providing evidence based analysis using self-perpetuat-ing systems rather than one-off inventions or interventions.

Varies across the different grants available for each challenge area

36 January 2016

REFERENCES

1. UN Press Release, “Secretary-General Appoints High-Level Panel on Humanitarian Financing,” 2015

2. OCHA and DARA, “Saving Lives Today and Tomorrow: Managing the Risk of Humanitarian Crises,” 2014

3. Betts, Alexander and Bloom, Louise, “Humanitarian Innovation: The State of the Art,” 2014, Occa-sional Policy Paper, OCHA

4. UN News Centre, “Humanitarian needs at ‘all-time high,’ top UN relief official tells Economic and Social Council,” 2015

5. Holshek, Christopher, “Why is the United States Letting Its Best Foreign Aid Tool Fall Apart?,” 2015, Foreign Policy

6. EM-DAT, Natural Disaster Trends, 2011

7. UNDP, “Social Innovation for Public Service Excellence,” 2014

8. UNICEF, “Innovation”

9. UNHCR, “Innovation”

10. USAID, “Partnering to Accelerate Entrepreneurship (PACE) Initiative”

11. The Red Cross and Red Crescent, “Principled Approach to Innovation,” 2015

12. Bloom, Louise and Faulkner, Romy, “Innovation spaces Transforming humanitarian practice in the United Nations,” 2015, Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford

13. Kuczmarski, Thomas D., “What is innovation? The art of welcome risk,” 1996, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 13 Iss 5 pp. 7 - 11

14. Sossouvi, Kokoévi, “Innovation in emergencies: the launch of ‘mobile money’ in Haiti,” 2012, Hu-manitarian Practice Network

15. Mulgan, Geoff, “Social Innovation: What it is, Why it Matters and How it Can be Accelerated,” 2007, Working Paper, Oxford Said Business School Skoll Center for Social Entrepreneurship

16. Center for Social Innovation, “Social Innovation”

17. Martin, Roger L. and Osberg, Sally, “Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition,” 2007, Stan-ford Social Innovation Review

18. Wolfson, Elijah, “Can the Private Sector Replace NGOs in the Developing World,” 2015, Newsweek

19. Wright, Steve, “Return Value,” 2011, SOCAP

20. Dees, J. G., “The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship,” 1998

21. CASE, “What is Social Entrepreneurship?”

22. CleanTech ALPS, “VestergaardFrandsen – humanitarian entrepreneurship (VD),” 2013

23. UNICEF, “Innovation Labs: A Do-It-Yourself Guide,” 2012

24. Bergek, Anna and Norman, Charlotte, “Incubator Best Practice: A Framework,” 2008, Technovation

25. Dempwolf, C. Scott et. al., “Innovation Accelerators: Defining Characteristics Among Startup Assis-tance Organizations,” 2014, Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy

37 January 2016

26. Friederici, Nicholas, “What is a tech innovation hub anyway?,” 2014, Oxford Internet Institute

27. UN Global Pulse, “Pulse Labs”

28. Wei, Brian, “Enhancing Entrepreneurship through Livelihood Risk Reduction: Community-Based Micro-Projects for Decentralized, Localized Economic Development,” 2014, OCHA Humanitarian Research & Innovation Grant Programme

29. Christof, Florian, “IBM SmartCamp: “Silicon Valley is Everywhere’,” 2013

30. Moraa, Hilda, “The Impact of ICT Hubs on African Entrepreneurs: A Case Study of iHub (Nairobi),” 2012

31. Harvey, Josh, personal communication, 14 July 2015

32. iHub, “iHub Statistics,” 2015

33. Hash, “3.5 years later, what has the iHub done?,” White African, 2013

34. Gray, Ian, personal communication, 24 July 2015

35. Brugh, Willow, personal communication, 14 July 2015

36. Leson, Heather, personal communication, 7 July 2015

37. Dias, Beatrice, personal communication, 2 September 2015

38. Nunes, Nuno, personal communication, 21 July 2015

39. Mugambi, Josiah, personal communication, 29 July 2015

40. Harvey, Josh, personal communication, 30 July 2015

41. Davies, A., Caulier-Grice, J., Norman, W., “An Introduction to Innovation Studies for Social Innova-tors: A literature review of the methods and enabling conditions for innovation,” 2012, TEPSIE

42. Torjman, Lisa, “Measuring the economic impact of social innovation,” 2008, MaRS

43. Amezcua, Alejandro S., “Boon or Boondoggle? Business Incubation as Entrepreneurship Policy A Report from the National Census of Business Incubators and their Tenants,” Whitman School of Management Syracuse University

44. Krlev, Gorgi, Glänzel, and Mildenberger, Georg, “Capitalising social innovation - a short guide to the research for policy makers,” 2013, TEPSIE

45. ELHRA, “Guide to Effective Partnerships,” 2015

46. Médecins Sans Frontières, “GIS Support for the MSF Ebola Response in Guinea 2014,” 2014, Logistics Department Case Study, 1st Edition

47. Edinburgh Festivals Innovation Lab, “How to create your own innovation lab,” 2011

48. NBIA, “Tips for Developers”

49. Humanitarian Technology: Science, Systems and Global Impact 2015, “Scaling Innovations to Change Lives,” 2015, HumTech

50. Mahmood, Jemilah, “Humanitarian funding is not enough: we must increase people’s resilience,” 2015, The Guardian