Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
1
Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Brian Meagher
Ajay Melwani
Declan McKeogh
Haitham Afifi
John Santiago-Miller
Edited on 17th January 2018
This project report is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of
Master of Business Administration
Innovation
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
2
Table of Contents
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................................... 7
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................................... 10
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Statements and Declarations ............................................................................................................................... 13
Confidentiality Statement ................................................................................................................................ 13
Anonymity Statement ...................................................................................................................................... 13
Declaration ....................................................................................................................................................... 13
Word Count ...................................................................................................................................................... 13
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 14
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................................. 15
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 17
1.1 Problem Statement .................................................................................................................................... 17
1.2 The UNICEF Context ................................................................................................................................... 19
Vision and Mission ....................................................................................................................................... 19
Served ‘Market’............................................................................................................................................ 19
Revenue and Expenditure ............................................................................................................................ 20
1.3 The UNICEF Office of Innovation ................................................................................................................ 21
The Principals for Digital Development ....................................................................................................... 21
Office of Innovation Structure and Ecosystem ............................................................................................ 22
UNICEF Ventures and UNICEF Innovation Fund ........................................................................................... 23
1.4 Research Question and Objectives ............................................................................................................. 25
General Research Question ......................................................................................................................... 25
Research Objectives ..................................................................................................................................... 25
2. Literature Review .............................................................................................................................................. 26
2.1 Approach to Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 26
2.2 General Research Question: The Venturing Approach to Value Creation ................................................. 26
Venture Capital and Corporate Venturing ................................................................................................... 26
Venturing Business Models .......................................................................................................................... 26
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
3
2.3 Research Objective 1: Investment Potential of Individual Initiatives ......................................................... 28
Proposed Approach to Evaluate Individual Initiatives ................................................................................. 29
2.4 Research Objective 2: Evaluation of UNICEF Innovation Fund Portfolio .................................................... 31
Proposed Framework to evaluate the UNICEF Innovation Fund Portfolio of Initiatives ............................. 33
Proposed Framework to manage portfolio balance .................................................................................... 33
2.5 Research Objective 3: Investigation into Potential Secondary Benefits .................................................... 34
3. Research Design and Methodology .................................................................................................................. 36
3.1 Research Design ......................................................................................................................................... 36
3.2 Research Phases and Timeline ................................................................................................................... 37
Phase 1: Defining the Research Question and Objectives ........................................................................... 38
Phase 2: Desk Based Research ..................................................................................................................... 38
Phase 3: Literature Review .......................................................................................................................... 38
Phase 4: Internal UNICEF Innovation Fund Documents ............................................................................... 39
Phase 5: Semi-structured Interviews ........................................................................................................... 39
Phase 6 and 7: Triangulation Analysis and Conclusions ............................................................................... 42
4. Findings and Analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 45
4.1 General Research Question: The Venturing Approach to Value Creation ................................................. 45
UNICEF Office of Innovation Strategy and Three Horizons .......................................................................... 45
UNICEF Ventures in the Context of Uncertainty .......................................................................................... 47
The UNICEF Innovation Fund Mission Model .............................................................................................. 48
The UNICEF Innovation Fund Strategic Staircase ......................................................................................... 50
UNICEF Innovation Fund Corporate Venturing Model................................................................................. 53
UNICEF Innovation Fund Business Model Canvas ........................................................................................ 55
4.2 Research Objective 1: Investment Potential of Individual Initiatives ......................................................... 57
Proposed Framework ................................................................................................................................... 57
Principles for Evaluation .............................................................................................................................. 58
Value Proposition ......................................................................................................................................... 59
Timing of Evaluations ................................................................................................................................... 59
Initiative 1: Care for Children Results .......................................................................................................... 61
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
4
Care for Children Results Summary ............................................................................................................. 67
Initiative 2: MomConnect ............................................................................................................................ 68
4.3 Objective 2: Evaluation of UNICEF Innovation Fund Portfolio ................................................................... 76
Returns and Potential Value ........................................................................................................................ 78
Interview Findings ........................................................................................................................................ 80
Paulson et al., (2007) Portfolio Evaluation Tool........................................................................................... 81
Day (2007) Risk Matrix ................................................................................................................................. 89
4.4 Research Objective 3: Investigation into Potential Secondary Benefits .................................................... 92
Interview Results ......................................................................................................................................... 92
Organisational Learning (Often Through Failure) ........................................................................................ 94
Making the Organisation Ready for Change ................................................................................................ 96
Inspiring Staff and Attracting New Types of Talent ..................................................................................... 98
Creating a Sustainable Network of Long Term Relationships Even After Completion .............................. 100
External Mimicry ........................................................................................................................................ 102
Creating New Business Models .................................................................................................................. 104
Building Capabilities ................................................................................................................................... 107
Driving Organizational Goodwill ................................................................................................................ 109
5. Discussion & Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 111
5.1 Synthesis of Findings ................................................................................................................................ 111
Strategic Level 1: The Venturing Approach to Value Creation ................................................................... 112
Individual Initiative Level 2: Investment Potential of Individual Initiatives ............................................... 112
Portfolio Level 3: Evaluation of UNICEF Innovation Fund Portfolio ........................................................... 113
Secondary Effect Level 4: Investigation into Potential Secondary Benefits ............................................... 113
5.2 Managerial Implications ........................................................................................................................... 114
Key Findings and Implications .................................................................................................................... 114
Innovation Investment Intensity ................................................................................................................ 118
Innovation Opportunity Cost ..................................................................................................................... 118
5.3 Limitations and Avenues for Future Research ......................................................................................... 119
5.4 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 119
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
5
References .......................................................................................................................................................... 120
Appendices ......................................................................................................................................................... 132
Appendix 1: UNICEF Background and Context ............................................................................................... 132
UNICEF's Seven Strategic Outcomes (Medium Term Strategic Plan 2014-2017) ...................................... 132
Innovation as an Implementation Strategy (Medium Term Strategic Plan 2014-2017) ............................ 132
List of UNICEF Programme Countries ........................................................................................................ 134
Appendix 2: UNICEF Office of Innovation Background and Context .............................................................. 135
Innovation Focus ........................................................................................................................................ 135
Innovation Focus, Initiatives and Outcomes Map ..................................................................................... 135
Principals for Digital Development ............................................................................................................ 138
Appendix 3: UNICEF Innovation Fund Background and Context .................................................................... 139
UNICEF Innovation Fund Stage of Innovation Process ............................................................................... 139
Typical Nature of UNICEF Innovation Fund Projects .................................................................................. 141
Portfolio Areas ........................................................................................................................................... 141
Returns to Investors outlined by UNICEF ................................................................................................... 141
Summary of UNICEF Innovation Fund Portfolio Areas, Returns and Value ............................................... 142
Benefits and Reasoning behind UNICEF Innovation Fund ......................................................................... 144
Innovation Fund Investors ......................................................................................................................... 144
Venture Capital Approach: Innovation Fund Eligibility and Scoring Criteria ............................................. 144
Typical Venture Capital Scoring Criteria Compared with UNICEF Innovation Fund Criteria ...................... 146
Appendix 4: Innovation Portfolio: Initiatives Supported by UNICEF Innovation Fund to Date ...................... 147
Appendix 5: List of Internal Documents received from UNICEF ..................................................................... 148
Appendix 6: Benchmarking UIF against Leading VC Innovation Investment Funds in International
Development .................................................................................................................................................. 150
Appendix 7: Additional Literature .................................................................................................................. 153
Research Objective 1: Evaluation of Individual Initiatives ......................................................................... 153
Research Objective 2 Literature Review: Evaluation of Innovation Fund Portfolio ................................... 165
Paulson (2007) Portfolio Evaluation Tool Methodology and Adaptation. ................................................. 166
Paulson et al. (2007) Portfolio Evaluation Tool Application ...................................................................... 167
Appendix 8: Interviews Findings .................................................................................................................... 192
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
6
Interview Observations Relating to Objective 1 ............................................................................................. 192
Interview Observations Relating to Objective 2 ............................................................................................. 193
Interview Observations Relating to Objective 3 ............................................................................................. 195
Significant Insights into Secondary Benefits List ........................................................................................ 195
Additional Secondary Benefits Not Listed.................................................................................................. 197
Appendix 9: Additional Information on Organisational Learning and Lean Start-up ..................................... 198
Lean Start-up and UNICEF Innovation Fund .............................................................................................. 198
Innovation Accounting and UNICEF Innovation Fund ................................................................................ 199
Appendix 10: Participant Information Sheet .................................................................................................. 202
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
7
List of Figures
Figure 1: UNICEF Innovation Fund Stage of Investment…18
Figure 2: UNICEF Vision & Mission…19
Figure 3: Definitions Sector/Arena/Industry/Market/Strategic Outcomes…19
Figure 4: 12 Year Revenue Trended by Source (2004-15)…20
Figure 5: 12 Year Expenditure Trended by Region (2004-15)…20
Figure 6: 2015 Direct Programme Expenditure by Strategic Outcome…21
Figure 7: UNICEF Principles for Digital Development…22
Figure 8: UNICEF Innovation Ecosystem…23
Figure 9: UNICEF Innovation Fund Alignment with the Wider Organisations Vision…24
Figure 10: Typical Succession of Finance Sources over Business Cycle…26
Figure 11: Value of Real Options Orientated Investment Strategies…27
Figure 12: Conceptual model on the relationship between strategic orientation, project portfolio management, and success…31
Figure 13: The Innovation Portfolio Management (IPM) Process - Requires Detailed Coordination and Dynamic Decision Making…32
Figure 14: The Innovation Ambition Matrix…32
Figure 15: Direct and Indirect UN Innovation Imperatives…34
Figure 16: Research Design Summary…36
Figure 17: Research Phases and Timeline…37
Figure 18: Process of Planning and Conducting the Interviews…40
Figure19: Proposed triangulation of single case study…43
Figure 20: Triangulation…44
Figure 21: UNICEF Office of Innovation: 3 Horizons…46
Figure 22: UNICEF Office of Innovation in the Context of Uncertainty…47
Figure 23: The Ashridge Mission Model…48
Figure 24: The UNICEF Innovation Fund Mission Model…49
Figure 25: The Strategic Staircase Framework…50
Figure 26: Iterative Strategic Maturity Framework…51
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
8
Figure 27: UNICEF Innovation Fund Strategic Staircase and Strategic Maturity Level…52
Figure 28: Traditional Development Funding vs. UNICEF Innovation Fund VC Model…53
Figure 29: UNICEF Innovation Fund Corporate Venturing Model…54
Figure 30: UNICEF Innovation Fund Business Model Canvas…56
Figure 31: UNICEF Evaluation MAP…57
Figure 32: Evaluation Timing…60
Figure 33: Care for Children Value Proposition Fit…63
Figure 34: Paulson et al. (2007) framework aggregated results for Care for Children…64
Figure 35: Learning Framework for Care for Children…66
Figure 36: MomConnect – How does it work…68
Figure 37: MomConnect Value Proposition Fit…71
Figure 38: Paulson et al. (2007) framework aggregated results for MomConnect…72
Figure 39: Learning Framework for MomConnect…74
Figure 40: UNICEF Innovation Fund Portfolio Dashboard; three portfolio areas…76
Figure 41: UNICEF Innovation Fund portfolio of investments in applicants from UNICEF country offices and private sector companies…77
Figure 42: Using rubrics in evaluation design and in making evaluative judgments…78
Figure 43: The deployment of 'leading' and 'outcome' indicators across the four scaling stages…80
Figure 44: Section 2 Potential impact on the market…83
Figure 45: Section 5 Scalability…84
Figure 46: Portfolio of initiatives performance profile aggregated across sections 1 to 10…85
Figure 47: Aggregated initiative performance profile (sections 1 - 10)…86
Figure 48: UNICEF Innovation Fund Portfolio health profile…87
Figure 49: Section 11 Portfolio health…88
Figure 50: UNICEF’s Innovation Risk Matrix – Diversity of its profile…90
Figure 51: Interview Results: Secondary Benefits Experienced by Interviewees…93
Figure 52: Organisational Learning Interview Observations…94
Figure 53: Build-Measure-Learn Feedback Loop and UNICEF Innovation Fund…95
Figure 54: Making the Organisation Ready for Change Interview Observations…96
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
9
Figure 55: Exponential Rate of Change in Technology vs. Intuitive Assumption…97
Figure 56: Inspiring Staff and Attracting New Types of Talent Interview Observations…98
Figure 57: Top 50 Companies Millennials Want to Work For and What they Look for in Employers…99
Figure 58: Inspiring Staff and Attracting New Types of Talent Interview Observations…100
Figure 59: Inspiring Staff and Attracting New Types of Talent Interview Observations…100
Figure 60: Closed vs. Open Innovation Models and UNICEF Innovation Fund…101
Figure 61: External Mimicry Interview Observations…102
Figure 62: External Mimicry Time Line from Desk Based Research…103
Figure 63: Creating New Business Models Interview Observations…104
Figure 64: Open Source Business Model Canvas: Red Hat…104
Figure 65: Conceptual Open Source Business Model Canvas for Seeded Start-ups…106
Figure 66: Building Capabilities Interview Observations…107
Figure 67: UNICEF Innovation Fund Plotted on the Open Innovation Methods Matrix…108
Figure 68: Driving Organizational Goodwill Interview Observations…109
Figure 69: Augmented Mission Delivery…109
Figure 70: UNICEF Brand Personality, Existing and New Traits…110
Figure 71: The Revised Technology Adoption Cycle – Crossing the Chasm…115
Figure 72: Strategic Outcome Description and Programme Areas…132
Figure 73: UNICEF Strategic Plan 2014-2017 Overview…133
Figure 74: UNICEF Programme Countries…134
Figure 75: UNICEF Office of Innovation Focus, Initiatives & Outcomes Map…136
Figure 76: Sample Office Innovation Projects…137
Figure 77: Principles for Digital Development…138
Figure 78: UNICEF Office of Innovation Strategic Emphasis…139
Figure 79: UNICEF Innovation Fund and Innovation Process…140
Figure 80: UNICEF Office of Innovation and Innovation Fund Focus, Portfolio Areas & Value Creation…143
Figure 81: Comparison of Portfolios Investing in Innovation for International Development…151
Figure 82: Illustration of the sources researched along with some keywords and terms for objective 1 literature review…155
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
10
Figure 83: Traditional Evaluation Exemplars…157
Figure 84: Developmental Evaluation Diagnostic Checklist…160
Figure 85: Illustration of the authors researched and some keywords and terms for Objective 2 literature review on portfolio evaluation…165
Figure 86: Section 1: Potential impact on accelerating results…168
Figure 87: Section 2: Potential impact on the market…170
Figure 88: Section 3: Company Growth and Secondary Benefits…172
Figure 89: Section 4: Sustainability…174
Figure 90: Section 5: Scalability…176
Figure 91: Section 6: Innovation…178
Figure 92: Section 7: Initiative’s Impact on the Portfolio…180
Figure 93: Section 8: External Start-Up Team Capabilities and Pace of Progress…182
Figure 94: Section 9: UNICEF Innovation Fund Capabilities for this Initiative…184
Figure 95: Section 10: Financial Indicators of Value Creation…186
Figure 96: UIF Portfolio (Current) including UNICEF Innovation Funds first portfolio of investments in private sector companies…188
Figure 97: Cumulative Gross Metrics vs. Actionable Metrics using Cohort Analysis…203
List of Tables
Table 1: Methods for Assessing Social Performance…28
Table 2: Comparison of the Traditional and Integrative Approach against UNICEF Requirements…29
Table3: Comparison of Traditional vs. Developmental Evaluation…30
Table 4: Secondary Effects and Potential Secondary Benefits of UNICEF Innovation Fund…34
Table 5: Ripple Effects of UNICEF Innovation Unit’s Work…35
Table 6: Literature to be Used to Analyse Findings Related to Potential Secondary Benefits…35
Table 7: Main Sources of Evidence Utilised During Desk Based Research…38
Table 8: Process of Searching Tertiary Literature…38
Table 9: UNICEF Interview List…41
Table 10: External Interviews…42
Table 11: Bias/Error in Six Sources of Evidence linked to Four Types of Triangulation…43
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
11
Table 12: Principles for Evaluation aligned with Principles for Digital Development…58
Table 13: Evaluation Do’s and Don’ts picked up during interviews with UNICEF…58
Table 14: Results from applying User Pains Questions to Care for Children…61
Table 15: Results from applying User Pains Questions to Care for Children…62
Table 16: Interview Results from applying Value Proposition to Strength of ‘Fit’…63
Table 17: Care for Children and Paulson et al., (2007) Framework Extract…65
Table 18: Care for Children Learning Objectives and Questions…67
Table 19: Results from applying Beneficiary Jobs Questions to MomConnect - Mothers and Children…19
Table 20: Results from applying Beneficiary Jobs Questions to MomConnect - Department of Health and other Ministries…20
Table 21: Results from applying gain creators Questions to MomConnect - Mother and Children…70
Table 22: Interview Results from applying Value Proposition to Strength of ‘Fit’…71
Table 23: MomConnect and Paulson et al., (2007) Framework Extract…73
Table 24: MomConnect Learning Objectives and Questions…75
Table 25: Summary of strategies that can be used for deriving the importance of evaluative criteria…79
Table 26: Sources of information for the adaptation of Paulson, et al. (2007) evaluative tool…82
Table 27: UIF Portfolio (Current) including UIF's first portfolio of investments in private sector companies…91
Table 28: Typical Extract from Semi Structured Interview Guide: Potential Secondary Benefits Question…92
Table 29: Types and Variants of Open Source Business Models…105
Table 30: Four Levels of Research and Analysis…111
Table 31: Strategic Level Key Findings and Managerial Implications…114
Table 32: Individual Level Key Findings and Managerial Implications…115
Table 33: Portfolio Level Key Findings and Managerial Implications…116
Table 34: Secondary Level Key Findings and Managerial Implications…117
Table 35: UNICEF Innovation Fund Investment Intensity Compared with R&D Investment Intensity of the Top 10 Business Innovators…118
Table 36: UNICEF Innovation Fund: Assessment Criteria for REOI…145
Table 37: UNICEF Innovation Fund: Assessment Criteria for Expressions of Interest…146
Table 38: Common qualities of transformative digital technologies compared to UNICEF Innovation Fund Criteria…154
Table 39: Social Value and Performance Measurement Research Table…156
Table 40: Interview Observations relating to Objective 1 – individual initiative…194
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
12
Table 41: Interview Observations relating to Portfolio Evaluation…195
Table 42: Interview Results: Significant Quotes from Key Informants (Part 1 of 2)…198
Table 43: Interview Results: Significant Quotes from Key Informants (Part 2 of 2)…199
Table 44: Additional Secondary Benefits cited by Interviewees not Listed in the Interview Question…200
List of Abbreviations
UIF: UNICEF Innovation Fund
UOI: UNICEF Office of Innovation
WASH: Water Sanitation and Hygiene
CEE: Central and Eastern Europe
CIS: Commonwealth of Independent States
VC: Venture Capital
IDIA: International Development and Innovation Alliance
IPM: Innovation Portfolio Management
PPM: Project Portfolio Management
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
13
Statements and Declarations
Confidentiality Statement
The work contained herein has been conducted by the authors as signatories of volunteer service with UNICEF.
Commitments from the authors to undertake obligations with respect to those services include the following
confidentiality clause:
‘to keep confidential any and all unpublished information made known to me during the course of my service
as a volunteer and not to publish any reports or papers on the basis of information obtained during the period
of my service, except with the authorization of UNICEF’
Any publication of all or part of this report can only be done with the authorization of UNICEF.
Anonymity Statement
A diverse group of experts both within UNICEF and external to the organisation have contributed to the data
collected in this report. We recognise their contribution as a collective. The names of individual contributors
are not listed, nor are they attributed to direct quotes or extracts of data to protect all contributors from any
misinterpretation or other unintended consequences.
All the contents of this report represent the analysis and views of the authors only. No content of this report
should be taken to represent the official opinion or position of UNICEF in any way. In particular we also draw
attention to the various evaluation tools developed by the authors and the ratings given to various initiatives.
Those evaluations again represent the analysis and views of the authors only and are not in any way an
evaluation conducted by UNICEF or any of UNICEF’s partners.
Declaration
We, the authors declare that no portion of this final project has been submitted for any other degree at the
University of Manchester or any other institution.
The research presented herein was primarily conducted between June 2016 and January 2017.
Word Count
Word count Limit: 15,000 in main body excluding cover page, table of contents, tables/figures, list of
references and appendices.
Actual word count: 14,572 in main body excluding cover page, table of contents, tables/figures, list of
references and appendices.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
14
Executive Summary
This research project has been conducted with the aim of understanding the value that corporate venturing
can potentially create in international development with a specific focus on the recently launched UNICEF
Innovation Fund. The Fund endeavours to provide an efficient mechanism to invest in open source innovation
initiatives at proof of concept and faces many challenges in its evolutionary phase of development including
demonstrating the value it can bring to the organisation. This study has researched and analysed potential
value creation by the Fund on four levels namely; strategic, individual initiative, portfolio and secondary effects
level in an endeavour to address that challenge.
Case study strategy is applied leveraging multi-method qualitative research approaches in a six month cross
sectional time horizon. Data collection was from multiple sources of evidence including desk based research,
internal documents, semi-structured interviews with key informants and further documents shared by experts.
Semi-structured interviews in particular provided a rich source of primary data collection with 11 key
informants within UNICEF and 6 external industry experts. Data, investigator and theory triangulation was
leveraged to improve the quality of analysis and conclusions.
The findings uncovered positive insights across all four levels of analysis. At strategic level the management of
innovation across three horizons was identified as key to establishing a failure tolerant space within which to
seed early stage initiatives with risk capped smart capital. The mission model uncovered a strong hypothesis
and the corporate venturing model demonstrated that five types of value could be created from the Fund
three of which would be leveraged even when initiatives failed namely; IP stack, community building and
learning. The potential for long term value through impact at scale and growth were also identified from a
small percentage of highly successful initiatives.
Two individual initiatives were evaluated; Care for Children, an open source electronic reporting system for
residential care institutions in Cambodia and MomConnect an open source maternal monitoring system in
South Africa. Both initiatives returned positive indications of potential value creation underpinning the
reasoning behind the Fund. The portfolio of initiatives with $11.2m invested in 31 initiatives to date was
evaluated demonstrating portfolio health and a spectrum of risk consistent with the Funds stage of
development with changes in mix expected as more external start-ups are seeded. Evidence of eight secondary
benefits was also identified. Organisational learning was most prominent closely followed by the creation of
sustainable networks and driving organisational goodwill. The importance of not overlooking such benefits in
order not to under value such venturing approaches was a key finding.
Managerial implications were identified across all four levels chief of which are the challenges of resource
allocation to support the vision and aspirations of management, the need to develop strategies to help
initiatives ‘cross the chasm’ to scale, further research required into time bound portfolio management and the
need to put in place mechanisms to manage and capture organisational learning.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
15
Acknowledgements
First, we would like to thank Dr. Marianna Amatullo, Co-Founder and Vice President of Designmatters, the
award-winning social impact department of the ArtCenter College of Design, in Pasadena, California. An
ethnographic case study by Dr Amatullo titled, ‘Innovation by Design at UNICEF’ offered initial insights into the
organisation's pioneering approaches. Following contact from the authors, Dr Amatullo's positive engagement
facilitated an introduction with the UNICEF Office of Innovation. Without that introduction this project would
not have been possible.
We would like thank the UNICEF Office of Innovation management for agreeing to work with us and also
making the time of their team available to facilitate a fruitful collaboration, exchange of ideas and in depth
data collection which would not have been possible without their support. Special thanks to our primary
contacts, at UNICEF Ventures for their constant collaboration over six months. The teams’ proactive approach
in contacting a diverse group of relevant experts both inside and outside UNICEF requesting their participation
in interviews was a further significant assistance to in depth data collection which improved the breadth and
quality of our findings. We also thank the Ventures team for their engagement and support during the period
including the sharing of key documents and valuable critical feedback on our interim findings.
We thank all contributors who gave up their time to be interviewed for the project. Experienced and
thoughtful contributions from the UNICEF Office of Innovation were a constant throughout. This included
many diverse perspectives at differencing ends of the UNICEF Office of Innovation spectrum.
Elsewhere within the wider UNICEF organisation we thank contributors from the UNICEF Supply Division,
UNICEF Cambodia Country Office, UNICEF South Africa Country Office, UNICEF Brazil Country Office and the
UNICEF Evaluation Office.
We also thank external experts outside UNICEF who gave up their time to be interviewed. We thank
contributors from Results for Development and the International Development Innovation Alliances (IDIA) for
a broad strategic overview of the subject area. We also thank contributors on the subject area from the USAID
Global Development Lab for comparative information regarding their Development Innovation Ventures
programme which helped provide a benchmark from which to compare the UNICEF Innovation Fund.
We also thank a number of Monitoring and Evaluation Specialists both partnered with UNICEF and those not
involved with the organisation for their time and contributions.
From the University of Manchester, firstly we would like to thank our supervisor, Professor Kate Barker, Senior
Lecturer from the Innovation, Management and Policy, Academic Unit. Kate’s continuous feedback and
guidance throughout this six month project helped the authors through the academic challenges, time
constraints and also encouraged the group to focus on the key findings of such a wide study.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
16
We also thank other faculty members at the Alliance Manchester Business School who, prior to
commencement of the project, provided early feedback on draft proposals, general advise, or simply
encouragement to develop a proposal in the field of social innovation and international development, a road
less travelled for final MBA Projects. Those contributors included Professor Kevin Jagiello, Senior visiting Fellow
and Strategic Management Director for the Global MBA; Dr. Lyndsay Rashman Senior Fellow and MBA Projects
Director; Dr. Alison Ashton, Marketing Course Coordinator; Professor Paul Taafe, Visiting Fellow, Operations
Management Course Coordinator and Dr. Anthony Merna, Risk Management Course Coordinator.
Finally we thank our families and friends for their support and patience, particularly during long periods of
preoccupation with this project over six months and indeed the MBA over two and half years.
The Authors: January, 2018.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
17
1. Introduction
1.1 Problem Statement
With the establishment of its Innovation Unit in 2007, UNICEF formally identified the need to foster
innovation. UNICEF Executive Director, Anthony Lake points out that ‘...new technology and innovations are
making it easier to reach the most deprived…’ outlining the organisation's intention to ‘...re-purpose
technology that the private sector is developing and apply it to our own purposes’ (UNICEF, 2012). The
‘identification and promotion of innovation’ is also established as one of seven implementation strategies in
UNICEF's 2014-2017 Strategic Plan (UNICEF, 2013 & Appendix 1).
Despite UNICEF’s clear commitment to innovation, the scale and complexity of its child rights mission coupled
with the organizational culture of a large international development organization makes rapid
transformational change a major challenge. Amatullo (2015) notes the ‘start-up subculture’ of the UNICEF
Innovation Unit but also presents findings that suggest the wider organization is ‘at zero in terms of
mainstreaming… innovation...’ with references to ‘bureaucratic stasis’, ‘organizational inertia’ and
‘organizational resistance to change’ which might be expected in a large public service institution.
The uncertainty of trying new things at UNICEF where its complex global mission has the most significant
consequences for the lives of its ‘customers’ requires a careful and well thought out strategy. Ramalingam and
Bound (2016) cite challenges facing international development organisation's in identifying ideas with the
largest potential impact and deciding how best to support them at each stage.
UNICEF Ventures has developed a new strategy to overcome some of those challenges by adapting approaches
from the venture capital world to seed external and internal initiatives. Such ‘corporate venturing’ is applied
by tech giants like Intel and Google in the business world (Parnell, 2016). Quasi venture capital approaches
have also been adopted by international development organisations such as USAID and The Gates Foundation
(see Appendix 6). Key lessons learned by those international development organisations include the value of
providing seed capital at proof of concept, the need to identify innovators from developing countries and the
need to integrate science and technology innovation with social and business innovation (Buchsbaum, 2016).
Grand Challenges Canada, also cite the importance of energizing the next generation of entrepreneurs along
with sourcing widely but scaling selectively (Singer, 2016).
It is the premise of the authors that innovation in international development organisation's has the potential
to create as much value as it does for successful business innovators such as Google, Apple or 3M and that
venturing in such contexts could also become as successful as Lilly Ventures, Google Ventures or Intel Capital.
The value created by innovation in businesses can be measured through the commercialisation of products
and services but international development organizations lack ‘the simple elegance of a financial measure’ to
demonstrate returns (Forbes, 1998, noted in Kaplan, 2001). External scrutiny of expenditure not related to
core programmes and the high failure rate of innovation ventures exacerbates the challenge of convincing
donors to invest without clarity of social return.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
18
Despite these challenges, Rockefeller Foundation President, Judith Rodin (2016) argues that the modern day
rate of change does not allow international development organisations ‘...to let innovation take a long,
winding course...’ citing an explosion of new innovative initiatives. The Gates Foundation echoes this view
observing‘... a robust pipeline of innovations or ‘pile up at proof of concept’ (Buchsbaum, 2016).
UNICEF Innovation Fund endeavours to provide an efficient mechanism to invest in open source initiatives at
proof of concept that have the potential to create value for its mission. This project seeks to assess the value
of the Fund and its overall process to the organisation.
Figure 1: UNICEF Innovation Fund Stage of Investment (Ramalingam and Bound, 2016, UNICEF, 2013e and UNICEF, 2016d)
6. Development & Testing
(Iteration Cycle): i. Designing, ii. Prototyping, iii. Testing, iv.
Reflecting& Re-designing.
7. Business Analysis
Financial viability of the concept(s) assessed.
8. Proof of Concept (PoC)
Initial working prototype, MVP or Pilot which demonstrates the concept works.
‘Innovation Pile Up’ (Buchsbaum, 2016)
UNICEF Innovation Fund (Early Stage Seed / Catalytic Investment)
9. Piloting
Final product concept tested to demonstrate value or otherwise to decision makers.
10. Scale
Innovation scaled with significant investment.
Scale Up Finance: Private Sector investment,
grant-funding, UNICEF networks, Global Innovation Centre (GIC), International Development Innovation Alliance (IDIA), UNICEF
Innovation Procurement Acceleration Fund & Global
Innovation Centre
Exploration & Concept Testing, Analysis, Proof of Concept & Piloting
Scale Up
1. Identifying Need
Market research.
2. Idea Generation
Creative process. Large quantity of ideas.
3. Idea Screening
The most promising ideas.
4. Concept Generation
Ideas studied in the field. Multiple product concepts.
5. Concept Selection
Prioritised highest impact potential
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
19
1.2 The UNICEF Context
Vision and Mission
UNICEF is an international development organisation with a child rights and welfare mission. The
organisation's vision is ‘a world where the rights of every child are realised’. This vision is cascaded though its
mission which seeks to meet basic needs, advocate for rights and expand the opportunities of children globally
(UNICEF, 2003 and 2015).
Served ‘Market’
For the purposes of this study UNICEF’s served market is defined as the ‘International child rights and welfare
market’. Definitions of sector, arena and industry are illustrated in Figure 3 along with the organisation's
strategic outcomes, regions of operation and mode of implementation.
Figure 3: Definitions Sector/Arena/Industry/Market/Strategic Outcomes (Created by the Authors based on UNICEF, 2013b&c and Meagher, 2015)
Figure 2: UNICEF Vision & Mission (Adapted from UNICEF, 2003, 2015c & Meagher 2015)
Meet Basic Needs
Vision
A world where the rights of every child are realised
Advocate for Rights Expand Opportunities
International Child Rights and Welfare ‘Market’
Asia Middle East & North Africa
Sub-Saharan Africa
Latin America
Central & Eastern Europe (CEE) + Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
Health
Outcome
Education
Outcome
HIV/AIDS
Outcome
Child Protection Outcome
Social Inclusion Outcome
WASH Water Hygiene
& Sanitation Outcome
Nutrition
Outcome
International Development & Relief Industry
International Non-profit Arena
Non-profit Sector
Fundraising National
Committees & HQ
Implementation: through individual Country Programmes managed by Country Offices
Presence in over 190 Countries
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
20
Revenue and Expenditure
UNICEF's global mission, strong brand, and UN mandate generates yearly revenue in excess of $5 Billion with
approximately 60% contributed by governments and 29% by the private sector.
Figure 4: 12 Year Revenue Trended by Source (2004-15) (Created by the authors based on data from UNICEF Annual Reports 2004-2015 & Meagher, 2016)
Strong positive surplus margin (revenue-expense/revenue) has been achieved for 9 of the last 12 years. Sub-
Saharan Africa, Asia and the MENA region attract the most expenditure based on customer need collectively
accounting for 84.6%.
Figure 5: 12 Year Expenditure Trended by Region (2004-15) (Created by the authors based on data from UNICEF Annual Reports 2004-2015 & Meagher, 2016)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15
Re
ven
ue
in m
illio
ns
$
Year
12 Year Revenue Trended by Source (2004-2015)
Governments
Private sector/NGO
Inter-organisational
Other sources
Total Revenue
Total 2015 Revenue $5.009 Billion
60.4%
29.1%
100%
8.6%
1.9%
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15
Exp
en
dit
ure
in m
illio
ns
$
Year
12 Year Expenditure Trended by Region (2004-2015) Sub-Saharan Africa
Asia
Middle East & North Africa
Latin America
Central/Eastern Europe & CIS
Inter-regional
Total Indirect Expenditure
Total Expenditure 100%
Total 2015 Expenditure $5.112 Billion
51.7%
15.6%
17.3%
3.0%
2.8%
2.9%
6.7%
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
21
Direct programme expenditure in 2015 reached $4.768 billion with the Health, Education and WASH strategic
outcomes receiving the largest percentage of funds.
Figure 6: 2015 Direct Programme Expenditure by Strategic Outcome (Created by the authors based on data from UNICEF, 2016a)
1.3 The UNICEF Office of Innovation
The UNICEF innovation Unit, founded in 2007, has evolved into the current UNICEF Office of Innovation, a
global interdisciplinary team with the scope of ‘identifying, prototyping and scaling technologies and practices
that strengthen UNICEF's work…’ (UNICEF, 2016b and Meagher, 2016a&b). The Office defines innovation as
‘something new or different that adds value and has a concrete impact’ (UNICEF, 2013d).
The Principals for Digital Development
At the core of UNICEF's innovation work are the Principals for Digital Development created by UNICEF in 2009
and now endorsed by major international development organisation's and UN agencies (UNICEF, 2016f). The
principles are also key criteria of assessment for initiatives applying to the UNICEF Innovation Fund. The nine
Principles are summarised below with further details included in Appendix 2.
Health $1288.7m
27.0%
Education $1000.5m
20.9%
WASH Water Sanitation & Hygene
$868.7m 18.2%
Child Protection $643.6m
13.5%
Nutrition $603.5m
12.6%
Social Inclusion $266.5m
5.6%
HIV/AIDS $107.1m
2.2%
2015 Direct Programme Expenditure by Strategic Outcome
Health
Education
WASH
Child Protection
Nutrition
Social Inclusion
HIV/AIDS
Total 2015 Direct Programme Expenditure $4.768 Billion
Note: Total and breakdown is not an exact match due to rounding
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
22
Figure 7: UNICEF Principles for Digital Development (Created by the Authors based on UNICEF, 2014m and Meagher, 2016)
Office of Innovation Structure and Ecosystem
The UNICEF Office of Innovation is structured around three sub-divisions namely; UNICEF Futures, UNICEF
Ventures and UNICEF Scale. UNICEF Futures scans the 2-5 year horizon to evaluate emerging and trending
technologies for synergies of shared value with the private sector. UNICEF Ventures invests in early stage
solutions with the potential to positively impact children in the 0-2 year future. This investment comes from
the UNICEF Innovation Fund, the focus of this project. UNICEF Scale identifies proven solutions with the
potential to be implemented at national and regional scale. The Global Innovation Centre (GIC) provides the
leadership and technical support to deploy and scale those solutions (UNICEF, 2016i).
Collaboration with a network based innovation ecosystem is fundamental to the work of the UNICEF Office of
Innovation as illustrated below. This includes UNICEF Country Offices which provide the link to core
programmes and Innovation labs established by some offices provide a hub for innovation focus. Other UN
agencies, the private sector and academia all contribute to the wider ecosystem.
Innovative Solutions that Add Value for Children
1. Design with the User
2. Understand the Existing Ecosystem
3. Design for Scale
4. Build for Sustainability
5. Be Data Driven
6. Use Open Standards, Open Data, Open Source and Open Innovation
7. Reuse & Improve
8. Do No Harm
9. Be Collaborative
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
23
Figure 8: UNICEF Innovation Ecosystem (Amatullo, 2015 - Updated by the Authors to Reflect UNICEF Office of Innovation Structure, 2016)
UNICEF Ventures and UNICEF Innovation Fund
UNICEF Innovation Fund is a pooled funding vehicle launched in 2015 that makes seed investments in early
stage open source technology solutions in programme countries (see Appendix 1) with the potential to create
value for children (UNICEF, 2016d). UNICEF Ventures also provides technical support for the solutions seeded
by the Fund for 12 months (UNICEF, 2016d).
The Fund is currently $11.2m in size with investors including the Governments of Denmark and Finland as well
as the Walt Disney Corporation. The Fund is divided into three portfolio areas, namely, (1) Real-time
Information for Decision Making, (2) Infrastructure and (3) Products for Youth Under 25. The expected returns
are growth of the initiatives, accumulation of IP stack and the establishment of a community of open source
problem solvers in programme countries.
Scale GIC
Nairobi & Bangkok
Futures
San Francisco
Ventures
UNICEF Innovation
Fund
New York
Office of Innovation Director
Start-Up
Partnerships
Scale-up
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
24
The portfolio areas and expected returns of the Fund are summarised on the right below along with the major
aspects of the organisation's vision, mission and the Office of Innovations evolving focus areas.
UNICEF Vision
UNICEF Mission
UNICEF Innovation
Focus (2014)
How 2014 Focus Areas
were Addressed
UNICEF Office of Innovation Focus (2016)
UNICEF Office of Innovation
Approach to 2016 Focus Areas
UNICEF Innovation Fund Portfolio Areas &
Expected Returns (2016)
A world where the rights of
every child are realised
Meet Basic Needs
Information
Real-time Data:
Two way communication
& better service
delivery
Real-time Information &
Tracking (Information)
Tools that strengthen real-time monitoring,
transparency, & accountability to inform decision making (2-way
communication)
Real-time Information for Decision Making
Expected Returns: Growth IP Stack
Communities
Tracking: Ensuring children receive
lifesaving interventions
Expand Opportunities
Opportunity
Equitable Access:
Giving children an opportunity
to survive & thrive
Access to information
(Opportunity)
Emerging technologies to
overcome barriers to accessing
information & services
Infrastructure
Expected Returns: Growth IP Stack
Communities
Infrastructure (Opportunity)
Emerging technologies to
overcome barriers to accessing
information & services
Physical Products
(Opportunity)
Procurement of fit for purpose value for money supplies that impact programmes
& emergencies
Advocate for Rights
Choice
Youth Engagement: Bring young
people closer to government
Youth Empowerment
(Choice)
Innovations that empower young
people to become social change agents,
solve problems, connect & scale
solutions
Products for Youth under 25
Expected Returns:
Growth IP Stack
Communities
Figure 9: UNICEF Innovation Fund Alignment with the Wider Organisation's Vision (Created by the authors based on UNICEF, 2003, 2013b&c, 2014b, 2015c and 2016a-h)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
25
1.4 Research Question and Objectives
Addressing the above mentioned problem statement and specific context, this study aims to contribute to the
understanding of the potential value that venturing can create in international development with a specific
focus on the UNICEF Innovation Fund. The project has been broken down into four core sections to adequately
dissect and analyse the numerous aspects that contribute to value creation.
Firstly, the group aimed to evaluate the venturing strategy to assess the strategic reasoning behind the
approach, covered under the general research question. The research and analysis will then drill down to
uncover further insights and findings under three specific objectives covering value created from individual
initiatives, the portfolio of initiatives and potential secondary benefits.
The research question and objectives are as follows:
General Research Question
How can a large established international development organisation create value from a ventures approach to
innovation such as that which is applied in UNICEF Innovation Fund?
Research Objectives
The research objectives intend to drill down to undercover three further specific levels of analysis as follows:
1. Research suitable tools and methods to evaluate the investment potential of individual initiatives
seeded by the UNICEF Innovation Fund and apply those approaches to two initiatives to demonstrate
potential value to UNICEF's mission.
2. Research suitable frameworks to evaluate the UNICEF Innovation Fund as a portfolio and demonstrate
potential value of the Fund considering the majority of initiatives are expected to fail with only a
limited few expected to be successful.
3. Investigate the potential secondary benefits that UNICEF Innovation Fund can bring to the organisation
through doing new things, taking risks and accepting failure so as to capture learning benefits and
reduce under-valuation of its innovation initiatives and processes.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
26
2. Literature Review
2.1 Approach to Literature Review
Due to the cross cutting nature of the project bringing business thinking to international development,
applicable literature is drawn from a broad spectrum of sources and disciplines. This breadth and diversity is
necessary to make sense of the complexity that the UNICEF Innovation Fund embraces, as any one stream of
literature is insufficient to satisfy all aspects of the study. Subject areas such as innovation, strategic
management, corporate venturing, business models, evaluation, portfolio management, social innovation and
marketing are all leveraged to this end. It is not the objective of this literature review to map all publications
for every concept but rather identify and apply the most relevant literature to the context. The review is
structured around the four core sections of this project consisting of the general research question and three
research objectives and includes both academic and practitioner sources. The key literature is applied and
expanded further in the findings section of this report.
2.2 General Research Question: The Venturing Approach to Value Creation
Venture Capital and Corporate Venturing
Venture Capital defined by the National Venture Capital Association as ‘a segment of the private equity
industry which focuses on investing in new companies with high growth potential and accompanying high risk’
(NVCA, 2016 – Yearbook) offers UNICEF a proven ‘vehicle to try new things’.
Start Up Maturity
Public Debt / Equity
Long Term Debt
Late Stage PE
Early Stage VC
Business Angels
Self-Financed
Figure 10: Typical Succession of Finance Sources over Business Cycle (Khurshed et al., 2015)
Companies as diverse as Google, BMW, and General Mills are adopting corporate venturing business models,
putting money into start-ups as they look for alternative means to learn and innovate (Lerner, 2013).
International development organisations such as USAID and the Gates Foundation have also applied similar
methods (Ramalingam and Bound, 2016).
Venturing Business Models
Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) define a business model as ‘the rationale of how an organisation creates,
delivers, and captures value’. McGrath (2010) argues that the business model concept is suitable in ‘highly
uncertain, complex and fast-moving environments’ such as UNICEF's where ‘strategies are as much about
insight, rapid experimentation and evolutionary learning as they are about traditional skills and planning’.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
27
McGrath (2010) asserts that ‘most experiments with new technologies fail, but without such failures the
eventual new victorious design would not have had a chance’ and notes the need for financial tools that make
sense with a strategy of experimentation rather than traditional deterministic concepts such as net present
value. Real-options reasoning approaches (Putan and McMillan, 2004) keeping initial investments small until
concepts are proven and cutting those that fail early are noted by McGrath (2010) as having success in
innovative organisation's such as Amazon. The benefit of options orientated investment strategies are
illustrated in Figure 9 below.
Black Hole Investment Strategies Options Orientated Investment Strategies
Figure 11: Value of Real Options Orientated Investment Strategies (McGrath, 2010)
Further literature related to corporate venturing is explored in the findings section of this report where
specific theories are used to make sense of the findings related to the UNICEF Innovation Fund. Several
strategic management frameworks are also leveraged to analyse the venturing strategy including; Baghai, et al.
(2000) Three Horizons of Growth; Campbell et al. (1990) and Campbell and Yeung (1991), Ashridge Mission
Model; Hay and Williamson (1991) Strategic Staircase; Sniukas et al. (2016) Strategic Maturity Framework;
Seelos and Mair (2016) ‘When Innovation Goes Wrong’ and Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) Business Model
Canvas.
Positive
Unlimited Downside Risk
Downside Risk Contained at any Given Time
Negative
Positive
Negative
Cumulative Cash Flow
Cumulative Cash Flow
Time Time
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
28
2.3 Research Objective 1: Investment Potential of Individual Initiatives
Although an abundance of evaluation methods exist for evaluating individual initiatives, our research is refined
by defining clearly the type of initiatives the UNICEF Innovation Fund will be executing and matched with
relevant evaluation approaches. Given the fund will continue to seed in multiple start-ups with open source
technology solutions across various countries, it expects to obtain real-time information and tracking, growth
of the initiatives seeded and accumulation of an IP stack. A fast rate of change is anticipated over 12-18
months during which the fund will support the entrepreneurial function of the start-ups that exist to focus on
creating change. The suitability any framework to assess value created by the fund must therefore be capable
of dealing with changeable and uncertain environments.
Developmental evaluation is not a set of methods, tools, or techniques. There is not a set of steps to follow.
There is no recipe, formula, or standardized procedures. Rather, developmental evaluation is a way of
approaching the challenge of evaluating social innovation through guiding principles (Patton, 2015) operates in
dynamic situations (Gamble, 2008) with uncertain outcomes, facilitates real-time feedback, a learning
framework (Dozois, 2010), and is arguably more effective for evaluating the UNICEF Innovation Funds
initiatives (Melwani et al., 2016).
Traditional evaluation on the other hand focuses on accountability as it uses a prescriptive method that relies
on available data to act as evidence through using randomized control trials (RCT’s) to prove or disprove
whether an intervention works. Traditional evaluation is arguably too premature for UNICEF Innovation Fund
with innovations that are still under development (Patton, 2011; ILO, 2014) and that they will only produce
weak results that lead to poor decision making, inefficient use of resources and thus perceived as unrelated to
the nature of the organisation (Conger, 2009).
Ebrahim and Rangin (2010) alternative classification of the methods for assessing social performance has been
adapted below which summarizes traditional evaluation, developmental evaluation and the integrative
evaluation.
Traditional Approach
Logic
Models
Expected Return and
Cost Effectiveness
Experimental Methods
Systematic Reviews
Participatory and
Relationship-Based
Developmental Evaluation & Integrative Approach
Examples of Users
1. United States (USAID) 2. W.K. Kellogg Foundation 3. Innovation Network
1. SROI Network (SROI) 2. Robin hood foundation - (BCR) 3. Millennium Challenge Corporation -
1. Abdul Latif Jameel PovertyAction Lab, MIT 3. Innovations for Poverty Action
1. Campbell Collaboration 2. International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie)
1. Center for Effective Philanthropy 2. U.N. (FAO) 3. World Bank
1. ActionAid 2. Bridgespan Group 3. McKinsey & Co. Social Sector Office. 4. UNICEF
Table 1: Methods for Assessing Social Performance (Adapted from Ebrahim & Rangin 2010)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
29
A detailed literature review of evaluation approaches is included in Appendix 7 as well as a completed
questionnaire that indicates the suitability of Developmental Evaluation for UNICEF Innovation Fund.
Comparing the different methods against the characteristics of the fund we can see that integrative
frameworks are the most suitable (Table 2).
Proposed Approach to Evaluate Individual Initiatives
A further comparison of integrative Developmental Evaluation (DE) and traditional evaluation methods are
shown in Table 3. Given the possible drawbacks of applying traditional evaluation approaches to innovative
initiatives they are deemed unsuitable and an integrative approach is thus considered more appropriate. The
integrative approach together with the Paulson et al., (2007) radical innovation evaluative framework was thus
selected for application herein with the latter being further elaborated under the Objective 2 literature review.
Approach Criteria
Traditional Approaches Integrative Approaches
Logic Models
Expected Return and Cost Effectiveness
Randomized Controlled Trial
Developmental evaluation (Gamble, 2008; Patton, 2011; Dozois, 2010)
Paulson et al Framework (2007)
Framework is suitable in uncertain environments where uncertainty is high (applicable for Radical Innovation and Moon-shoots)
No No No Yes Yes
Framework is suitable in environments where ambiguity is present
No No No Yes Yes
Framework is suitable where failure of initiatives is expected and an acceptable part of the process.
No No No Yes Yes
Framework is suitable as part of a wider evaluation of a portfolio of options.
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Framework is suitable where the majority of returns and value is only likely to be demonstrated in the long term.
Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Framework is suitable when changes and iterations are required regularly No No No Yes Yes
Framework facilitate on-going cycles of feedback and able to evaluate real-time data
No No Yes Yes Yes
Framework that can support the evaluation of the monetary term Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Table 2: Comparison of the Traditional and Integrative Approach against UNICEF Requirements (Adapted by the authors from Ebrahim and Rangin, 2014)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
30
Comparative Criteria
Traditional Evaluation Developmental Evaluation
Purpose and Situation
Evaluation Purpose
To test, prove, validate and hold accountable
To support development of innovations and adaption of initiatives into dynamic environments
Situation Static situation, innovation is a proven concept, data is available, goals well defined, variables controllable, predictable
Complex dynamic situation, solution is not 100% certain, multiple pathways, need for exploration and social experimentation
Focus and Target of Evaluation
Driving Force Outcomes driven, systems viewed as context.
Systems change driven, outcomes emergent, dynamic
Governance Top down evaluation (prove theory) Helps innovators navigate the muddled middle where top-down and bottom-up forces intersect and often collide
Modelling and Methods
Modelling approach
Design the evaluation based on linear cause– effect logic: specify inputs to activities/processes, then outputs to outcomes to impacts. Hypothesized, and predicted, then tested.
Design the evaluation using systems thinking to capture and map complex systems dynamics and interdependencies, and track emergent interconnections. Use of pattern detection.
Measurement approach
Measure performance against predetermined goals and SMART outcomes:
Develops measures and tracking mechanisms quickly as outcomes emerge; measures can change during the evaluation as the process unfolds.
Attention to unexpected Consequences
No attention, side-lined. Attention given to the unanticipated and emergent as a fundamental evaluation function.
Methods approach and Philosophy
Rigorously methods- focused: an evaluation is judged by validity and methodological criteria first and foremost. Traditional research and disciplinary standards of quality dominate.
Utilization- focused: methods are chosen in service to developmental use; methods derive from utility and pragmatic considerations.
Roles and Relationships
Ideal evaluator position
Independent. Part of the innovation team, bringing evaluative thinking to the group, supportive of the innovators’ values and vision.
Evaluation Results and Impacts
Reporting Lengthy detailed formal reports, scholarly voice, and passive.
Rapid, real-time feedback, engaged, present voice, active.
Impact on organizational culture
Evaluation often engenders fear of failure
Evaluation encourages learning and long term development.
Approach to Complexity
Approach to uncertainty
Strives for complete certainty and predictability
Expects uncertainty
Professional Qualities
Evaluator attributes
Commitment to rigor; independence; credibility with external authorities and funders; analytical and critical thinking.
Methodological flexibility and adaptability; systems thinking: creative and critical thinking balanced; high tolerance for ambiguity; open and agile.
Table3: Comparison of Traditional vs. Developmental Evaluation (Patton, 2011)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
31
2.4 Research Objective 2: Evaluation of UNICEF Innovation Fund Portfolio
Project portfolios are vehicles that link strategy formulation to strategy implementation (Danila, 1989; Cooper
et al., 1999; Meskendahl, 2010; Eggers, 2012 and Unger et al., 2012). This literature review highlights key
considerations for portfolio evaluation including the collective risk return profile, strategic alignment,
governance/decision making, project selection/prioritisation, portfolio balance, resource allocation, rate of
attrition, interdependencies, time horizon and the key challenge of balancing project specific versus
standardised portfolio performance metrics. Meskendahl's (2010) conceptual model illustrates the relationship
between strategic orientation, project portfolio management, and success.
Figure 12: Conceptual model on the relationship between strategic orientation, project portfolio
management, and success (Meskendahl, 2010)
The process of innovation operates in a dynamic and uncertain environment, whereas valuation metrics are a
snapshot in time making the development of valuation metrics for innovation in an international development
context very challenging. As illustrated below, the Innovation Portfolio Management (IPM) process
necessitates dynamic decision making and detailed coordination between the evaluation of individual projects
and the corporate strategy formulation process (Cooper, Edgett and Kleinschmidt, 1999; Anderson and
Joglekar, 2005). Decision making is challenging due to the uncertainty of information and estimates (Cooper et
al., 1999; 2002; Nagji and Tuff, 2012) and requires repeated revision of the active projects in a portfolio where
resource, market or technological interdependencies between projects can be a major source of competitive
advantage (Mathews, 2010).
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
32
Figure 13: The Innovation Portfolio Management (IPM) Process - Requires Detailed Coordination and Dynamic Decision Making (Derived from Cooper et al., 1999; 2002; Anderson & Joglekar, 2005).
Cooper et al. (2001); Cooper (2009, 2014); Day (2007); Nagji and Tuff (2012); Ohr and McFarthing (2013);
Holtzman (2014) among others, stress that an organisation must have a clear vision of where their projects fall
on the spectrum of risk in order to balance their innovation portfolio. Nagji and Tuff (2012) explain that
innovation sits on a spectrum from incremental to transformational (see below) and posit that
transformational initiatives where uncertainty is greatest require unfamiliar approaches. The literature
stresses the need to develop capabilities such as the ability to define the organisation's risk appetite, to
tolerate and embrace risk and to ensure continuous learning. Prominent Project Portfolio Management (PPM)
authors explain that projects must be prioritised by their importance and strategic contribution.
Figure 14: The Innovation Ambition Matrix (Nagji and Tuff, 2012)
Core
Optimising existing products for existing customers
Adjacent
Expanding from existing business to ‘new to the company business’
Transformational Developing breakthroughs and inventing things for markets that do not currently exist
Use existing products and assets
Add incremental products and assets
Develop new products and assets
Serve existing markets and customers
Enter adjacent markets, serve adjacent customers
Create new markets, target new customer needs
How to Win
Where to Play
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
33
Cooper et al. (2009) and Cooper and Edgett (2014) argue that in order to guide the portfolio and allocate
resources, top firms achieve best results not by relying on traditional financial criteria, but by applying multiple
methods such as strategic buckets, scorecards, productivity index and scoring models. Mathews (2010)
advocates keeping ‘early-phase evaluations cheap and fast' by way of qualitative and rough order of
magnitude (ROM) estimates. Holtzman (2014) and Canales, et al. (2014) explain that traditional evaluation
approaches can bias decision makers against experimentation and transformational innovations. Patton (2011)
stresses that in uncertain and changing environments, methods and tools can emerge as the situation calls for
them and ‘questioning is the ultimate method’. Figure 85 in Appendix 7 illustrates the authors which were
researched as part of this review along with some keywords.
Proposed Framework to evaluate the UNICEF Innovation Fund Portfolio of Initiatives
The innovation portfolio evaluation tool Paulson et al. (2007), a scoring model based on evaluative questions,
developed in collaboration with companies such as 3M, IBM, GE, Xerox, Intel & Shell was identified as an
appropriate framework to assess the relative value of initiatives within the context of the entire innovation
portfolio and will thus be applied herein. The framework can be applied at any point in time and can also be
used to track changes in the relative value of the portfolio over time.
Proposed Framework to manage portfolio balance
The innovation risk matrix developed by Day (2007) employs a unique scoring system to illustrate a portfolio’s
balance in terms of the risk associated with investments oriented towards innovation and will be used in
addition to the portfolio evaluation tool outlined above. The adaptation and application of both tools is
explained in the Findings and Analysis Section under Objective 2.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
34
2.5 Research Objective 3: Investigation into Potential Secondary Benefits
Research into literature to help investigate the potential secondary benefits of the UNICEF Innovation Fund,
started with a framework for internal innovation by Canales et al. (2014), the authors of which include the
UNICEF Ventures and Futures Leads. Canales et al. (2014) argue that innovation often delivers benefits from
secondary effects and present a ‘secondary effects scorecard’.
The effects were treated as potential secondary benefits in this project and two more were added as identified
by UNICEF Ventures in initial exploratory interviews. The eight potential secondary benefits outlined below
were used in interview questions to investigate if evidence of their existence was present in relation to the
UNICEF Innovation Fund.
No. Canales, et al.(2014) Secondary Effects No. 8 Potential Secondary Benefits Investigated
1 Organisational learning (often through failure)
2 Making the organisation ready for change
1 Are you able to track second and even third-level effects? How?
2 Are you attracting new types of talent? 3 Inspiring staff and attracting new types of talent
3 Do relationships remain after you go, creating a sustainable network?
4 Creating a sustainable network of long term relationships even after completion
4 Is there external mimicry? 5 External mimicry
5 Did the project create new business models? 6 Creating new business models
6 Did it result in new team/staff capabilities? 7 Building capabilities
7 Did it drive organizational goodwill (i.e. new funders/allies)?
8 Driving organisation goodwill (i.e. new funders/allies)
Table 4: Secondary Effects and Potential Secondary Benefits of UNICEF Innovation Fund (Adapted from Canales, et al., 2014 and initial exploratory interviews with UNICEF Ventures)
Bloom and Falkner (2015) identify direct and indirect innovation as dual imperatives of innovation in UN
organisations. The indirect innovation imperative in the form of Organisational Change will be assessed
through Canales et al. (2014) secondary effects scorecard.
Figure 15: Direct and Indirect UN Innovation Imperatives (Bloom and Falkner, 2015)
Organisational Change
Community Enabling
Humanitarian & Development Needs Met
Innovation Lab
Organisational Change Indirect
Imperative
Community Enabling
Direct Imperative
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
35
Dean (2015), a thesis titled ‘Building innovation capability in an intergovernmental aid organisation: A case
study of UNICEF's Innovation Unit’ asked ‘What are the ripple effects of the Unit’s work, if any, in other parts
of the UNICEF system?’ and identified five different ripple effects within UNICEF and two broader effects
outside the organisation as outlined in Table 2.
No. Ripple Effects of UNICEF Innovation Unit’s Work
1 A creation of space and a language to talk about innovation
2 A spread and adoption of the Unit’s innovation principles in other units
3 Innovation is now a priority in UNICEF's Strategic Plan
4 Country Offices are now generating ideas
5 Field, country and headquarter offices are now exploring and integrating technology in their programs
6 Other UN agencies seek advice from the UNICEF Innovation Unit (broader spill over effect)
7 The innovation principles are adopted by other aid agencies (broader spill over effect).
Table 5: Ripple Effects of UNICEF Innovation Unit’s Work (Dean, 2015)
Further literature was researched under each of the eight potential secondary benefits to help make sense of
the findings uncovered in relation to UNICEF Innovation Fund as summarised in Table 3. This literature will be
leveraged further in the findings section of this report.
No. Potential Secondary Benefits Investigated Description of Main Literature to Analyse Findings
1 Organisational learning (often through failure)
Lerner (2013) Corporate Venturing Ries (2011) Lean Start-up Sniukas et al. (2016) Ventures & Strategic Innovation
2 Making the organisation ready for change Kurzweil (2001) Law of Accelerating Returns Christianson (1997) Disruptive Technology Moore (1991) Crossing the Chasm
3 Inspiring staff and attracting new types of talent
Agrawal (2014) How Companies can Attract Talent Deloitte (2016) Millennial Survey Strategy& PwC (2016) Most Innovative Companies
4 Creating a sustainable network of long term relationships even after completion
Chesbrough (2003) Open Innovation McInerney (2014) Non-profit open source software
5 External mimicry Bloom and Faulkner (2016) UN Innovation lessons UN Agency Innovation Websites
6 Creating new business models Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) Business Model Canvas McGrath (2010) Discovery Driven Planning Meier (2016) Successful Open Source Business Models RedHat.com
7 Building capabilities Harwood (2016) Open Innovation Method Matrix Christianson (1997) Disruptive Technology Lerner (2013) Corporate Venturing Teece (2007) Dynamic Capabilities Chesbrough & Rosenbloom (2002) Business Model Value Nagji & Tuff (2012) Managing Innovation Portfolio
8 Driving organisation goodwill (i.e. new funders/allies)
Aaker (1997) Dimensions of Brand Personality Keller (1993) Customer Brand Equity
Table 6: Literature to be Used to Analyse Findings Related to Potential Secondary Benefits
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
36
3. Research Design and Methodology
3.1 Research Design
The predominant research philosophy of the group is pragmatism, where the most important determinant of
epistemology, ontology and axiology adopted is the research question (Saunders et al., 2008 and Meagher, et
al., 2015). The research primarily followed a deductive approach with multiple theories identified at the outset
for testing in the context. As the research evolved and significant data was collected, abductive reasoning was
also leveraged enabling logical inference from new discoveries to theory in a methodologically ordered way
(Reichertz, 2004, noted by Flick, 2013).
Case study strategy is applied, defined by Yin (2014) as an empirical inquiry of a contemporary phenomenon
within its real-life context, when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident,
using multiple sources of evidence’. Multi-method qualitative research was chosen based on an early
identification of data available. The project was conducted in a cross sectional time horizon for six months
representing an early stage snap shot of a rapidly evolving new approach within UNICEF. Data collection was
from multiple sources of evidence throughout the period including desk based research, initial exploratory
interviews, internal documents, semi-structured interviews with key informants and further documents that
key informants shared.
The research design is summarised as follows.
Figure 16: Research Design Summary (Adapted from Saunders, et al., 2009)
Data Collection from Multiple Sources of Evidence
Cross-sectional Time Horizon
Multi-method Qualitative Research
Case Study Strategy
Deductive Approach
Pragmatic Research Philosophy
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
37
3.2 Research Phases and Timeline
The case study research was conducted in seven phases as illustrated below.
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Phase 7
Research
Questions
and
Objectives
Desk Based
Research
Literature
Review
Internal
UNICEF
Innovation
Fund
Document
Review
Semi-
structured
Interviews
&
Additional
Documents
Data
Analysis and
Triangulation
Conclusions
and
Implications
Proposed
research
questions
and
objectives
presented
by the
authors and
reviewed
by UNICEF
Ventures.
Developed
iteratively.
Desk based
research fully
exhausted
online
sources of
evidence
across the
four core
levels of
research
(research
question and
three
objectives).
Literature
review
related to
the four core
levels of
research to
uncover
relevant
theory and
applicable
frameworks.
Internal
documents
describing
processes,
procedures
and strategy
related to
UNICEF
Innovation
Fund
reviewed in
detail.
17 Semi-
structured
interviews
with key
informants to
gain deep
insights and
understanding
across the
four levels of
research.
Data,
investigator
and theory
triangulation
leveraged in
the analysis
of findings to
make sense
of the key
points of
conflict and
convergence.
Managerial
implications
and
conclusions
drafted
iteratively
overlapping
with phase 6
to improve
the rigour
and quality
of the final
report.
Figure 17: Research Phases and Timeline (Adapted from Soy, 1997 & Melwani et al., 2016)
Theory / What is known
Secondary Data Collection and Analysis
Primary Data Collection
and Analysis
Case Study Strategy
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
38
Phase 1: Defining the Research Question and Objectives
The research question and objectives were developed through multiple iterations and collaboration with
UNICEF Ventures in July 2016. It was identified that ‘the challenge lies in defining the value of doing new
things, of taking risks and accepting failure’ and establishing ‘what is the contribution of each exploration, but
also, in the case of the Fund, what is the value of a portfolio (where the majority have failed, and some few
‘succeed’). What is the value of the process that leads us to these few successes?’ (UNICEF Interviews, 2016).
This feedback along with multiple iterations lead to the final research question and objectives contained
herein.
Phase 2: Desk Based Research
The requirements for transparency within international organisation's generally (Baines et al., 2011) and
UNICEF's Principle 6, ‘open data’ (UNICEF, 2016e) resulted in extensive online databases being at the disposal
of the research team. As a result a plethora of evidence was uncovered through desk based research which
helped frame the research accurately in the early stage. A summary of the main sources of evidence used in
desk based is as follows.
Website Data and Evidence Provided
http://www.unicef.org/
UNICEF website used to research organisational background and context such as mission, strategic objectives, annual reports and core programmes.
http://www.unicef.org/innovation/
UNICEF Office of Innovation website used to research its strategy, principals, focus areas, structure and processes.
http://www.UNICEF'stories.org/ UNICEF Office of Innovation blog providing numerous stories and reports about innovation at UNICEF used to gain further in depth insights.
http://www.unicefinnovationfund.org UNICEF Innovation Fund website providing public information about the Fund for potential investors, investees and partners including details of how to apply to the fund and high level criteria for assessing applications.
Table 7 : Main Sources of Evidence Utilised During Desk Based Research
Phase 3: Literature Review
The literature review presented earlier in this report first started with a wider search. A range of databases
were used to ensure extensive coverage of the literature (Saunders et al., 2012). The authors followed the
search process as follows.
No. Search Steps
1 Key words to match controlled index language
2 Search appropriate database sources
3 Note precise details including search strings used
4 Note the full reference of each relevant literature identified
Table 8: Process of Searching Tertiary Literature (Adapted from Saunders et al., 2012, noted in Meagher, et al., 2015)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
39
Phase 4: Internal UNICEF Innovation Fund Documents
Internal unpublished documents related to UNICEF Innovation Fund were made available allowing deeper
insights to be gained. A list of documents provided is outlined in Appendix 5. The internal documents provided
detailed evidence of the developing processes and procedures being applied in the management of the
UNICEF Innovation Fund. Early stage access to the Funds stakeholder website was granted wherein dashboards
of real time data related to initiatives seeded are displayed and aggregated. Detailed initiative lists with
descriptions, targets, contacts and links to further information were also provided along with the venture
capital criteria used in the Request for Expressions of Interest and Request for Proposal processes.
The aforementioned documents served as important data sources when preparing for further probing through
semi-structured interviews and in many cases provided support to triangulate and make sense of other
findings ‘…to seek convergence and corroboration through the use of different data sources…’ (Bowen, 2009).
Platt, J. (1981) notes that documents by their nature carry certain inferences associated with its form and the
audience it seeks to address, hence the importance of other forms of evidence to facilitate triangulation.
Phase 5: Semi-structured Interviews
Semi-structured interviews with key informants added considerable depth and value as a primary source of
evidence. The interview strategy focused on the one-to-one semi-structured Interviews, which were based on
predesigned open-ended questions enabling the achievement of greater quality, depth and detail as well as
the ability to uncover subtleties in attitudes (Stokes and Bergin, 2006). Semi-structured interviews also
facilitated an open and unhurried process in a non-judgmental and confidential environment (Baumbusch,
2010).
The authors were mindful that the more structured the interview the more reliable and generalizable the
findings (Cohen et al., 2007). The interview guides were therefore structured in a consistent manner around
the four core research levels namely; strategic, individual, portfolio and secondary. Although most questions
remained common to ensure corroboration, questions were also tweaked to place more emphasis on some
and less on others depending on the background of the participant, their respective area of expertise and the
focus of the research question being addressed.
Interviews were conducted remotely via teleconferencing with the research team sharing an invitation letter
with UNICEF Ventures who circulated this among the targeted participants. Prior to interviews the research
group shared an interview guide and Participant Information Sheet (see Appendix 10) ensuring all potential
participants were aware of the purpose of the interviews, the confidential nature and their right to withdraw
at any time. Each interview lasted between 60 to 90 minutes and all interviews were recorded to form
accurate transcripts. The interview process is summarised below.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
40
Figure 18: Process of Planning and Conducting the Interviews (Meagher, et al., 2015)
The researchers conducted 17 semi structured interviews in total with both participants from within UNICEF’s
organisation as well as external organisation's operating in the international development industry. UNICEF
Ventures shortlisted key informants based on knowledge of the UNICEF Innovation Fund and related expertise.
Key informants had a very high level of expertise and experience resulting in very rich insights being gained.
The diversity of the group is also worth noting with interviewees not only drawn from the UNICEF Office of
Innovation but also from recipients of the UNICEF Innovation Fund in Cambodia, South Africa and Brazil each
with their respective expertise in core areas of UNICEF's mission as well as experts in procurement, hardware
and evaluation.
Interview planning
Inform / Confirm
participants
Interview Preparation
Conducting Interview
with Recording
Interview Follow-up
+ Additional Documents
Shared
Interview review,
transcrips and
analysis
Data and Researcher
Triangulation
Follow-up Interview
as necessary
Clarification of specific points & additional
documents collected
All Interviews recorded and where possible attended by
2 researchers
Request / Confirm Schedule + Share Project
Overview & Scope
Clarification of specific points & additional
documents collected
Prepare interview guide. Taylor based on
knowledge and expertise
Selection of Interviewees with relevant knowledge
and expertise
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
41
No. Department / Organisation Location No. of Interviews
1 UNICEF Office of Innovation
UNICEF Headquarters, NYC 2
2 UNICEF Ventures
UNICEF Headquarters, NYC 1 + periodic feedback
3 UNICEF Ventures UNICEF Headquarters, NYC 2 Group interviews +
Continuous coordination
and feedback
4 UNICEF Futures
San Francisco 1
5 UNICEF Scale and Global
Innovation Centre
Bangkok 1
6 UNICEF Ventures
UNICEF Headquarters, NYC 1
7 New York Supply Centre (Supply
Division)
UNICEF Headquarters, NYC 1
8 UNICEF Cambodia Country Office
Cambodia 2
9 UNICEF South Africa Country
Office
South Africa 2
10 UNICEF Brazil Country Office
Brazil 1
11 UNICEF Office of Evaluation
UNICEF Headquarters, NYC 1 Group Interview
Table 9: UNICEF Interview List
Relevant key informants outside UNICEF were also identified with expertise in international development,
venture capital methods as applied in the industry as well as innovation evaluation experts and consultants.
The impartial input of external experts contributed further key insights which helped balance and triangulate
the internal UNICEF contributions.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
42
No. Department / Organisation Location No. of Interviews
12 Results for Development and
International Development
Innovation Alliance
London 1
13 Results for Development
Washington, DC 1
14 Panoply Digital Ltd.
London 1
15 USAID: U.S. Global Development
Lab
Washington, DC 1
16 Utilization-Focused Evaluation
Saint Paul, Minnesota 1
17 The Knowledge Institute Te Awamutu, New Zealand
1
Table 10: External Interview List
In addition to insights gained directly from the informants through answers to semi structured interview
questions, many interviewees also shared key documents which added an extra layer of depth to the evidence
and findings. These additional documents include both publicly available information as well as information
considered confidential. No content relating to confidential information is reproduced in this paper without
first having obtained express permission of the author. To protect the anonymity of participants contributions
quotations included in this report are not referenced to individual participants or the organisation/department
they represent. However by sharing the identity of the group of key informants as a collective in this section
the authors wish to illustrate the level of seniority, expertise and diversity the group possess.
Phase 6 and 7: Triangulation Analysis and Conclusions
Figure 19 illustrates the triangulation which has been applied at each layer of research in an endeavour to
improve the quality of conclusions (Saunders et al., 2008).
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
43
Figure 19: Proposed triangulation of single case study (Adapted from Saunders et al., Lewis 2009, and Meagher, et al., 2015)
To further emphasise the efforts to triangulate findings the sources of evidence have been tabulated below to
illustrate Denzin's (1978) four types of triangulation.
Source of Evidence
Type of Bias / Error (Yin, 2014)
Suitable Type of Triangulation (Denzin, 1978)
Approach adopted by researchers
(1) Desk Based Research (2) Internal Documents (4)Interviewee Documents
a. Biased selectivity, if collection is incomplete b. Reporting bias unknown bias of any given documents author
(i) Data Triangulation: Multiple data sources to reduce selectivity bias. (ii) Investigator (Observation) Triangulation: Multiple investigators to reduce reporting bias (iii) Theory Triangulation: Multiple theories used to make sense of research documents further reducing reporting bias.
(i) Cross examination of internal documents, desk based research and interviewee documents. (ii) Cross checking interpretations and recordings between investigators. (iii) Multiple theories from a plethora of disciplines to analyse findings.
(3) Interviews
a. Bias due to poorly articulated questions b. Response bias c. Inaccurate recall d. Reflexivity – interviewee gives what interviewer wants to hear
(i) Data Triangulation: Multiple respondents proving multiple perspectives and improving question design. Multiple interviewees diluting response bias and reflexivity. Recordings eliminating inaccuracy of recall. (ii) Investigator Triangulation: Improved analysis multiple investigators reducing reflexivity. (iii) Theory Triangulation: Multiple perspectives through a range of academic and practitioner frameworks.
(i) Wide range and diversity of key informants from UNICEF Office of Innovation, country office recipients, and expert internally and externally cross checked with external experts. (ii) Improved analysis by 5 investigators. (iii) Multiple theories from a plethora of disciplines.
Table 11: Bias/Error in Six Sources of Evidence linked to Four Types of Triangulation (Adapted from Yin 2014; Denzin 1978 (also noted in Meagher, et al., 2015 and Melwani, et al., 2016))
Data Triangulation
Multiple Sources of Evidence
Desk Based Research
Internal Documents
Interviews
Additional Documents
from Interviewees
Investigator Triangulation 5 Group Members all contributing to analysis of findings
Theory Triangulation Multiple Academic
& Practitioner Frameworks
Combined
Approach
Abductive
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
44
Whilst precise convergence of evidence from multiple sources is not always possible the multiple sources
served as a constant benchmark and countercheck as the study progressed. Detailed understanding, concise
findings and clear conclusions could not be drawn if such triangulation did not form a constant part of the
study.
Figure 20: Triangulation (Adapted from Yin, 2014)
(1) Desk Based Research
(websites) & Archival Records
(2) Internal Documents
(3) Semi-Structured interviews
Data Triangulation +
Theory Triangulation (Multiple Academic & Practitioner
Frameworks) +
Investigator Triangulation =
Improved Quality of Findings, Analysis and Conclusions
(4) Additional Documents Shared by
Interviewees
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
45
4. Findings and Analysis
4.1 General Research Question: The Venturing Approach to Value Creation
UNICEF Office of Innovation Strategy and Three Horizons
Drucker (1954) described strategy as ‘a sense of direction around which to improvise’, a relevant definition for
the iterative innovation venturing strategies of today and one which received favourable feedback in UNICEF
interviews with the ambiguous, uncertain and dynamic nature of innovation ventures noted by key informants.
The UNICEF Office of Innovation has developed a structure that ‘scans the horizons’ (UNICEF Interviews, 2016).
This strategy evolved through experience since 2007, when the then UNICEF Innovation Unit had the vision to
identify that investment in mobile technology through its RapidSMS initiatives (see Appendix 2, Figure 75 and
76 for overview of ‘typical’ initiatives) had great potential to create value in future horizons. The subsequent
successful development of its flagship open source platform, RapidPro has served as a benchmark for current
strategies.
Baghai et al., (1999) research into 30 industry pacesetters achieving higher growth, presented the separation
of growth possibilities into the Three Horizons of Growth Framework. The application of Horizon 1 ‘core
business’, Horizon 2 ‘emerging businesses and capabilities’ and Horizon 3 ‘create viable options’ can be seen in
many industry leaders today. The UNICEF Office of Innovation apply a similar approach through it’s Scale,
Ventures and Futures structure inspired by its own experiences (UNICEF Interviews, 2016).
The three innovation horizons are essential in order to provide a space for new forward looking approaches
such as venturing through the UNICEF Innovation Fund. Multiple small bets in early stage initiatives many of
which may fail is highly appropriate in Horizon 2 but would not be suitable in the Scale Horizon 1 which
requires heavier investment with failure of initiatives intergarted into core programmes having greater
adverse consequences. The Horizon 2 space allows the UNICEF Innovation Fund to trial emerging solutions
with finincial, reputational and programme related risks capped before the Scale phase.
The three horizons collectively contribute to an ‘innovation floodplain’ which is not linear or unidirectional but
rather involves multiple cycles, feedback loops, iterative meandering initiatives which evolve in different ways
within the UNICEF Office of Innovation ecosystem (UNICEF Interviews, 2016).
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
46
UNICEF Office of Innovation: 3 Horizons A structure that ‘scans the horizons’ ‘How do we make this organisation change?’
‘UNICEF Innovation Floodplain’ ‘Not a pipeline... A pipeline implies a set of constraints and linearity... and a directionality’
Figure 21: UNICEF Office of Innovation: 3 Horizons (Created by Authors based on UNICEF (2016b&i), Baghai et al. (1999) and (UNICEF Interviews, 2016)
Horizon 1 (Current)
Extend Core Business
UNICEF Scale
The focus of UNICEF Scale is to identify and scale up proven innovative solutions, expanding their application by UNICEF and others to multiple countries and regions and millions of people.
The Global Innovation Centre (GIC) is at the core of this work. Large scale investment. Hard work, organisationally pushing it through.
Direct involvement why UNICEF core programmes and country offices.
Innovation + Scale = Impact (Seelos and Mair, 2016)
Initiatives currently in Scale up: U-Report; RapidPro, Digischool (MobiStation); Digital Kiosks; RasberryPi4L; Internet of Good Things.
Horizon 2 (1-2 Years)
Build Emerging Businesses & Capabilities
UNICEF Ventures
UNICEF Ventures invests in early stage solutions that show great potential to positively impact children in the one-to-two-year future.
This investment comes from the recently
launched UNICEF Innovation Fund, which is a pooled funding vehicle that invests in open source technology solutions coming from start-ups based in UNICEF’s programme countries.
The Venture Fund allows managed risk taking. Multiple small bets in the form of smart capital investments to grow companies that can contribute to UNICEFs mission. Experience tells UNICEF it takes about three years for a start-up to work but Ventures targets an acceleration of this timeline within two years. After two years it is hoped to see something that is a viable product or not.
Horizon 3 (2-5 Years)
Create Viable Options
UNICEF Futures
UNICEF Futures looks at the two-to-five-year horizon to evaluate emerging and trending technologies to see how UNICEF can work with the private sector to find shared value in this future space – for companies to do better business while improving access to essential services for children.
Future investment areas include: transportation and mobility; identity; learning; mobile financial services and digital currencies; and wearable and sensor technology.
Tech. companies, big money in the world to be made. China is investing $60 billion in Africa over the next 3 years and UNICEF is investing $17 billion in the world. Overlap between $100 billion businesses and billion person needs. Conceptualisation & understanding landscape
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
47
UNICEF Ventures in the Context of Uncertainty
The Three Horizons and Uncertainty
The UNICEF Office of Innovation plots UNICEF Ventures and UNICEF Innovation Fund, highest on a scale of
technical and utility uncertainty within the organisation. The Fund is also considered high on the scale of
market and organisational uncertainty just behind UNICEF Futures. UNICEF Scale is the interface between the
UNICEF Office of Innovation and UNICEF's core programmes as illustrated below.
Figure 22: UNICEF Office of Innovation in the Context of Uncertainty (UNICEF Internal Documents, 2016; adapted by the authors based on UNICEF Interviews, 2016)
UNICEF Ventures Response to Uncertainty
The experience from development of the UNICEF Office of Innovations flagship open source initiative,
RapidPro, is the benchmark used for the potential failure rate of such initiatives. As noted by key informants:
‘we made 15 investments in various RapidSMS versions in various countries, out of that we got the knowledge
that we needed to invest... and RapidPro came out of that... Whether that’s 100x I don’t know but we were
able to get substantial benefit from it’ (UNICEF Interviews, 2016).
Adapt Existing Tech to UNICEF Needs $$
Point of Care Testing, Solar-Lights for Latrines
Scale Up New Platforms $$$
U-Report
Core Programmes $$$$$
Health,
Education, WASH,
Child Protection, Nutrition,
Social Inclusion, HIV/AIDS,
Emergency
New Needs
Climate Change,
Migration, Urbanisation,
Job Skills
Scaling Up Nutrition
(SUN)
Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys
(MICS)
Scale
0-1 Year Horizon
$$$
Ventures Innovation Fund
1-2 Year Horizon $
Futures
2-5 Year Horizon
$
Office of Innovation
Market and Organisational Uncertainty
Tech
nic
al a
nd
Uti
lity
Un
cert
ain
ty
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
48
Letts et al. (1997) observe that Venture Capital investors expect only 2 in 10 investments to produce a big
payoff. Jurveston noted by Jagiello (2016) notes Venture Capital ratios which indicate that for every 5,000
ideas; 10 will be seeded, 5 of which are likely to fail, 3 are likely to survive, 1 is likely to return twice the
investment and 1 should produce exceptional returns 50-100 times the investment.
The experience of the UNICEF Office of Innovation with RapidPro and the ratios noted by venture capital
practitioners suggest that the UNICEF Innovation Fund approach to investing, making multiple small bets in
initiatives that have satisfied venture capital assessment criteria is a prudent response to the levels of
uncertainty faced. Table 37 in Appendix 3 compares UNICEF Innovation Fund scoring criteria with that of a
‘typical’ venture capital firm and finds a high level of consistency. Appendix 6 compares UNICEF Innovation
Fund with leading international development venture funds administered by USAID and the Gates Foundation
and also finds a high level of consistency, with UNICEF Innovation Funds relatively small size and limitation to
only seed $100,000, being the most considerable differences.
The UNICEF Innovation Fund Mission Model
Campbell and Yeung (1991) cite the importance of a clearly defined, strong mission. Whilst the wider
organisation's mission is clearly defined it is intended to use the aforementioned model to assess the mission
of UNICEF Ventures and more specifically the UNICEF Innovation Fund. Campbell and Yeung (1991), following a
2 year research project, defined mission as a combination of four elements namely; purpose, strategy, values
and behaviours/standards arguing that a strong mission exists when the four elements reinforce each other.
The Ashridge Mission Model
Purpose Why UNICEF Innovation Fund Exists
Strategy Distinctive Competence (Rational and Commercial Left Brain Logic)
Values What UNICEF Office of Innovation Believes In
(Emotional Right Brain Logic)
Behaviour / Standards The policies and behaviour patterns that underpin the distinctive competence and value system
Figure 23: The Ashridge Mission Model (Campbell and Yeung, 1991)
The Mission Model of UNICEF Ventures, based on desk based research and interviews, is illustrated below.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
49
Vision
Strategy
Behaviour / Standards / Alignment
Values
Purpose
Leadership
Higher Ideal: A world where the rights of every child are realised (Wider organisation's Vision)
Purpose: Clear Hypothesis: ‘In order to solve the biggest problems in the world we need to invest in places that have those problems where you are most likely to have
creativity and solutions that can connect those problem solvers to each other’. The success of UNICEF Innovation Fund will be determined by products that work and the
establishment of communities around them that have built them. The communities that built them have tried their hardest and we can connect them together and it is all open source and
interoperable. If one does not work we learn from it.
Vision: Long Term success after 5 years: An ability to take an equity stake in
companies with several funds in the range of $10-20m. Multiple portfolios of tech. managed by different people in different ways. Private equity portfolio
buying companies, converting them to create value for children. If you are trying to solve the worlds big problems you do not need to stick with one approach and if you mix these approaches of finance, technology, development and social sector you actually have a chance to solve some of these big problems. An evolution of
UNICEF Innovation Fund is how we should invest in development in general.
Values: Risk taking, flexible, modern, data driven. Principals for Digital Development: 1. Design with the User: Context-appropriate solutions informed by user needs, user engagement,
incremental and iterative development, enhance existing and plan for org. adaptation, useful to most
marginalized; 2. Understand the Ecosystem: Participate in networks and communities of like-minded
practitioners, align to existing technological, legal and regulatory policies; 3. Design for Scale: mitigate
dependencies that might limit scale, systems approach considering implications beyond project, Replicable and customisable, demonstrate impact before scale, analyse tech. choices through lens of
national and regional scale, partnerships from beginning; 4. Build for sustainability: Sustainability
planning from the start including long term financial health, utilize and invest in local communities and developers and help catalyse their growth, engage local governments to ensure integration into national
strategy; 5. Be Data Driven: Design projects so impacts can be measured at discrete milestones,
evaluate innovative solutions and areas where there are gaps in data and evidence, use real-time information to monitor and inform management decision at all levels, leverage data as a by-product of
user actions/transactions; 6 Use Open Data, Open Standards, Open Source, Open Innovation: Adopt and expand open standards, Document APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) where use by a larger community is possible, Invest in software as a public good, Open source default with code made
available in public repositories and supported through developer communities; 7. Reuse and Improve: Use, modify and extend existing tools, platforms and frameworks, Develop in modular ways favouring
approaches that are interoperable; 8. Address Privacy & Security: Mitigate risks to security of users,
Privacy of personally identifiable information, Equity and fairness and protect the best interests of end-
users; 9. Be Collaborative: Engage diverse expertise across disciplines and industries, Work across
sector silos to create coordinated holistic approaches, Document, work, results, processes and best practices and share them, Publish material under Creative Commons license by default.
Strategy: UNICEF Ventures invests in early stage solutions that show great
potential to positively impact children in the one-to-two-year future. This
investment comes from UNICEF Innovation Fund, which is a pooled funding vehicle that invests in open source technology solutions coming from start-
ups based in UNICEF’s programme countries. UNICEF Innovation Fund is
making multiple small bets ($100,000 over 12 months), in initiatives after proof of concept stage. The majority of initiatives expected to fail but allow UNICEF
accelerate learning around what does and does not work. If venture capital ratios hold true in the development context a very small number of highly
successful initiatives may achieve Growth and Impact at scale in the long term that make all the failures worthwhile delivering actual results for children. Also
each failure will contribute to IP stack so every initiative will build this asset base
or public goods. Open source Communities of problem solvers are also built.
Behaviour / Standards (Organisational Alignment): Structure: ‘To be an amoeba. To always be changing form quickly enough so that we do not get caught in an organisational structure which will make it unable to make change. Opposite to bureaucracy. ‘To always keep moving and to change the shape of our team so we do not ever get caught by the DNA of
the organisation, by the antibodies which are built to resist change’. Keep moving and to keep shifting and changing so that we are current with the times and that we maintain enough of the feel of UNICEF that we can relate what we are doing to the organisation but that we never get too sure of ourselves, too certain of ourselves, too comfortable with ourselves or too worried
about our jobs so that we are worried about taking risk. Systems: Real-time data dashboards and website to help monitor, evaluate and provide a basis for adaptation and support.
Staff: Limited in the launch phase. Guided by Ventures Leadership. Business management and open source experts currently managing the fund but increased technical, open source expertise and managerial support planned to be recruited within 6-9 months. Skills: Organisational competencies and capabilities in innovation built up since 2007.
Figure 24: The UNICEF Innovation Fund Mission Model (Created by the authors from Campbell and Yeung, 1991; Jagiello, 2015 and UNICEF Interviews, 2016)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
50
The ‘higher ideal’ of the wider organisation is included in the model to give a full picture and facilitate an
overview of strategic alignment. Interviews uncovered a clear hypothesis in the purpose of the Fund which
considers that ‘in order to solve the biggest problems in the world we need to invest in places that have those
problems… connect those problem solvers to each other… open source and interoperable… [and] if one does
not work we learn from it’ (UNICEF Interviews, 2016). Vision also uncovered in interviews has been added to
the original model as a link between purpose and strategy (Jagiello, 2015) with 5 year success communicated
as having multiple funds between $10-20m and investing in multiple portfolios of tech. The ventures strategy
is clearly defined as pooled investment in early stage solutions with potential to create value in the one to two
year horizon and values are rooted in the Principals for Digital Development presented earlier (Figure 7 and
Appendix 2). The most interesting insight was uncovered under the Behaviour/Standards part of the model,
with the structure referred to as an ever changing ‘amoeba’ in order not to become caught in a bureaucratic
structure unable to make change (UNICEF Interviews, 2016). This is seen as a proactive response to the
‘organisational stasis’ identified by Amatullo (2015).
The UNICEF Innovation Fund Strategic Staircase
Hay and Williamson (1991) strategic staircase framework developed with major British and European
companies enables managers to break strategic agendas into bite-sized pieces working backwards from a
defined mission, guiding the selection of priorities and resources while providing a tool to communicate
strategy as illustrated below.
Figure 25: The Strategic Staircase Framework (Hay and Williamson, 1991)
Whilst UNICEF Ventures clearly communicated its mission during interviews it primarily adopts an iterative
approach to strategy development in line with Drukers (1954) ‘sense of direction around which to improvise’.
Mission Year t
Time
Expectation Capabilities to be acquired by Year t-2
Strategies which must be underway by Year t-4
Now
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
51
Sniukas et al. (2016) suggests that strategic innovation goes through three phases when building new growth
models including: (1) Inception, where the initial idea of strategy is developed, (2) Evolution where the
business model is reworked, fine-tuned and adapted whilst being operated and (3) Diffusion when the strategy
works well and the focus shifts from designing to scaling the model. The ‘core business design thinking
principle’ underlying this process is ‘active iteration’, the process of ‘learning through active experience’
(Sniukas et al., 2016).
The UNICEF Innovation Fund, almost 18 months since inception in 2015 (UNICEF, 2015d) is currently in the
evolution phase. The inception, evolution and diffusion process follows an iterative cycle of act, learn and
design as illustrated below (Sniukas et al. 2016). The knowledge gained through such iterations facilitates
adaptation and the continuous pivoting of strategy in an evolving process leading to maturity of the model
(Sniukas et al., 2016).
Figure 26: Iterative Strategic Maturity Framework (Sniukas et al., 2016)
The Fund is evolving with the first 5 seed investments in external start-ups launched in November 2016.
Evolution into a pure ‘pooled funding’ portfolio is being achieved with future investor contracts to stipulate
the pooled condition (UNICEF Internal Documents, 2016).
The milestones and targets along the way to vision attainment are illustrated below which assumes both the
visionary staircase and iterative emergent strategy which will continue to change, adapt and evolve. Additional
resources will clearly be required as UNICEF Innovation Fund passes from step to step on the strategic
staircase which has been identified below based on interview findings (UNICEF Interviews, 2016).
Time
Strategic Maturity
Level
Design
Act
Learn
Design
Act Learn
Design
Act Learn
Inception
Evolution (UNICEF Innovation Fund)
Diffusion
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
52
5 Years Vision Attainment
2 Years An ability to take an equity stake in companies. Several Funds in the range of $10-20m. Portfolios of tech. managed by different people in different ways. Private equity portfolio buying companies & converting them to create value for UNICEF. Buy companies, make them public goods. 'Mix approaches of finance, technology, development and social sector… you actually have a chance to solve some of these big problems.’
1 Year Secure multiple rounds of further investment from governments, companies, foundations, etc. Launch further Venture Funds to invest in other areas that have great potential to positively impact children. Additional Human Resources.
9 Months Second round of investments in the Fund. Results from the first round of investment will be used to make the case for further investment in the Fund.
Vision Attainment
&
Strategic Maturity
Level
6 Months Mid 2017 Demonstrate value creation to investors. Gartner or others could value the code base and IP stack created by 30 companies and circa 10 common source codes that most are working on. Or evaluate worth to investors by engaging them directly. Company growth may also be used. Broadly are we creating good products, good communities of problem solvers, are there a lot of people working on things together, are they working in different environments on the same set of challenges and those are all quantifiable.
2 Months 20-30 Investments Early 2017. Early to mid-2017 UNICEF Innovation Fund consists of a ‘bubbling pool of Tech. and IP.’ Hire additional human resources to manage that pool including experts in open source software that can help manage the developers as well as business management personnel to support business model development.
Current Position
Second Round of call for proposals (Requests for Expressions of Interest REOI) by End of 2016 (second batch of external investments).
Launch 2015
2.1m invested. Launched first 5 external private sector initiatives signing contracts in November 2016.
Launched internally to Country Offices in early 2015
Figure 27: UNICEF Innovation Fund Strategic Staircase and Strategic Maturity Level (Created by the authors from Hay and Williamson, 1991; Sniukas et al., 2016 and UNICEF Interviews, 2016)
Time
Design
Act Learn
Design
Act Learn
Design
Act Learn
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
53
UNICEF Innovation Fund Corporate Venturing Model
Moore (2007) posits that to succeed in the long term a focus on Horizon 2 is essential arguing that innovations
are ‘better off in boot strapped start-ups’ because external investors use fairer standards of measurement.
Lerner (2013) advocates the value of corporate venturing as an accelerator citing Intel’s next generation semi-
conductor chip development leveraging an experimental, failure-tolerant mind-set outside the parent risk
adverse culture a key aspect of the UNICEF Innovation Fund.
Canales, et al. (2014) refer to disruptive innovations being difficult to anticipate in advance with ‘investments...
typically evolv[ing] in stages, starting with small bets and only increasing as key uncertainties are resolved’.
McGrath (2010) advocates ‘discovery driven planning’ in uncertain environments capping risks with the goal of
learning as much as possible at the lowest possible cost’ an approach and goal shared by the UNICEF Ventures.
Black Hole Investment Strategies Options Orientated Investment Strategies
Traditional Development Long Term Programmes Significant Investment / Grant Funding
UNICEF Innovation Fund Multiple Small Bets
Figure 28: Traditional Development Funding vs. UNICEF Innovation Fund VC Model (McGrath, 2010)
The UNICEF Innovation Fund corporate venturing model is illustrated below. The venture capital failure ratios
and the RapidPro benchmark suggest circa 90% of initiatives will fail as illustrated by the red investment line.
However the blue dotted line illustrates that all failures will contribute to: (1) IP Stack, building the open
source asset bank of potential solutions continuously; (2) communities of problem solvers will also grow even
following failures and (3) learning from those failures will continue to accrue.
The solid blue line represents the circa 10% of highly successful initiatives which may go on to (4) create
significant value and impact at scale. This limited percentage of highly successful initiatives may come from
adaptations of previous failed initiatives and may also emerge from the open source IP stack asset base. (5)
Growth of the start-ups in the longer term is also a form of value targeted by the Fund.
The model represents a sophisticated corporate venturing strategy that leverages the potential of multiple
small bets whilst managing risk in the highly uncertain Horizon 2.
Investment Investment
Value Creation Value Creation
Unlimited Downside Risk
Downside Risk Capped at $100,000 for Each Bet
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
54
Figure 29: UNICEF Innovation Fund Corporate Venturing Model (Created by the Authors Based on Desk Based Research, UNICEF Interviews and Seelos and Mair, 2016)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
55
UNICEF Innovation Fund Business Model Canvas
Whilst UNICEF Innovation Fund is a vehicle for seeding innovative initiatives it is also an innovative initiative in
its own right. Launched in 2015 it is the first venture fund created by a United Nations organisation and is a
new business model for the organisation.
Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) define a business model as describing the rationale of how an organisation
creates, delivers, and captures value’. Business modelling is considered a ‘useful approach to figuring out a
strategy’ suggesting ‘experimentation, prototyping and a job that is never quite finished’ in what McGrath
(2010) considers the ‘dynamic perspective’.
The UNICEF Innovation Fund Business Model Canvas has been developed below based on the research
conducted in this study. The value proposition with gain creators, bundle of benefits and returns have been
covered in previous sections of this report. The key partners are noted including UNICEF Country Offices which
is consistent with its traditional model. The open source development community and International
Development Innovation Alliance (IDIA) are new partnerships which continue to evolve and grow. The key
activities are dominated by the venture capital methods of selecting and supporting initiatives with key
resources including the UNICEF Ventures team providing innovation management support with strong
capabilities built in the Office of Innovation since 2007. Customer relationships are built further through the
communities and ecosystem that the UNICEF Innovation Fund intends to foster.
The cost structure leverages a pooled funding mechanism that allows the UNICEF Innovation Fund use the
committed capital of its investors on any initiative that it selects for seed funding following the venture capital
selection process. Technical and business management support from the UNICEF Ventures team which will be
expanded as the Fund grows is also a significant aspect of the cost structure. UNICEF Innovation Fund provides
a path for new revenue streams from investors interested in its new model such as the Walt Disney
Corporation and foundations which is covered further in the secondary benefits section of this report.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
56
Key Partners UNICEF Country Offices Programme countries. UNICEF Networks facilitating co-funding & Scale-up Funding International Development Innovation Alliance (IDIA), UNICEF Innovation Procurement Acceleration Fund, Global Innovation Centre (UNICEF Scale) Private Sector Partners Networks in programme countries which can provide grant funding to scale initiatives Government Partners In programme countries who may provide grant funding to scale initiatives Civil Society & NGOs Via country offices International Organisation's & the wider UN ecosystem Open Source Development Community under further development via the Fund
Key Activities
Seeking expressions of interest for the fund and advertising; Review and selection of EOI & RFP using VC selection criteria; Technical and business management support, management, coordination, support, monitoring & evaluation; Facilitating access to UN infrastructure for start-ups; Facilitating access to scale funders
Value Proposition Gain Creators (Satisfiers) & Pain Relievers (Solutions) Identify and grow open source intellectual property and number of open source solutions to improve children's access to: 1. Information; 2. Opportunity; 3. Choice; Accelerate the generation of evidence to prove open source prototypes can be scaled. Pool and connect open source IP to allow collaboration between companies/institutions developing similar solutions. Bundle of Benefits (Products & Services) Three Portfolio Areas: 1. Products for Youth Under 25: Needs – learning & youth participation; 2. Real-time information for decision making and governance: allows children be understood by decision makers with the power to take action; 3. Infrastructure to increase access to services and information: connectivity, power, finance, sensors and transport. Returns (Value): 1. Growth: Small investments in innovative initiatives has the potential to grow solutions and technologies more rapidly; 2. IP stack: Investors gain access to open-source intellectual property & benefit from UNICEF's infrastructure, expertise & connections; 3. Communities: Open source problem solvers in programme countries + connection with existing platforms e.g. U-Report with 1.8M users in 18 countries.
Customer Relationships Communities Open source community of problem solvers in programme countries which can be connected globally. Examples of previous success: RapidPro international Development Community U-Report Community (in country and across borders) Co-creation Solutions like U-Report with Youth Influencing, Decision Making through SMS/Open Source weekly polls)
Customer Segments Served ‘Market’ Children: International child welfare served ‘market’. UNICEF Country Offices with Open Source solutions consistent with the 3 portfolio areas. Small scale start-ups and academia in UNICEF Programme Countries that have: 1. Early stage open source innovative initiatives consistent with the 3 portfolio areas; 2. Prototype or pilot is complete; 3. Need a small amount of money (circa $100,000) is needed to demonstrate its value to scale funders/investors; 4. Technology generates publicly exposed real-time data. Gains, Pains & Customer Jobs to be Done Gains, Pains and customer jobs can be categorised using Seven Strategic Outcomes (Health; HIV/AIDS; WASH; Nutrition; Education; Child Protection; Social Inclusion) solutions under the 3 portfolio areas.
Key Resources & Capabilities UNICEF Ventures Expertise: Strategy; Design; Tech support; Partnerships; Open Networks; Big & Unconventional Data Sources for humanitarian applications; open source software & content management platforms; Alternative energy; Real-time Data (RapidPro Team); Access to Information; UAVs & other hardware; Blockchain; expanding expertise in new tech. Management: Innovation Fund Board (Executives & Senior Advisers); Management Team; Reference Group (major investors & experts). Real-time monitoring, evaluation & collaboration website.
Channels Communication UNICEF Office of Innovation supported by central marketing & communication channels & Country Office networks. Distribution Through Country Offices supported by UNICEF Supply Division (Copenhagen)
Cost Structure Central Pooled Funding reduce the high costs of fragmentation, projectisation and savings in staff time through consolidation of one report at portfolio level for all investors Recovery rate: 8% of investments in the fund covering administration and overheads. Operational Costs: Fund Management, Technical Assistance, Knowledge Products.
Revenue Streams Investment Streams Pledged or Secured to Date: $11.2m to date with investments by: Government of Denmark, Walt Disney Corporation (Disney/Lucas Films), Government of Finland and foundations. Other Nordic countries and other partners have expressed interest. Co-Funding Leveraged: 1.6m (Dashboard) UNICEF welcomes investments in UNICEF Innovation Fund from: 1. Governments; 2. Private sector; 3. Foundations; 4. Academic institutions; 5. Civil society; 6. International financing institutions; 7. Multilateral organisation's
Figure 30: UNICEF Innovation Fund Business Model Canvas (Created by the Authors based on Desk Based Research, UNICEF Ventures Interviews and Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
57
4.2 Research Objective 1: Investment Potential of Individual Initiatives
Proposed Framework
A collection of suitable approaches have been combined which include the business canvass (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010), Principles for Evaluation with a Learning
Framework (Patton, 2011; Gamble, 2008; Dozois et al., 2010), Value Proposition (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010; Strategyzer, 2016) and an integrative approach (Paulson
et al., 2007). A business canvass as shown in Figure 30 is to be summarized for the individual initiative, to give a baseline appreciation of key activities, resources,
capabilities etc. related specific to the initiative. To ensure there is alignment with the evaluation approach and the fund, the Principles for Digital Development are linked
with the Principles for Evaluation which embed a technical learning framework. The canvass, principles and framework set the baseline for the overall evaluation approach.
Figure 31 : UNICEF Evaluation MAP Created by authors based on Desk Based Research, Documents and UNICEF Interviews, 2016. Adapted from Patton, 2015, Paulson et al., 2007, Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010 and Strategyzer, 2016
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
58
Principles for Evaluation
Alignment of the Principles for Evaluation against Principles for Digital Development is demonstrated in Table
12.
No. Principles for Digital Development
Principles for Evaluation Evaluation Principle Description
1 Design with the user Co-creation Evaluation should not be independent from the innovation but be interdependent with it, and with those involved (as part of a team), evaluator provides feedback, facilitates conceptualization of the change process, and both captures and generates perspectives about what is happening, and why.
2 Understand the Ecosystem Developmental Purpose Illuminate, inform and support what is being developed, Identify the nature and patterns of development within the innovation
3 Design for Scale Utilisation focussed Focus on intended use by intended users from beginning to end, ensure utility and actual use
4 Build for Sustainability Developmental Purpose As above
5 Be Data Driven Real time feedback Inform on-going adaption as needs, findings, and insights emerge, rather than only at predetermined times (e.g. quarterly, mid-term or at end of project)
6 Use Open Data Track emerging interconnections
Develops measures and tracking mechanisms quickly as outcomes emerge; measures change during evaluation as process unfolds.
7 Reuse and Improve Utilisation focussed As above
8 Address Privacy & Security Evaluation Rigor Use appropriate methods and maintain confidentiality
9 Be Collaborative Co-creation As above
Table 12: Principles for Evaluation aligned with Principles for Digital Development, adapted from Patton (2011) and UNICEF Principles for Evaluation (2016)
UNICEF Interviews (2016) provided the following guidance of do’s and don’ts when undertaking evaluations.
Table 41 in Appendix 8 provides a synopsis of some of the key findings, shared by participants.
No. Evaluation
‘Don’t’ ‘Do’
1 Concretize initiatives with frameworks such as theories of change
Create agile and flexible approaches that can deal with ambiguity and change
2 Hold findings accountable such that it engenders fear of failure
Capture data in real-time to facilitate learning and decision making
3 Strive for complete certainty and predictability Capture and map change and interdependencies, and track emergent interconnections
4 Use lengthy formal reports emphasising and recording every single detail
Consider the team dynamics and team members backgrounds while setting up the evaluation team
5 Assume a static situation where variables are always controllable and measurable
-
6 Design the evaluation on linear cause-effect logic -
Table 13: Evaluation Do’s and Don’ts (UNICEF Interviews, 2016)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
59
Value Proposition
Interviewees expressed the importance to ‘design with the user’ which corresponds to the first principle of
UNICEF’s Principles for Digital Development. The value proposition provides a method to analyse whether the
product/service meets the requirements of the users and supports beneficiaries. It also supports the value
creation hypothesis (Ries, 2011) by mitigating against value destroying elements, e.g. ironing out any questions
in an application that do not add value to the inspection which could be picked up when analysing ‘customer
pains vs. customer pain relievers’. Similarly, it supports the growth hypothesis (Ries, 2011) by trying to
understand the reason behind a start-up’s (the initiative’s) growth and mitigate against value-destroying kinds
of growth (e.g. growing through mass country-wide adoption by inspectors however producing low quality
recommendations to the ministry). The value proposition can be applied at the beginning or at intervals during
any new initiative or business to track whether the user, (customer or beneficiary) requirements are being met
and if changes are needed to current product/service offerings. For the individual initiatives, it is applied at the
beginning as a forward looking tool to indicate the prospective nature of the initiative.
Timing of Evaluations
This research was conducted at a time when the two individual initiatives were just commencing their
implementation following investment from the Fund. Though testing of the evaluation approach would benefit
from being undertaken later in the process, it was applied to obtain initial feedback.
Timing of evaluations should be undertaken at suitable stages and may not always be effective if strictly
calendar based. Given the nature of innovations which experience periods of success followed quickly by
perceived failure, evaluations undertaken only at predetermined times such as 12 or 18 months may not
maximize opportunities for learning or give a representative view of all activities throughout the duration of
the initiative. Consideration should therefore be given to evaluate at other periods to leverage co-creation,
learning, inform on-going adaption as needs, findings, and insights emerge, rather than only at predetermined
times, as shown in Figure 32.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
60
Figure 32: Evaluation Timing Created by the authors based on Desk Based Research, Documents and UNICEF Interviews, 2016. Adapted from Seelos and Mair, 2016
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
61
For the purpose of Research Objective 1, we have selected Care for Children (Cambodia) and MomConnect
(South Africa) which allow the evaluation approach to be tested for initiatives at different stages of investment
by the Fund and applied to initiatives that that have in-depth information via interviews with UNICEF
representatives.
Initiative 1: Care for Children Results
Out of 5,583,000 children under the age of 18 in Cambodia, one in every 350 is currently living in a residential
care institution. The initiative will replace a paper based inspection system that monitor the quality of care
given to children with hand held applications, and reduce the time for inspections and analysis from multiple
days to just 1 day, thus allowing ministries to act quickly upon low scoring institutions.
Value Proposition Analysis
The following value proposition questions were applied to understand the exact ‘user pains’ and were
reviewed with UNICEF Cambodia during interview.
No. User Pains Questions User Pains Answers Discussed in Interview with UNICEF
1 What are the frustrations of the Ministry of
Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth
rehabilitation (MoSVY)?
Unable to quickly reach all institutions because of the
time it takes under the paper based system
Taking too long to transfer the data and analyse the
information on a national level
After inspections it can take months before being able
to compile reports at a national level
2 How are current value propositions
underperforming? What features is the
inspection process missing?
Inspections can take up to 4 days and more time to
enter data. Modern digital reporting is missing.
3 What are the main difficulties and
challenges the system encounters?
Being able to quickly identify low performing
institutions, dealing with the backlog of inspections.
4 Are there upfront investment costs, a steep
learning curve, or other obstacles
preventing adoption?
No current obstacles, investment made into the devices
and application. Initial training and testing was done
with a national team of supervisors. Further testing and
training is to be undertaken with end users to ensure
the application is user friendly by 02/12/16 which may
result in additional adaptations to the application.
Table 14: Results from Applying User Pains Questions to Care for Children (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010; Strategyzer.com, 2016 and UNICEF Interviews, 2016)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
62
The following value proposition questions were then applied to understand the exact ‘pain reliever answers’ to ensure that the right solution is being proposed.
No. Pain Relievers Questions Pain Reliever Answers Discussed in Interview with UNICEF
1 Could your products/services produce
savings (time, money or efforts)?
Yes it can save on efforts, human resources. Currently insufficient resources to deal with the number of inspections.
The tool aims to allow inspections twice a year rather than once.
Will enable the ministry to reach all residential institutions to ensure all children are safely taken care of.
Will also identify which children are in need of care and which are not.
2 Could the products/services fix under-
performing solutions? By introducing new
features, better performance, or enhanced
service quality.
The first reason is to ensure children are safely taken care of in an institution. Institutionalisation should only
happen if children really need to be there (e.g. children should not be there if they have biological parents).
Ensure there are good services provided in terms of social workers providing appropriate care, feeding, basic health,
good water, sanitation etc. and all other services that should be provided for a child.
3 Could your products/services put an end
to difficulties and challenges the
institutions encounter? By making things
easier or eliminating obstacles?
The tool will measure also the number of children in the institutions to see if they are reducing.
From institutions through the new system another advantage is that it will be automatically identifying what are the
weaknesses of the institutions taking consideration the minimum standards of care and will automatically generate
recommendations for improvements. This is a new feature. Previously the institutions were not getting feedback
from the inspections. So from their level they can make improvements.
When an inspection has been completed there will be automatically a report sent to the institutions to inform the
responsible person of the institution the outcome and recommendations for improvement.
There will be a follow-up in the next inspection to see if the actions from the previous inspections have been acted
upon.
4 Could your products/services allow the
potential to help the government or
institutions overcome other related
obstacles?
Potential of expanding this technology into other areas of child protection is immense
Table 15 : Results from Applying User Pains Questions to Care for Children (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010; Strategyzer.com, 2016 and UNICEF Interviews, 2016)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
63
There is evidence of good fit between the digitized inspection application and the problem to be solved as
shown in Table 16 and Figure 33. As the results of inspections will be available to the public, the degree of
positive and negative feedback from the public is not entirely known at this stage; hence the Product-Market
Fit has been rated lower between 3 and 4 compared with the other ratings.
No. Type of Fit Fit Rating 1-5
1 On Paper: Problem Solution Fit
Evidence that MoSVY and institutions care about the jobs, pains and gains
The digitized inspection system addresses the jobs, pains and gains
5
5
2 In The Market: Product-Market Fit
Evidence the digitized inspection system, pain relievers and gain creators
actually create beneficiary value and gaining traction in the market
3-4
3 Financial: Business Model Fit
Evidence that the value proposition can be financially viable and scalable
5
Ratings 1-5: where 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree, 3 = neither agree or disagree
Table 16: Interview Results - Applying Value Proposition Statements to Strength of ‘Fit’ (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010; Strategyzer.com, 2016 and UNICEF Interviews, 2016)
Figure 33: Care for Children Value Proposition Fit (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010; Strategyzer.com, 2016)
Digital Inspection
1. Reduce reporting to just 1 day
2. Real-time reporting to ministry 3. Immediate improvement in standards
4. Open data kit software and comes with pre-listed questions based on the minimum standards of care
Obstacles to Improving Institutions: 1. Inspection visits 1-4 days plus reporting
3. Results take months to reach ministry decision making body 2. Lack of
resources 4. Annual inspections (needed every 6 months)
Conduct case management of each child
Inspections
Reintegrate 30% of children by 2018
Inspection App
Automatic calculation
Open data kit software
Total days it takes to check 406 institutions will reduce from 1,015 to 406 resulting in increased cost efficiency
Ability of the Ministry to monitor more
children
Significantly minimize the risks children
face
Potential expansion into other areas of child protection
Reduce time to collect and analyse data
Real-time reporting
Improved livelihood of
children
Free up time to reach more
children
Fast response: improving performance of institutions
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
64
Paulson et al. (2007) Analysis
Whilst the Paulson et al. (2007) innovation evaluation framework is applied in the portfolio analysis under
Research Objective 2, substantial sections of the framework are designed for individual initiative level and are
thus applied herein. The framework focuses on the impact of initiatives by analysing impact against the
organisation’s mission, sustainability, growth and financial indicators. The ratings in Figure 34 summarize the
aggregated scores.
Figure 34: Paulson et al. (2007) Framework Aggregated Results for Care for Children
Table 17 gives detailed justification of selected sections as follows.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
65
Section 1: Potential impact on Accelerating Results for Beneficiaries/Customers 1-5
1.1 ….significant market opportunity….across geographic locations…potential at global scale. 4
1.2 There are no insurmountable barriers that users will face in accessing the product/service. 3
1.3 …users show improved knowledge/awareness.. empowered to voice opinions. ‘.. we cannot comment on the end users given we are still at the early stage’
0
1.4 Value chain members are enthusiastic concerning the potential applications of this initiative. ‘….questions raised whether the end users will be a little older will they be fully comfortable with using the tablet for the inspections...’
3
Section 3: Initiatives Impact on UIF's Growth, Renewal & Secondary Benefits 1-5
2.1 This initiative is requiring the team to develop/ leverage internal / external networks. ‘So far….internal network... potential for external…’
4
2.2 The initiative contributes significantly to key secondary benefits ‘Support data collection for implementation of government policy….’
4
2.3 We are well positioned to capture sufficient value for our mission. 4
Section 4: Sustainable Enhancement of Initiative/Fund Longevity/Performance 1-5
3.1 No significant risks exist that could undermine the sustainability of the business. ‘Since we did not roll out the initiative yet we will remain cautious of the risks’
3
3.2 An appropriate vision of scale can be developed for alternative locations/contexts/apps. ‘There is an appropriate vision for scaling in other locations’
4
3.3 The program/solution is able to use existing infrastructure and/or facilities. ‘Using existing infra and facilities…don’t have any issues with access to the internet.’
4
3.4 The solution is low in complexity with few programme components. ‘Paper based questions with multiple choice answers transferred across to tablets’
4
Section 9: Firm Capabilities for this Initiative 1-5
4.1 Executive support is strong for this initiative. ‘…endorsed by the minister of social affairs, high level commitment’
4
4.2 We have the resources in this organisation to accomplish the next steps necessary for this initiative.
‘..there will still be some requirements form the ministry to support them to travel to all the residential care institutions. When it comes to the tech, we do not see major challenges as most of the costs are done in the initial phase.’
3
4.3 Cost of gaining the technical progress that is needed is appropriate given ultimate promise for this opportunity.
4
4.4 The chances of achieving the next crucial technical milestones are high. ‘Being able to implement the project as expected’
4
4.5 The initiative is able to leverage against the UNICEF brand, contributing to the initiative’s success.
4
Section 10: Financial Indicators of Value Creation 1-5
5.1 The initiative provides a cost effective solution, when addressing the problem / need. ‘Able to do it much quicker with fewer resources’
4
5.2 The initiative is attracting external attention which encourages additional investment in the fund.
‘Additional funding needed when supporting the ministry to travel to different locations’
4
5.3 The cost estimates are realistic based on local context and competitive prices/rates. 4
Ratings 1-5: where 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree, 3 = neither agree or disagree
Table 17 : Care for Children and Paulson et al. (2007) Framework Extract
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
66
Although the results indicate a positive outlook with the majority of scores at 4 one should be cautious of
potential vanity metrics that may unintentionally give a better outlook than what is actually being experienced
(Reis, 2011) and understand the risk of using incorrect metrics, the importance to question the metrics and
pivot to ensure what is being evaluated is current and relevant. For an evaluator to effectively do this they
would need to apply the principles of co-creation, developmental purpose and real-time feedback as noted
earlier.
Technical Learning Framework
A technical learning framework is recommended that is prepared by the group implementing the initiative to
obtain collective agreement on the risks and opportunities or ‘what do we need to pay attention to when care
for children takes off’ and ‘what do we need to learn from the Care for Children initiative’ (Dozois et al., 2010).
Figure 35 is intended to provide structure and direction for learning and focuses the team on producing a set
of learning objectives. Applied during evaluation, Table 18 shows how the learning objectives are further
broken down into specific questions.
Figure 35: Learning Framework for Care for Children, adapted from Dozois et al., (2010) and RADAR (2009)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
67
To facilitate real-time learning, the framework must be a live document that is updated regularly and is not
strictly fixed. Given that Care for Children had not officially commenced, the answers have not been completed
at this stage, and act as an initial set of questions that require development by an evaluator and the group
implementing the initiative.
The technical learning framework is applied at initiative level for the immediate group working to deliver the
initiative as part of the evaluation process. Organizational learning on the other hand which addresses learning
from a wider perspective in order to learn quickly and make decisions regarding future funding is discussed
under Research Objective 3.
Learning Objective
Learning Question
Inspections How effective is the application? What improvements are needed?
We note that the Inspection Application was to enable inspectors to fill up the equivalent of a 20-page paper-based form, which previously took multiple days to complete, in just one day. Can you confirm if these inspections have been completed within 1 day as envisaged?
User Feedback How user friendly is the system? Are there any changes needed to allow the users be more effective?
Implementation Whilst the data flow is much faster, how do the resources at the Ministries cope with the vast amount of increased feedback?
What challenges are there with aggregating data?
Are results of the inspections analysed manually by individual persons and solutions proposed? Or is the software able to aggregate typical problems and automatically assign solutions?
Support With the problems and areas of improvement being identified faster, are the resources able to react equally as quickly and implement improvements straight away?
How can the implementation phase be improved?
Transparency Are there any challenges encountered with being able to guard against undue influences and being able to ensure the vision is not lost with operational issues?
Table 18: Care for Children Learning Objectives and Questions (Dozois et al., 2010)
Care for Children Results Summary
The results provide in depth clarity on the problem to be solved by identifying the ‘key pains’ under the
current paper based inspection system. The product/service offered via the digitised inspection system
indicates that there is a good fit between this and the job to be done and that a strong value proposition
exists. Another assessment should be undertaken after the initiative has been officially launched in January
2017 to see if actual users at a national level are able to utilize the digitized system having been familiar with
the paper based system previously.
Whilst this evaluation is focussed on the digitised inspection application, the success of the ministries ability to
take action for low performing institutions and to verify which children should and should not be kept in the
institutions is dependent on whether the ministry has the resources and capabilities to manage the expected
influx of reports and automatic recommendations from the inspectors.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
68
Initiative 2: MomConnect
MomConnect is an SMS-based maternal reminder program in South Africa to improve access, coverage and
quality of care for pregnant women and their children for one year after the delivery. MomConnect help-desk
allows mothers to send any questions, complains or compliments about the medical service provided which
help improving the health care sector.
Figure 36: MomConnect – How Does it Work? (UNICEF South Africa, 2015)
Value Proposition Analysis
The following value proposition questions were applied to assess if there is a good ‘fit’ between the
customer/beneficiaries problems to be solved and the solution being offered. For MomConnect there are two
main types of beneficiaries. First is the direct beneficiaries ‘Mothers and Children’ and the second beneficiary
group is the Department of Health, ministries and government partners. Accordingly the questions applied to
both different types of beneficiaries and reviewed during the interviewees with UNICEF South Africa team.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
69
The direct customer job questions for mothers and children were as follows.
No. Customer Jobs Trigger Questions Customer Jobs Answers
1 What are the stepping stones that could help your beneficiary achieve this key job?
Improve pregnant women’s feeling about being connected with help-desk that supports them during the pregnancy period and answer their questions and concerns.
Dual communication both through receiving SMS and also through phone calls.
All the official languages are covered within MomConnect help desk.
2 What does your beneficiary need to accomplish that involves interaction
Engagement with the helpline for customer specific questions/concerns.
Investment into helpline response
3 What tasks are your beneficiaries trying to perform? What functional problems are your customers trying to solve?
To gain access to information and help towards challenges during / after their pregnancy.
Allows women to lodge complains whenever they do not find the right treatments or the service at the clinic.
4 What jobs, if completed, would give the user a sense of self-satisfaction?
Address concerns related to nutrition, HIV/AIDs, hypertension, breastfeeding, immunization, mother-child bonding.
Women self-satisfaction through the ability to raise a complaint whenever the service provided is not at the expected level or as per the communicated SMS.
Table 19: Results from Applying Customer Job Questions to MomConnect - Mothers and Children (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010; Strategyzer.com, 2016 and UNICEF Interviews, 2016)
The second customer job questions for the Department of Health and other ministries were as follows.
No. Customer Jobs Trigger Questions Customer Jobs Answers
1 What are the stepping stones that could help your beneficiary achieve this key job?
Proactive steps for the government to support and protect maternal and infant mortality
Two ways of communication between the department of health and the pregnant women.
2 What does your beneficiary need to accomplish that involves interaction
Aggregating queries/answers.
Creating database that supports future decisions.
Investment into helpline response.
Provide feedback to the healthcare service provider about the quality of service.
3 What tasks are your beneficiaries trying to perform? What functional problems are your customers trying to solve?
Reduce the maternal and infant mortality rates.
Increase the awareness of the pregnant and new mothers across the country.
Improve the healthcare service.
4 What jobs, if completed, would give the user a sense of self-satisfaction?
Address concerns related to nutrition, HIV/AIDs, Hypertension, breastfeeding, immunization, mother-child bonding.
Support other organizations to leverage MomConnect technical and practical experience.
Utilize the women feedback to improve the quality of healthcare service.
Table 20: Results from Applying Customer Job Questions to MomConnect - Department of Health and other Ministries (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010; Strategyzer.com, 2016 and UNICEF Interviews, 2016)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
70
The following value proposition questions were applied to understand the exact ‘user gains’ during the interview stage.
No. Gain Creators Trigger Questions Gain Creators Answers
1 Could your products/services….create
savings that please your customers? In
terms of time, money, and effort?
Potentially create cost efficiencies by reducing the burden on emergency care and transportation.
Save women time through communicating the needed information before visiting the clinic which increases the
awareness about potential treatments.
2 Could your products/services... create
positive social consequences?
Reduce the infant and maternal mortality rates.
Create demand for better quality of health services provided to pregnant women.
Increase the awareness of pregnant women about the expected health service.
Transforming the pregnant women to be an active partner in her medical care and pregnancy instead of passive
partner.
Increase peer-to-peer interaction within the pregnant women community through sharing information and
engagement with other pregnant women.
3 Could your products/services fulfil a desire
customers dream about? By helping them
achieve their aspirations or getting relief
from a hardship?
Helps low and medium income customers low cost and easily accessible digital health system.
Creating a community for pregnant woman where she feels always connected and supported 24/7, she can ask
questions and receive answers, in addition receive information throughout her pregnancy.
Support other organisations within the healthcare sectors for future decisions.
4 Could your products/services produce
positive outcomes matching your
customers’ success and failure criteria? In
terms of better performance or lower cost.
Free of charge service for over 1,000,000 users.
Helping women who are vulnerable to health risks and who have no access to information.
Allowing pregnant mothers to ask questions and get quick answers.
Increase the level of pregnant women awareness.
Table 21: Results from Applying Gain Creator Questions to MomConnect - Mother and Children (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010; Strategyzer.com, 2016 and UNICEF Interviews, 2016)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
71
In summary there is evidence of good fit between MomConnect service (including the help-desk) and the
problem to be solved as shown in Table 22 and Figure 37.
Since MomConnect depends on SMS and phone calls as the communication tools which results in cost being
incurred by the beneficiaries and the provider hence, the business model fit has been rated at 4 compared
with the other ratings. It is worth mentioning that with the recent MomConnect Facebook application
launched and the free Wi-Fi availability in some areas in South Africa it is expected that the cost of the service
will be reduced.
No. Type of Fit Fit Rating
1 On Paper: Problem Solution Fit
Evidence that mothers care about the jobs, pains and gains
The help desk addresses the jobs, pains and gains
5
5
2 In The Market: Product-Market Fit
Evidence the sms system, help desk, pain relievers and gain creators actually
create beneficiary value and gaining traction in the market
5
3 Financial: Business Model Fit
Evidence that the value proposition can be financially viable and scalable
4
Ratings 1-5: where 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree, 3 = neither agree or disagree
Table 22: Interview Results - Applying Value Proposition Statements to Strength of ‘Fit’ (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010; Strategyzer.com, 2016)
Figure 37: MomConnect Value Proposition Fit (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010; Strategyzer.com, 2016)
Digital Healthcare
Personal SMS reminders sent to mothers for testing, check-ups, medication
Detailed advice and appointments for HIV
Free SMS service means each household has access to the service
High Infant and Maternal Mortality Rate High proportion of mortalities are avoidable
Must prevent HIV transmission, mother- baby
Low-middle income households, most vulnerable
Access to information
Helpdesk service engaging with customers to specific queries
Automated code written to aggregate queries for faster, efficient Communi -cation
Nutrition, AIDS/HIV, Hypertension, Breastfeeding….
Deliver targeted personalized messages
Expand area of advice
Potentially create cost efficiencies by reducing the burden on emergency care and transportation
Receiving queries allows helpdesk to understand
the highest concerns
help-desk interaction improves engagement,
promotes new users
Reduce mortality rates
Cater for other high risk issues: gestational diabetes, anaemia and hypertension and is being extended up to a child’s fifth birthday
Free, accessible, easy to use digital
SMS service
reach target
audience
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
72
Paulson et al. (2007) Analysis
Whereas the value proposition analysis is more focused on evaluating the value from the customer
perspective, the Paulson et al. (2007) tool is used to evaluate the overall value of the initiative and portfolio.
More details and analysis of the tool is covered in the findings presented under Research Objective 2.
The Paulson et al. (2007) evaluation framework applied to MomConnect and the aggregated scoring
percentage of this analysis is presented in Figure 38 below. In addition, the detailed results and analysis is
presented in Appendix 7.
Figure 38: Paulson et al. (2007) framework aggregated results for MomConnect
The rating of the questions was based on the information and data collected, as well as the conducted
interviews with the UNICEF team. Table 23 presents samples of the questions applied. While the majority of
the questions present high scoring, some questions are rated lower with justification.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
73
Section 2: Potential impact on accelerating results for the International Child Rights and Welfare Market
1-5
2.1 The initiative has significant market opportunity and relevance across geographic locations (with UNICEF programs).
5
2.3 The initiative involves collaboration and engagement within the wider community/ecosystem. 5
Section 3: Initiatives Impact on UIF's Growth, Renewal & Secondary benefits 1-5
3.1 The new initiative will promote a sustainable pipeline of innovation oriented initiatives, either through the area of technology it focuses on, or the external leads developed, etc.
5
3.2 This initiative has engendered large numbers of potential applications and options for potential applications.
5
3.4 & 3.5 This initiative is requiring the team to develop/ leverage internal and external networks. 4
3.6 The initiative contributes significantly to key secondary benefits (e.g. exposure to new market partners/development of ecosystem, organisational learning, new capabilities, new technology frontiers, new business models etc.)
4
3.7 There are no insurmountable barriers that users will face in accessing the product/service. 3
3.8 The Project utilises GIC/UIF expertise. 5
3.11 The initiative makes a viable business case for private sector application. 5
Section 4: Sustainability 1-5
4.2 Initiative sustainability is enhanced given its fit within the portfolio and its linkages with the ecosystem and the system of support provided by the UIF.
4
4.3 Both the initiative team and the company sponsored observe good governance and sound financial practices, particularly with regard to budgeting, reporting and monitoring.
3
4.4 The initiative leverages economies of scale/scope. 5
4.5 Sustainability is supported given the viability and affordability of the product/service being developed.
4
Section 5: Scalability 1-5
5.3 The initiative rates highly in terms of readiness or quick wins e.g. the solution can be tested by users on a limited scale, without requiring complete adoption.
5
5.5 The solution is designed in such a way that its core components could be easily replicated, with contextualized tailoring only needed for limited aspects of the program.
5
5.6 The solution is low in complexity. 2
Section 9: UIF Capabilities for this Initiative 1-5
9.1 Executive support is strong for this initiative. 5
9.2 We have the resources within UIF to accomplish the next steps necessary for this initiative. 5
Section 10: Financial Indicators of Value Creation 1-5
10.1 The initiative provides a cost effective solution, when addressing the problem / need (e.g. reduces the costs of implementation).
5
10.3 The initiative is attracting external attention which encourages additional investment in the fund.
3
10.5 The initiative encourages efficient use of resources (value for money). 5
10.7 Both the initiative team and the company sponsored observe good governance and sound financial practices, particularly with regard to budgeting, reporting and monitoring.
4
10.8 The cost estimates are realistic based on local context and competitive prices/rates. 5
Ratings 1-5: where 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree, 3 = neither agree or disagree
Table 23: MomConnect and Paulson et al. (2007) Framework Extract
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
74
Technical Learning Framework
A technical learning framework is also recommended to be prepared by the group working on MomConnect
which will support the continuous improvement of the service and the potential implementation in other
countries. Figure 39 is intended to provide structure and direction for learning and focuses the team on
producing a set of learning objectives.
Figure 39: Learning Framework for MomConnect, adapted from Dozois et al., (2010) and RADAR (2009)
The learning objectives are further analysed and discussed during the interviewees with the UNICEF Innovation
Fund team. Table 24 shows an initial set of questions and points that requires further development and
analysis by the evaluators and the team involved in the implementation while developing the framework.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
75
Learning Objective
Learning Question
User Feedback Can we create more cost effective solution either via Whatsapp, messenger, Facebook that can avoid the SMS and phone calls costs?
Do we need to further streamline the registration process?
Are the current automatic responses to typical questions efficient and have positive feedback?
How the SMS can have embedded links that can provide more information and links to other sources of information?
Utilisation of Data
Can the current help-desk system link the electronic medical records with the provided service?
With the data collected through the Help-desk (such as number of active users, geographic coverage, timing of registration, reason for contacting the help desk, etc.) Can we better utilize this information to provide better quality or other services?
Implementation How can we improve the management function and decision making process?
How can we improve the communication process between all engaged parties?
Are there sufficient resources to help the transition and the continuous improvement of the new helpdesk?
Do we have enough resources to support the implementation of this initiative in other countries?
Collaboration Dynamics
Are there any group collaboration challenges observed between the innovation team and those implementing the application? How can we overcome such challenges?
Integrity and Momentum
Are there any challenges encountered with being able to guard against undue influences and being able to ensure the vision is not lost with operational issues?
Table 24: MomConnect Learning Objectives and Questions (Dozois et al., 2010)
MomConnect Results Summary
The applied frameworks have provided clarity on the ‘job to be done’ for both types of beneficiaries. The
service offered via MomConnect and the Help-desk indicates that there is a good fit and existence of a strong
value proposition.
Since MomConnect passed through different phases of implementation and continuous improvement, it is
essential to document the team experience and combine all types of documentation, information and process
related to this initiative in one full document, which will facilitate the learning process. In addition, the above
mentioned learning framework must be live and updated regularly with all components related to the
implementation, provided service and help-desk which will support the implementation of such initiatives in
other countries.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
76
4.3 Objective 2: Evaluation of UNICEF Innovation Fund Portfolio
This section provides an overview of the findings in relation to the papers second research objective as follows; ‘research suitable frameworks to evaluate the UNICEF
Innovation Fund as a portfolio and demonstrate the potential value of the Fund considering the majority of initiatives are expected to fail’. The UNICEF Innovation Fund
has raised $11.2 million to date with investment focusing on initiatives categorised by three portfolio ‘areas’ as illustrated below.
Figure 40: UNICEF Innovation Fund Portfolio Dashboard; three portfolio areas (UNICEF, 2016j)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
77
Internal UNICEF country office initiatives make up 26 of the 31 investments seeded to date. The remaining 5
investments represent the UNICEF Innovation Funds first private sector initiatives, seeded in November 2016.
It is planned to seed an additional 20-40 private sector initiatives in 2017 (UNICEF, 2016k). A description of all
current investments can be found in Appendix 7.
Current Investments Area Past Investments Area
1 IPAL, Information Technology University (New) SO: Nutrition/Health/HIV&AIDS
RTI 14 U-Report, Mexico PFY
2 9Needs (New) SO: Health/HIV AIDS/ Nutrition/Education/Child Protection/Social Inclusion
Infra 15 U-Report, Burundi PFY
3 SayCel (New) SO: Health/HIV AIDS/Nutrition /Education/Child Protection/Social Inclusion/WASH
Infra 16 U-Report Chile PFY
4 mPower (New) SO: Nutrition/Health/AIDS/WASH
RTI 17 U-Report, Global PFY
5 Somleng Chatterbox (New) SO: Education
RTI 18 U-Report Papua New Guinea
PFY
6 Better Teachers, Better Learners, Maldives SO: Education
PFY 19 MomConnect, South Africa RTI
7 Thaetorm Koma "Care for Children" SO: Child Protection
PFY 20 MomConnect, Uganda RTI
8 U-Report Brazil Advocacy Project SO: Social Inclusion
PFY 21 Internet of Good Things Infra
9 U-Report Burkina Faso SO: Nutrition/Health/HIV&AIDS
PFY 22 Start-up Myanmar PFY
10 U-Report Fiji SO: Health/Child Protection/Social Inclusion
PFY 23 Point of care Diagnostics PFY
11 U-Report Guatemala SO: Child Protection
PFY 24 Innovation lab PFY
12 U-Report App SO: Child Protection/Education/Health
PFY 25 Academic challenge PFY
13 MApp 4 VAC Reporting Strategic Outcomes: Child Protection
RTI 26 Vojo PFY
LEG
END
Blue = Private Start-ups Products for Youth (PFY) Portfolio Area
27 Yuudee App for Children PFY
Green = Current investments Real Time Information (RTI) Portfolio Area
28 RapidPro Immunization RTI
Off White = Past investments Infrastructure (Infra) Portfolio Area
29 RapidPro Global RTI
Strategic Outcomes: SO 30 EUM's (Global)
RTI
Past Investments: Past initiatives are no longer considered for further funding /support by UIF, hence they will not be considered in this evaluation. They do however continue to receive support from other avenues e.g. UNICEF Scale.
31 Learning Labs
PFY
Figure 41: UNICEF Innovation Fund Portfolio of Investments in Applicants from UNICEF Country Offices and Private Sector Companies (UNICEF ,2016j; UNICEF , 2016l)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
78
Returns and Potential Value
A key objective in Project Portfolio Management (PPM) is to maximize value, with resource allocation requiring
clear judgement of value across multiple perspectives, noting the subjectivity of value (Ang et al., 2007).
‘Evaluative Rubrics' offer a way to provide a structure and methodology to the evaluation process. A rubric
matrix describes different performance levels developed for each initiative, setting out the basis for making
evaluative judgments and enabling a shared understanding of what matters and of 'what good looks like' (King
et al., 2013). The aims and use of rubrics in evaluative design and in making evaluative judgements are
illustrated below.
The aims of evaluative rubrics
Transparently sets out the basis for making evaluative judgments
Provide a means for reaching a shared understanding of what matters, and what ‘good’ looks like
Help us to integrate expectations, policy, strategy and evidence about what good looks like
Provide a basis for integrating multiple data sources to reach holistic evaluative judgments
Keep evaluation focused on the things that matter
Figure 42: Using Rubrics in Evaluation Design and in Making Evaluative Judgments (King et al. 2013)
Davidson (2005) asserts that the relative importance of evaluative criteria can be derived from a number of
strategies as outlined in the table below. Interviews revealed that such judgements for 'MomConnect' and
'Care for Children' are primarily derived from the knowledge of selected stakeholders (bottom-up).
Rubrics
Whatwould• “excellent”• “verygood”• “good”• “adequate”• “inadequate”• “poor”looklike?
Newdatawecollect
Exis ngdata
Policy
Strategy
Evidence
Expecta ons
• Interviews• Focusgroups• Survey• Milestonereports• Programmedata• etc
Ar cula ngshared
understanding
Surfacingvalues Determinedataneeds
Determine data needs &
analysis
Clear overall evaluative judgement
Sense making
Articulating shared understanding
Surfacing Values
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
79
Strategy Advantages and Disadvantages
Stakeholders can vote Inclusive and democratic but assumes stakeholders are all well informed.
Can draw on knowledge from selected stakeholders
Combines stakeholder and evaluator expertise but requires careful justification.
Use evidence from the literature Avoids reinventing the wheel and is a good supplement to stakeholder input, but requires good knowledge of the literature
Use specialist judgement (expert panels)
Quicker than a literature search but may reflect the prevailing expert view.
Use evidence from needs and values assessments
Provides independently verifiable evidence of importance but works only for criteria with that evidence.
Use programme theory and evidence of causal linkages
Provides independently verifiable evidence of importance but may be difficult to explain to stakeholders and or use in a participatory mode.
Table 25: Summary of Strategies that can be used for Deriving the Importance of Evaluative Criteria (Adapted from Davidson, 2005)
The literature review as well as subsequent interviews suggests a key challenge of portfolio evaluation is the
tension between the requirement for individualised (bottom-up) evaluative criteria and measurement metrics
at project level (such as those identified for 'MomConnect' and 'care for children') versus standardised criteria
and metrics (top-down) which enable aggregated evaluation of the collective impact at portfolio level (IDIA,
2016; Mathews, 2011; Cooper, 2009; Paulson et al., 2007).
UNICEF Innovation Fund currently measure real time growth in the user base, number of commits and
interactions on a project (UNICEF, 2016 j) in its evolutionary phase of development. Ries (2011) warns against
using gross or 'vanity' metrics, where these types of metrics provide little understanding of true performance
and sustainability. For example as one interviewee put it ‘if only 20% of women are using U-Report, we need
to know the why … we need to dig into the qualitative data to understand’. Another interviewee asserts that
‘real time data tells you what the pattern is, it doesn’t tell you what the pattern means and what to do about
it’ whereas ‘timely data’ is about ‘gathering additional data from users and doing case studies of applications
on the feedback’. Ries (2011) argues that actionable metrics should be developed, as explained further under
Research Objective 3 findings and Appendix 9.
The IDIA's 'Measuring Impact Working Group' identified ‘Leading’ indicators as those used to predict the
expected and projected impact of innovations that have completed the initial ‘Proof of Concept’ stage, before
‘Transition to Scale' (IDIA, 2016) and are therefore more relevant for the UNICEF Innovation Fund given the
stage at which it seeds initiatives. ‘Outcome’ indicators are used to measure the actual and projected impact
of an innovation during ‘Transition to Scale’, ‘Scale’ and beyond (IDIA, 2016). One recommendation is that
successful initiatives are tracked into scale and beyond in order to demonstrate the actual value created
through measurement with 'outcome indicators'. The deployment of 'leading' and 'outcome' indicators across
the three innovation stages is illustrated below.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
80
Figure 43: The deployment of 'leading' and 'outcome' indicators across the four scaling stages (IDIA, 2016)
Interview Findings
This section provides an overview of the interview findings in relation to this papers second objective. The
findings inherently come from the semi-structured Interviews conducted as well as any additional material
shared during the course of the interviews. Table 41 in Appendix 8 provides a synopsis of some of the key
findings, shared by informants.
The findings illustrate the complex nature of demonstrating the value of innovation oriented investments
particularly at portfolio level in international development, highlighting importantly the dos’ and don’ts when
designing a framework to evaluate the Fund.
Overall, there was broad consensus on what constitutes ‘real return’ in international developmental, with
agreement that the long term focus should be about ‘lives improved’. Key to any assessment of value requires
an ability to measure performance outcomes, and in this respect, interviewees were concerned by the lack of
evidence based measures to support the value generated by initiatives in international developmental.
Interviewees shared concerns on how performance for individual initiatives should then be aggregated to
reflect the performance of the portfolio as a whole, noting that ‘at the top level not all innovations are going to
have the same metric’. Other key points raised by interviewees include the importance of establishing a
common language (i.e. definitions), ensuring the process of evaluation is seamless when initiatives transition
from proof of concept into scale, the sometimes-unhealthy obsession with metrics, the timely reporting of
data and that much of the rich content resides in qualitative data providing deeper insight into issues, whilst
with regard to real time data we sometimes fail to see what is emergent.
UIF
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
81
One evaluation specialist interviewed asserts that a portfolio’s performance, especially an innovation fund, is
reflected in its diversity and warned against standardised metrics advising that the development of any
evaluation tool must be adaptable to individual initiatives. This interviewee sees the evaluation process as a
more reflective practice and notes ‘what we want with most interventions in complex adaptive systems is
they’re adaptive, but you keep doing the same thing over and over again.’ It is crucial that evaluation should
not discourage experimentation and UNICEF Ventures emphasised that a rigorous evaluation approach for
early initiatives was not required. However the importance of getting the selection, prioritisation, balance and
diversity right remains.
In summary, the difficulty of evaluating a portfolio of innovation initiatives especially in international
development, in addition to the inadequacy of traditional evaluation approaches suggest that integrated
approaches are more suitable as explained in the findings presented in Research Objective 1. Quantitative data
facilitates easier comparison between innovations but it may not provide the full picture of an initiative or
portfolio's impact (IDIA, 2016). Paulson et al.'s (2007) portfolio evaluation tool was developed to enable
innovation hub managers assess the relative values of initiatives within the context of the entire innovation
portfolio at any point in time, and to track changes in the relative value of the portfolio over time (Paulson et
al., 2007).
Complimenting Paulson et al.’s (2007) portfolio evaluation tool, Day’s Innovation Risk Matrix (2007) enables
fund managers to assess the diversity of their portfolios in terms of the funds familiarity with its intended
market as well as its familiarity with the technology it has invested in. The following section highlights the
practicalities and usefulness of both Paulson et al.’s (2007) portfolio evaluation tool, and Day’s Innovation Risk
Matrix (2007).
Paulson et al., (2007) Portfolio Evaluation Tool
The original tool was based on evaluative questions comprising 7 'drivers of valuation' categories. Three
further categories were added based on the IDIA's 'Measuring Impact Working Group's' identification of
'Impact on Beneficiaries’, 'Scalability' and 'Sustainability' as the 3 core concepts in M&E of innovation. A
'financial indicator of value' section was also added. The evaluative questions within each valuation category
were adapted/new questions introduced to serve the context of the UNICEF Innovation Fund. Weightings were
added to emphasise the importance of some sections as recommended by an evaluation specialist. The
sources of the adaption's are as presented in Table 26.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
82
No. Source Description
1 UNICEF Selection and Assessment Scoring Criteria for REOI & RFP stages (UNICEF, 2016m)
2 UNICEF Innovation Funds expected returns and UNICEF's innovation Principles
3 PDMA tool book for new product development (Koen, 2004)
4 Portfolio Management for New Products: Picking The Winners (Cooper and Edgett, 2014)
5 UNICEF IoGT Log frame (UNICEF, 2016o) & U-Report Log frame (UNICEF, 2016p)
6 Interview findings
7 Towards a Shared Impact Measurement Framework for Innovation (IDIA, 2016)
8 UNICEF GIC Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Framework (UNICEF, 2016n)
Table 26: Sources of information for the adaptation of Paulson, et al. (2007) Evaluative Tool
Given the early stage at which UNICEF Innovation Fund invests, the tool mostly comprises of ‘Leading’
indicators which are more dependent on predictive modelling and a chain of interconnected assumptions
(IDIA, 2016) and in line with a recommendation from the IDIA, the tool attempts to include both a measure of
collective impact aggregated from across a portfolio of innovations, as well as indicators for a funder’s return
on investment and measures of how efficient that innovation initiative might be in delivering impact. The
'relevance' option creates a menu option (as suggested by one evaluation specialist) whereby the evaluator
can choose which questions are applicable to a particular initiative thus providing customisation as well as
aggregation.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
83
The tool helps articulate the portfolios contribution to value creation, growth strategy and assists in innovation strategy development (Paulson et al., 2007). Sections 1 to
10 were completed for each of UNICEF Innovation Funds current investments generating an index score as illustrated below in examples taken from section 2 and section 5
of the completed tool. The application of the completed tool along with the 'Framework Methodology' is explained further in Appendix 7.
Section 2
II
Potential impact on accelerating results for the International Child
Rights and Welfare Market: The extent to which this initiative is
likely to have a significant impact in bringing wholly new benefits or
significant leaps in known benefits to the market
Weighting 0.06Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
2.1The initiative has significant market opportunity and relevance
across geographic locations (with UNICEF programs).1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 5
2.2
Initiative data could be used to inform policy and
programmes/solution could improves accountability of
governments and other providers of lifesaving services.
1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 0 1 5
2.3The initiative involves collaboration and engagement within the
wider community/ecosystem. 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4
2.4Value chain members are enthusiastic concerning the potential
applications of this initiative.0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 1 3 1 4
2.5
This initiative solves a problem which is poorly addressed at this
time in the market and wider ecosystem (e.g. currently not
addressed by initiatives in the Global Innovation Exchange &
Innovation award repository).
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 4
2.6This initiative could offer a solution to an impending regulatory
threat.0 - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 0 -
Total Value 14 14 14 14 14 14 22
Maximum Potential Value 20 20 20 20 20 20 25
Initiative Aggregate/Potential impact on the market
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
71.84% 66.7 70.0 66.7 70.0 66.7 70.0 66.7 70.0 66.7 70.0 66.7 70.0 83.3 88.0
Figure 44: Portfolio Evaluation tool Section 2:Potential impact on the market (Adapted by the authors from Paulson et al., 2007)
U-REPORT
Fiji
U-Report
Burkina Faso
U-Report
App
Care for
Children
MomCon-
nect
(South
Africa)
Response Per Individual Initiative (Initiatives 1 to 7)
U-Report
Guatemala
U-Report
Brazil
Advocacy
Project
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
84
Section 5
VScalability: Potential for application at national &
international/global scale
Weighting 0.15
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0,
1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0,
1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
5.1 The initiative has a viable Business model1 4
1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3
5.2
An appropriate vision of scale can be developed for alternative
applications/other locations (replication of business model in
different geographies)
1 3 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3
5.3
The initiative rates highly in terms of readiness or quick wins e.g.
the solution can be tested by users on a limited scale, without
requiring complete adoption.
1 3 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 3
5.4 The solution is able to use existing infrastructure and/or facilities. 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3
5.5
The solution is designed in such a way that its core components
could be easily replicated, with contextualized tailoring only
needed for limited aspects of the program.
1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
5.6 The solution is low in complexity 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 4
5.7 The initiative is designed to reach a large number of people. 1 3 1 5 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3
5.8The initiative is cost effective to enable integration into
government or other large-scale programmes.1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
5.9 Expected demand / market readiness is high 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
33 36 34 34 34 31 30Maximum Potential Value 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
Initiative Aggregate / Scalability
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Driver
s
Import
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import
% of
Max
Value
75.89% 100.0 73.3 100.0 80.0 100.0 75.6 100.0 75.6 100.0 75.6 100.0 68.9 100.0 66.7
Figure 45: Portfolio Evaluation tool Section 5: Scalability (Adapted by the authors from Paulson et al., 2007)
Response Per Individual Initiative (initiatives 8 to 14)Better
Teachers,
Better
MAPP VAC9Needs Mpower SomlengSaycel IPAL
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
85
It is the intent for the framework that each section is completed by the project manager in collaboration with the portfolio manager. The outcome is a snapshot in time of
the relative performance profile of each initiative aggregated across the 10 value drivers as shown below.
Figure 46: Portfolio of Initiatives Performance Profile Aggregated Across Sections 1 to 10 (Adapted by the authors from Paulson et al., 2007)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
86
An aggregated performance profile is also generated for each value driver as shown in below. In this application 'sustainability', 'scalability' and 'Firm Capabilities' score
well (low-mid 70's), whereas 'projects impact on company renewal' scored low-mid 60's. The subjective and assumptive nature of application due to the time and
proximity limitations of this research project is noted however the framework represents the most comprehensive approach uncovered by the authors following, desk
based reseach, literature review, interviews with key informants and key informant documents.
Figure 47: Aggregated Initiative Performance Profile (Sections 1 - 10) (Adapted by the authors from Paulson et al., 2007)
Answering the questions takes time and effort but the information generated is perhaps the most powerful result of the process according to Paulson et al. (2007) and this
can make a valuable contribution to the feedback and learning process. Improvement in the relative value of the portfolio is expected as the fund matures. Tracking the
changes will demonstrate increased value (or lack thereof), for example more innovative/novel initiatives should emerge as the Fund gains more exposure to the
innovation ecosystem. The portfolio manager completes section 11 'Overall Portfolio Health', which in this application scores quite well with 73% as illustrated in figure 49
below.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
87
Presently the Fund could be better balanced in terms of portfolio areas addressed and internal/external sourcing of initiatives but considering it is in the start-up
evolutionary phase of development such issues are to be expected. The diversity and pooled funding efficiencies are expected to grow with the Fund as it evolves over
time. As noted above, it is recommended that successful initiatives are tracked into scale and beyond in order to demonstrate actual value created using outcome
indicators. For example, the ‘3E Value for Money (VfM) Concept’ which is based on economy, efficiency and effectiveness (Diamond, 2005), where the measurement of
effectiveness extends towards outcomes and impacts, and approaches such as SROI and Social Cost benefit analysis (CBA) could be considered.
Figure 48: UNICEF Innovation Fund Portfolio Health Profile
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
88
Section 11XI Portfolio Health
Relevance
(0, 1)
Value Level
(1-5)
11.1
With the current mix of initiatives, the fund continues to maintain a strong
consensus and clear focus on the strategic direction of the portfolio and its
overall objectives (inc. target domains and competencies to developed).
1 7
11.2The mix of initiatives within the portfolio continues to reflect the current political,
economic, social, technological, environmental & legal environment (climate). 1 7
11.3UIF innovation initiatives form the basis of a continuing pipeline of potential
significant contributions to the greater UNICEF mission. 1 7
11.4The portfolio demonstrates UIF's growing sphere of influence when compared to
addressing the needs of its constituents by more traditional means.1 8
11.5
The portfolio of initiatives is well-diversified with respect to UIF portfolio areas 1.
Products for youth under 25 2. Real‐time information for decision making 3.
Infrastructure to increase access to services and information.
1 6
11.6The portfolio of initiatives is well-diversified with respect to contribution to
expected returns, namely; Growth, IP Stack, Communities.1 8
11.7The portfolio of initiatives is well-diversified with respect to internally sourced
(country offices) & externally sourced innovations. 1 6
11.8 At least 10% of the initiatives demonstrate enough potential value to be scaled
up with the aim of achieving impact. 1 8
11.9 The ‘churn rate’ of initiatives in the portfolio is appropriate. 1 7
11.10UNICEF Innovation Funds portfolio of initiatives is sufficiently diverse in terms of
key secondary benefits that UIF are trying to develop. 1 7
11.11 UIF have not spread resources too thin across too many initiatives in this portfolio. 1 7
11.13
Portfolio enables easy identification of initiatives considered low in value (which
in all likelihood will inhibit the growth of the funds outputs/outcomes) when
assessed against other initiatives within the fund.
1 8
11.14The initiatives in this portfolio are benefiting from synergistic effects on one
another.1 8
11.15 initiatives continue to transition to scale in a timely manner. 1 7
11.16
The portfolio of initiatives continues to be supported by a governance structure
which avoids waste and duplication, permitted by efficient allocation of
resources, and cost economies achieved through scope and scale.1 8
11.17Cross collaboration across initiative teams at portfolio level is enhanced,
enhancing portfolio (fund) efficiencies?1 7
Total Value 62
Maximum Potential Value 85
% of
Drivers
Important
% of Max
Value
Portfolio Health total 100.0 72.9
ResponsePortfolio
Figure 49: Section 11: Portfolio health (Adapted by the authors from Paulson, et al., 2007)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
89
Day (2007) Risk Matrix
As a company shifts from incremental to growth oriented projects, organisation's assume greater
levels of risk especially as it moves towards unfamiliar markets, with even more unfamiliar products
/technology, changing the risk/reward relationship of the portfolio. Optimising the risk return trade-
off will necessitate a balanced approach to project investment ensuring organisations ‘…distribute
innovations more evenly across a spectrum of risk’ (Day, 2007).
Day’s risk matrix provides a useful methodology for assessing a portfolio’s diversity in terms of the
risk profile assumed for innovation projects in international development, by adopting a ‘…unique
scoring system and calibration of risk to help estimate the probability of success or failure for each
project based on [the organisation's familiarity around its] intended market (x axis) and the product
or technology (y axis)…’ (Day, 2007).
Analysis presented in Figures 50, Table 27 and Appendix 7 suggests that the innovation portfolio is
currently clustered around more adjacent technology, with less incremental and few
transformational initiatives. The Portfolio is currently aligned with the Funds stage of evolution and
with the Horizon 2 medium term focus. Progression towards a more risky transformational mix is
expected as more start-ups are seeded.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
90
Figure 50: UNICEF’s Innovation Risk Matrix – Diversity of its Profile.
9Needs
Care for children
Somleng Chatterbox
U-Report App
U-Report - Brazil Advocacy Group
Saycel
IPAL
U-Report - Guatemala
U-Report - Burkina Faso
Mom Connect
Better Teachers
U-Report - Fiji
Mapp 4 VAC Reporting
mPower
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Pro
du
ct /
Te
chn
olo
gy
Intended Market
UNICEF Innovation Risk Matrix
50% - 60% Relative Risk
60% - 75% Relative Risk
75% - 100% Relative Risk
40% - 50% Relative Risk
25% - 40% Relative Risk
New to company
Adjacent to current offerings
Same as current offerings
Same as present Adjacent to present New to company
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
91
Initiative Brief introduction to the initiative. Familiarity with Intended Market Familiarity with Product/Technology
9Needs (South
Africa) (New)
Initiative improves Early Childhood
Development services in South Africa using
blockchain infrastructure and smart contracts.
9Needs has prototyped a system which
strengthens current registration, contracting,
information and management systems.
This initiative is being launched for the first time
in a new market. Distribution and uptake rates
are unknown with little information on which to
base an estimate.
Intended Market Risk is considered HIGH.
The technology is new to the company, with
block chain being introduced for the first time.
Product/Technology risk is considered HIGH.
Somleng
Chatterbox
(Cambodia)
(New)
An efficient and low cost Interactive Voice
Response (IVR) and SMS platform, to be
integrated into the RapidPro platform to extend
its reach to communities with low literacy
levels.
Will complement the existing RapidPro
technology operating in the same market.
Intended Market Risk is considered MODERATE.
The IVR technology is relatively new to the
market, and acceptance/uptake has yet to be
proven.
Product/Technology risk is considered HIGH.
SayCel
(Nicaragua)
(New)
Improve low-cost open source GSM
communications suite used to run cellular
networks in rural regions by installing low-cost
technology & training local governments and to
maintain their own networks.
Initiative extends mobile cellular coverage to
less densely populated rural regions.
Relationship with stakeholders key. New
initiative in the market.
Intended Market Risk is considered HIGH.
Product technology is new to the organization,
suggesting greater degree of reliance may be
placed on vendor partners.
Product/Technology risk is considered HIGH.
Innovations
for Poverty
Alleviation Lab
(IPAL)
(Pakistan)
(New)
IPAL have developed an interactive voice
response (IVR) system that serves as a maternal
care hotline. Aims to provide fathers with
access to medical advice and guidance in
accessible formats.
Initiative aligns well within the real-time
information portfolio and UIF's intended market
Intended Market Risk is considered MODERATE.
Product is relatively new, and as a form of
engagement, some overlap with existing
products is evident.
Product/Technology risk is considered HIGH.
mPower
(Bangladesh)
(New)
Open Smart Register Platform (OSRP), an
integrated digital registry platform that seeks to
improve data collection and efficiency for
frontline workers providing reproductive,
maternal, new born and child services.
New market initiative. Initiative aligns well
within the real-time information portfolio and
UIF's intended market
Intended Market Risk is considered MODERATE.
Product/Technology sits well within the
organisation's domain.
Product/Tech risk is considered MODERATE.
Table 27: Analysis Supporting Innovation Risk Matrix - Portfolio (Current) including First External Investments (UNICEF ,2016J; UNICEF , 2016L)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
92
4.4 Research Objective 3: Investigation into Potential Secondary Benefits
Interview Results
Potential secondary benefits of the UNICEF Innovation Fund identified for further investigation were based on
Canales et al. (2014) ‘secondary effects scorecard’. This was then expanded to include potential benefits
identified by UNIECF Ventures in initial exploratory interviews. The expanded list was converted into a
standard interview question which was asked to all key informants with knowledge of the Fund as follows.
Potential Secondary Benefits Investigated
Objective 3: Secondary Effects
1. Below is a list of potential secondary benefits from cultivating and encouraging innovation
through UNICEF Innovation Fund:
(i) Organisational learning (often through failure)
(ii) Making the organisation ready for change
(iii) Inspiring staff and attracting new types of talent
(iv) Creating a sustainable network of long term relationships even after completion
(v) External mimicry
(vi) Creating new business models
(vii) Building capabilities
(viii) Driving organisation goodwill (i.e. new funders/allies)
a. Have you observed any of the above in relation to UNICEF Innovation Fund or UNICEF
Ventures?
b. Are there any secondary benefits that you have observed from catalysing innovation
that is not listed?
Table 28: Typical Extract from Semi Structured Interview Guide: Potential Secondary Benefits Question
The replies to question ‘a’ above were aggregated into percentages of interviewees returning positive
responses on each of the eight potential secondary benefits. Organisational learning (often through failure)
was the most noted benefit with 90% of interviewees returning positive responses. Creating a sustainable
network of long term relationships and driving organisational goodwill were the second most noted with 80%
positive response. Inspiring staff and attracting new talent, creating new business models and building
capabilities was the third most noted benefit with 70%. Making the organisation ready for change with 60%
and external mimicry with 50% completed the list. A summary of the findings is illustrated below.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
93
Figure 51: Secondary Benefits Experienced by Interviewees (UNICEF Interviews, 2016)
Organisational Learning
(often through Failure)
Making the Organisation Ready
for Change
Inspiring Staff and Attracting New Types
of Talent
Creating a Sustainable Network
of Long Term Relationships even after Completion
External Mimicry Creating New
Business Models Building Capabilities
Driving Organisation Goodwill (i.e. new
funders/allies)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
% Observed 90 60 70 80 50 70 70 80
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
% O
bse
rve
d
Secondary Benefits
Secondary Benefits Observed/Experienced by Interviewees
90
70
80
70
50
80
70
60
1 4 3 2 5 2 3 3
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
94
Organisational Learning (Often Through Failure)
Organisational learning was the most noted secondary benefit from interviewees with 90% returning positive
observations and some informants asserting that it is a primary benefit of UNICEF Innovation Fund.
Organisational Learning: Key Interview Observations
90% Positive Response
‘I would move organisational learning and inspiring staff in particular to a primary benefit...’
‘...we’ve often talked about the importance in innovation of failing fast, but... a new iteration of that is
actually failing smart and that captures the learning element… really understanding what it was that didn’t
work, what influence your own organisation may have played in that process in particular. Because
organisation's can make it pretty systematically difficult to scale innovation effectively just by virtue of the
way they are set up, and the culture and the risk appetite.’
‘…there was a lot of learning... we did fail several, several times, we had to redesign... we had to find our
way working creatively with the government and our partners... and all of that was a huge benefit because
the national scale up was able to be done... learning from those lessons they didn’t have to go through the
same thing again... so that definitely was a plus’
‘Organisational learning, absolutely captured because we are going to be failing a lot....’
Figure 52: Organisational Learning Interview Observations (UNICEF Interviews, 2016)
Despite the high observation rate the opposite was true for interviewees asked if a systematic mechanism was
in place to track those learning benefits along with other secondary benefits. Lerner (2013) argues that, if
corporate venturing programs are to succeed, organisation's need to invest in learning and harvest knowledge
from start-ups.
Ries (2011) posits that the most vital function of organization building under conditions of extreme uncertainty
is validated learning, a rigorous method for demonstrating progress empirically, uncovering valuable truths
about present and future prospects. Ries, argues that any efforts in early stage ventures which do not
contribute to learning are waste.
The mandatory requirement of UNICEF Innovation Fund that real time data must be provided by investees
offers data for systematic validated learning. Figuring out the right solutions to build is ‘true start-up
productivity and seeks to avoid building products that customers do not want’ (Ries, 2011). This approach
combined with corporate venturing has the potential to accelerate the development of such solutions through
the UNICEF Innovation Fund and internalise the learning benefits. A proposed framework for managing the
new start-ups through the iterative learning process based on the Lean Start-up model is illustrated below and
further information is contained in Appendix 9.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
95
Figure 53: Build-Measure-Learn Feedback Loop and UNICEF Innovation Fund (Adapted from Ries, 2011, See also Appendix 9)
Ideas with Proof of
Concept & Assumptions
Build
Open Source Products / Solutions
(MVP)
Measure Using Actionable
Metrics
Real Time Data
(from actual customers)
Learn Validated Learning
Avoiding Waste
Value Creation Hypothesis Growth Hypothesis
Start-up Leap-of-Faith Assumptions (quantitative predictions)
Must be able
to measure
MVP Impact
Are you making your
product better?
How do you know?
How do you know that
the changes made to
MVP are related to the
results we’re seeing?
How do we know
we are drawing the
right lessons from
those changes?
Start building as quickly as possible to start the
learning cycle (launch early and iterate)
Innovation Accounting
Learning Milestone 1
Build 1st
MVP
Innovation Accounting
Learning Milestone 2
Tune the Engine
from Baseline to Ideal
(Iterations, micro changes
& optimisations)
Innovation Accounting
Learning Milestone 3
Pivot of Persevere Decision
Test Assumptions & Fundamental Business Hypothesis Systematically and Rigorously through iterations of a Minimal
Viable Product (MVP) targeting early adopters whilst maintaining long term Vision. Additional features beyond what
early adopters demand and beyond what is required to start learning are not incorporated to avoid wasted resources
and time (avoiding expense and time to build a complete product only to find that nobody wants it).
Innovation Accounting used to quantitatively establish whether the ‘engine-tuning efforts’ are adding value through
the evaluation of learning milestones; Allows UNICEF Ventures establish if failures are because the start-up learned
something critical or due to value destroying reasons; Differentiate true value creating ventures from value destroying
ventures; Based on Quantitative Financial Model / Value Creation Model to be evaluated rigorously.
Goal: Full Turn of Build-Measure-Learn Loop with Minimum Effort and in the Least Amount of Time.
UNICEF Innovation Fund VC Selection Criteria Filters Initiatives with greatest potential to be seed funded
UNICEF Office of Innovation Decision to Support Scale or ‘have a hard no’
(On Completion of UNICEF Innovation Fund Support Period)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
96
Making the Organisation Ready for Change
‘Making the organisation ready for change’ was the second least noted secondary benefit with just 60%
positive responses.
Making the Organization Ready for Change: Key Interview Observations
60% Positive Response
‘making the organisation ready for change is a big one, especially with these emerging technologies we
see... in our near future it’s important to be aware of them’
‘if this doesn’t prepare us for talking financially about things as an organisation I don’t know what will....
‘$100Bn industries meet $1Bn person needs… UNICEF tries to influence’
Figure 54: Making the Organisation Ready for Change Interview Observations (UNICEF Interviews, 2016)
The ‘Law of Accelerating Returns’ (Kurzweil, 2001) demonstrates that technological change historically has
been exponential but posits that people intuitively assume that the current rate of progress will continue in
future periods and hence dramatically underestimate the rate of change, offering some explanation for this
secondary benefits lagging acknowledgement among interviewees.
Most analysts agree that technological growth will significantly influence the way organizations will operate in
future and this presents an opportunity to develop new business models to create value in new ways not
possible previously (AMBS, 2015). Christianson (1997) demonstrates how large established organisations
became undone by such change observing ‘the firms that led the industry in every instance of developing and
adopting disruptive technologies were entrants to the industry, not its incumbent leaders’. UNICEF must move
with the times and be ready for such change or risk losing relevance. Lerner (2013) argues that the creation of
a venture fund might help deliver breakthrough ideas and the UNICEF Innovation Fund has the potential to be
such a vehicle.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
97
Exponential Rate of Technological Change Vs. Intuitive Assumption that Current Rate will Continue
Internet Exponential Rate of Change
Figure 55: Exponential Rate of Change in Technology Vs. Intuitive Assumption (Kurzweil, 2001 - Director of Google Engineering and founder of Singularity University)
Intuitive Assumption that Current Rate of progress will continue in future periods.
Exponential Rate of Technological Change (mass use of inventions)
Electricity
Telephone Radio
Television
PC
Electricity
Mobile Phone
Internet
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
98
Inspiring Staff and Attracting New Types of Talent
Inspiring staff and attracting new types of talent was joint third most noted secondary benefit by interviewees
with 70% returning positive observations. Once again some informants advised that it was in fact a primary
benefit of the UNICEF Innovation Fund consistent with the findings related to organisational learning.
Inspiring Staff and Attracting New Types of Talent: Key Interview Observations
70% Positive Response
‘I would move… inspiring staff in particular to a primary benefit...’
‘...it definitely inspires staff, creates that motivating environment and yes we have attracted new types of talent’
‘..Using the digital system really brings a new energy and enthusiasm to using the new tool.. which will... simplify their lives.. they will be able to carry out other tasks in the time that has been spared... the team... is extremely enthusiastic... as a learning process but also to enable them to better do their job... in a more efficient way... and being able to address other urgent problems that children are facing.... by simplifying.... and making a much more effective system....’
‘....third one, absolutely we’re seeing that already because we’re seeing people speaking with the VC language or capital mind-set language which is very interesting...’
Figure 56: Inspiring Staff and Attracting New Types of Talent Interview Observations (UNICEF Interviews, 2016)
Desk based research and literature reviews were reasonably consistent with the positive findings. Figure 57
shows the top 50 companies young people want to work for in a study by Collegefeed polling 15,000
Millennials either in college or recently graduated (Agrawal, 2014). The key quality millennials look for in
employers is people and cultural fit (Agrawal, 2014) and the UNICEF Office of Innovation endeavours to
cultivate a new forward looking culture that embraces new ways of working.
The Collegefeed study shows that 25% of respondents look for innovative companies to work for and the top 5
companies they target are ranked the top 5 most innovative companies currently by Strategy& PwC in their
annual innovation study (Strategy& PwC, 2016). So the interview findings, that ventures such as the UNICEF
Innovation Fund inspires and attracts new types of talent is very much consistent with the Collegefeed
findings.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
99
Top 50 Companies Young People Want to Work For
What Millennials Looks for in Employers
Figure 57: Top 50 Companies Millennials Want to Work For and What they Look for in Employers (Agrawal, 2014 and Strategy& PwC, 2016)
Also Top 5 Most Innovative Companies (Strategy& PwC, 2016)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
100
Creating a Sustainable Network of Long Term Relationships Even After Completion
Creating a sustainable network of long term relationships was joint second most noted secondary benefit by
interviewees with 80% returning positive observations.
Creating a Sustainable Network of Long Term Relationships even after Completion: Key Interview Observations
80% Positive Response
‘I think creating networks of relationships especially within the tech industry regulatory bodies within UNICEF is something I’ve been involved with governments... NGO’s... other UN Agencies... that are all trying to tackle the same problem...’
‘...we’ve had so much positive outreach from people running other funds, who want to work with us because we’re not a threat and we’re investing in markets they’re interested in... we’ve had everyone from family foundations, to... venture funds which have said we’ll share pipeline to the IDIA group. Groups in all of those... have expressed interest in collaboration...’
Figure 58: Inspiring Staff and Attracting New Types of Talent Interview Observations (UNICEF Interviews, 2016)
This secondary benefit should also be considered primary as the purpose of the UNICEF Innovation Fund, as
illustrated in the Mission Model (Figure 24) and the Corporate Venturing Model (Figure 29), is to build a
community of open source problem solvers around solutions for children. UNICEF's Principals for Digital
Development, a key part of the UNICEF Innovation Fund venture capital scoring criteria (Appendix 3) also
underpins this purpose as the follow extracts illustrate.
Network Related Principals for Digital Development
Principal 2: Understand the Ecosystem
Participate in networks and communities of like-minded practitioners.
Principal 4: Build for Sustainability
Utilise and invest in local communities and developers by default, and help catalyse their growth.
Engage with local governments to ensure integration into national strategy, and identify high level government advocates.
Principal 6: Use Open Data, Open Standards, Open Source, Open Innovation
Invest in software as a public good.
Develop software to be open source by default with the code made available in public repositories and supported by developer communities.
Principal 9: Be Collaborative
Engage diverse expertise across disciplines and industries at all stages.
Work across sector silos to create coordinated more holistic approaches.
Document work, results, processes and best practices, and share them widely.
Publish materials under create commons license by default, with strong rationale if another licensing approach is taken.
Figure 59: Inspiring Staff and Attracting New Types of Talent Interview Observations (UNICEF Interviews, 2016)
Metcalfe’s Law argues that ‘the value of a network as a whole is proportional to the square of the number of
participants’ (Shapiro and Varian, 1999 and Ries, 2011). Chesbrough (2003) argues that open innovation
acknowledges that ideas that add value can come from inside and outside the organisation distinct from the
centralised R&D silos of the closed innovation paradigm as follows.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
101
The Closed Innovation Model
The Open Innovation Model: UNICEF Office of Innovation and UNICEF Innovation Fund
‘In the closed model, the lab is your world, in the open model the world becomes your lab’ (Chesbrough, 2016 at Haas Business School)
Figure 60: Closed vs. Open Innovation Models and UNICEF Innovation Fund (Chesbrough, 2003 and UNICEF, 2016c&d)
UNICEF Innovation
Fund Requesting internal and
external applications
and seed funding
multiple early stage
initiatives
Closed linear pipeline of innovation
towards clearly defined markets
Open Network of Relationships
Sustainable Open Source
IP
Built with Each Initiative.
Permanently open source
and shared on Github.
Communities of Open Source
Problem Solvers around
solutions for children in
UNICEF programme
countries
Open Network of Relationships
Open Network of Relationships
Closed Network
Relationships
Not Developed Closed linear pipeline
of innovation towards clearly defined markets
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
102
External Mimicry
External mimicry was the least noted secondary benefit by interviewees with 50% returning positive
observations. Many reasons can explain this low response including the benefit not accruing but also the
humility of informants.
External Mimicry: Key Interview Observations
50% Positive Response
‘...we just had another group in the UN... launching [a] fund... that was mixed public and private funding, so they’re already doing that… which is great…’
‘internal mimicry is something that happens... people are mimicking taking risks... internally as well as externally and that helps you get to organisational change’
Figure 61: External Mimicry Interview Observations (UNICEF Interviews, 2016)
Bloom and Falkner 2015 argue that ‘the growing focus on innovation within UN agencies most prominently
began with UNICEF's initiative to establish a dedicated innovation unit in 2007’. Wishnie and Wyatt (2016) cite
UNICEF as one of the ‘few forward-thinking NGOs [that] established central tech and innovation teams’
referring to them as the ‘standout example’.
Dean (2015) noted the adoption of UNICEF's Principles for Digital Development by other organisation's as a
‘ripple effect’ and demonstrated that UN agencies seek advice from UNICEF including UNDP, UNFPA and
UNHCR with UNICEF seen as a ‘champion of innovation’ (Dean, 2015).
The identification of ‘internal mimicry’ taking place within the organisation where individuals in departments
outside the office of innovation are beginning to mimic some of the risk taking approaches was an interesting
insight surfaced in the interviews. The potential for internal mimicry to stimulate organisation change was
emphasised and can be seen as an important benefit that will need to be leveraged going forward as the
organisation seeks to build new capabilities and challenge the organisational stasis identified by Amatullo
(2015).
With regards to external mimicry, desk based research established a timeline of major actions by UNICEF and
other external organisations. Although evidence of clear cause and effect is not explicit, the timeline and
literature suggest that UNICEF is a pioneer of innovation within the UN ecosystem which has pushed forward
the innovation agenda. The UNICEF Innovation Fund is too early in its evolution to establish clear mimicry
however the WFP accelerator fund and UNHCR innovation fund are perhaps early examples.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
103
Figure 62: External Mimicry Time Line from Desk Based Research (Created by the authors based on Bloom and Faulkner, 2016; UNICEF, 2015a&b; UNHCR, 2014; WFP, 2016; UNFPA, Undated and Principles for Digital Development, 2016)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
104
Creating New Business Models
Creating new business models was the third most noted secondary benefit from interviewees with 70%
returning positive observations. The benefits of the UNICEF Innovation Fund, as a new corporate venturing
model, have been covered earlier in this report (See Figures 29 and 30). This section presents findings related
to potential new business models of start-ups seeded by the Fund.
Creating New Business Models: Key Interview Observations
70% Positive Response
‘New business models, absolutely, we actually had to come up with the open source cases and open source business models...’
Figure 63: Creating New Business Models Interview Observations (UNICEF Interviews, 2016)
Bain (2013), McKinsey (2014 & 2015) and BCG (2015) all cite the importance of business model innovation to
grow and build business. Lindgardt et al., (2009) cite BCG research demonstrating that returns to business
model innovators were four times greater than those to product or process innovators.
The classic open source freemium business model of US software company Red Hat is illustrated below with
revenue generated from enterprise clients and software also available free to self-service users. Red Hat
benefits by having its software continuously improved by the open source community reducing the traditional
high fixed costs of in-house software developers (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010 & Meagher, 2016).
Key Partners
(Linux) Open Source
Development Community
Key Activities
Software support
services
Software versioning &
testing.
Value Proposition
Free (Linux) open source based
software
Continuously upgraded, serviced, & guaranteed
software
Customer Relationship
Self-service &
direct access to engineers
Customer Segments
Self-service Users
Enterprise Clients
Key Resources
Red Hat (Linux)
Software
Channels
RedHat.com
Red Hat global branches
Cost Structure
Cost structure contains
elements of a service company
Revenue Streams
Professional Subscription
Free Software
Figure 64: Open Source Business Model Canvas: Red Hat (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010 & Meagher, 2016)
A review of the many variants of open source freemium business models has been summarised below
including professional service models, software as a service models and other variants as clear pathways for
start-ups seeded by UNICEF Innovation Fund.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
__________________________________________________________________________________________
105
No. Freemium Open Source Business Model Variant
Free Open Source Value Proposition (IP Stack and Community)
Revenue Stream for Start-up Example Reference
1 Professional Service Model: Consulting /Training/ Support
Software (source code and binaries) fully open source and freely available.
Fees charged for consulting, training, installation and/or support.
Red Hat https://www.redhat.com/en
2 Professional Service Model: Selling Executable Binaries
Open source software provided in source code form only (not including executable binaries (machine code).
Certified and tested (stable and service-ready) executable software binaries (encoded instructions (machine code) that make computers perform tasks) sold to paying customers and offering commercial service of compiling and packaging the software.
Red Hat, IBM, Revolution Analytics.
https://www.redhat.com/en
3 Open Software-as-a-Service (OSaaS) Model (Cloud as a Service)
Open Source Software package provided allowing the community and users to act as their own network host and build their own customized blog, website, etc. Example: Wordpress.org
Open Software as a Service (OSaaS) provided in parallel offering internet hosting service, support, maintenance upgrades and enhancements for a fee. Service is accessible via paid subscription based on user number, transaction volume or time based. Example Wordpress.com
Wordpress.org and Wordpress.com. Drupal Gardens Management System.
https://wordpress.com/ https://wordpress.org/
4 Proprietary Software Model or Dual-licensing Model
An open-source version is licensed and continuously developed and updated.
Certified and tested (stable and service-ready) proprietary version similar to open source version which does not use the source code is licensed for a fee to enterprise clients. (Similar to traditional enterprise software revenue stream).
Oracles MySQL Database, MongoDB (Union Square Ventures)
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/mysql/index.html
5 Open Core Model or Proprietary Extension Model
Core software is open source and continuously developed and updated.
Fees levied for special features, modules that extend or enhance the core product. Optional value added proprietary extensions include modules, plug-ins, add-ons or fringe benefits.
IBM Proprietary Linux, Red Hat (Linux), Cloudera Apache Hadoop, Talend.
https://www-03.ibm.com/linux/matrix/index.html https://www-03.ibm.com/linux/ltc/
6 Partnerships with Funding Organisation's
International Organisations, Governments, NGOs, Universities and companies pay for software and then release as open source.
Grant funding, salary paid to developers or venture capital style seed or catalytic funding to begin with. Further revenue streams required for long term.
UNICEF Innovation Fund Google Summer Code initiative
http://www.unicefinnovationfund.org/#about-page
7 Advertising Supported Software Model
Software provided free and open source.
Advertising banner sales. SourceForge, Google, Mozilla.
https://sourceforge.net/
8 Delayed Open-sourcing: Version Lagging
Software of previous versions provided open source.
Latest version available to paying customers. MariaDB Corporation https://mariadb.com/about http://mariadb.org/
Table 29: Types and Variants of Open Source Business Models (As referenced above)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:106
A greater challenge than establishing open source business models with clear routes to commercialisation is
merging those models with value creation for UNICEF's child rights mission. UNICEF Ventures have identified
business model development as an area where start-ups will need significant support (UNICEF interviews,
2016). Figure 65 illustrates such a dual value creation concept which seeks to help the bottom quintile of
children out of poverty using a developers’ technology thus unlocking a future customer base with positive
feelings towards the developers’ brand.
There are of course many variants of the below concept which have the potential to be developed, highlighted
in part by Table 29 above but also considering new business models which have not yet been created. This is a
key benefit that the UNICEF Innovation Fund can leverage. Should the Fund grow to levels illustrated in the
Mission Model (Figure 24) and Strategic Staircase (Figure 27) then the development of new business models
through the seeding of external start-ups could potentially transform the way UNICEF delivers its mission in
the long term.
Key Partners
Open Source Development Community
Technical Experts
Academia
Private Sector Governments Civil Society
Country Offices Innovation Labs
Key Activities
Software
support services
Software versioning &
testing
Value Proposition
Free open source based software
creating value: 1. Products for needs of youth
under 25 (learning / participation), 2. Real-time information for
decision making 3. Infrastructure to increase access
to services & information (connectivity, power finance...)
Continuously upgraded,
serviced, & guaranteed software or other as relevant to the particular
innovation
Customer Relationship
Self-service &
direct access to engineers
other
Customer Segments
Child welfare & rights:
improved strategic outcomes
Bottom Quintile of Children lifted out of poverty =
Potential Future Customers
Enterprise Clients
Key Resources
Technical Support &
Mentoring by UNICEF and
Partners
Channels
Website
Branches
Other
Cost Structure
Cost structure contains elements of a service company Low software development costs as open source community continuously improve the software free of charge.
Revenue Streams Return (value): 1. Growth, IP Stack & 3 Communities (Potential: use 3 returns to earn revenue)
Professional Subscription (Potential)
Some Personal Subscriptions (Potential)
Free Software / Platforms / Solutions
Figure 65: Conceptual Open Source Business Model Canvas for Seeded Start-ups (Dual Value Creation) (Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010, UNICEF, 2015a & 2016a-i & Meagher, 2016)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:107
Building Capabilities
Building capabilities was the joint third most noted secondary benefit by interviewees with 70% returning
positive observations.
Building Capabilities: Key Interview Observations
70% Positive Response
‘…different systems, interoperable systems and SMS technology.. it’s helping them think differently and more effectively... this has been a major change, me myself I’ve learned so much by doing this that I wouldn’t have known... that’s definitely a... secondary benefit’
Figure 66: Building Capabilities Interview Observations (UNICEF Interviews, 2016)
Whilst internal capabilities are built through innovation, the corporate venturing strategy employed through
the UNICEF Innovation Fund primarily builds external capabilities leveraging communities of open source
problem solvers. Chesbrough and Rosenbloom (2002) argue that start-ups are less likely to be constrained in
the experimentation with alternative models and Lerner (2013) posits that ‘a corporate VC fund can move
faster, more flexibly, and more cheaply than traditional R&D arguing that ‘it’s likely that developing capabilities
on their own would have taken Lilly [Ventures] far longer and been far more expensive’.
Challenges and limitations have been identified by UNICEF Ventures regarding the pace at which the wider
organisation can adopt new initiatives and build innovation capabilities citing organisational inertia (Amatullo,
2016). The UNICEF Innovation Fund can sidestep such cultural constraints, reducing the time and cost required
to build capabilities internally by investing in start-ups with the intention of building an innovation ecosystem
complimentary to the organisation's mission from which the organisation can learn.
The UNICEF Innovation Fund ‘degree of openness’ which helps build external capabilities is illustrated in Figure
67 below based on a framework by Harwood (2016). The fund can be seen plotted in the top and right of the
matrix, the zone considered highest on a scale of open innovation. The corporate venturing and open
innovation ecosystem pitches the UNICEF Innovation Fund in two zones of the matrix both of which are in
Harwood (2016) ‘exploit’ stage of innovation.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:108
Stage of
Innovation
Exploit Intrapreneurship
Programme e.g. Google 20% Time
Corporate Venture Fund e.g. Intel Capital, Lilliy
Ventures UNICEF Innovation Fund
Venture Model
Open Innovation Ecosystem
e.g. LEGO Ideas UNICEF Innovation Fund
Open Source Community
Extract Innovation Incubators
e.g. Lockhead Skunkworks
Co-Creation Community e.g. Ford Innovative Mobility
Accelerator Programme e.g. Telefonica Wayra
Explore Colleague Crowd e.g. Oxfam Future
Shoppers
Social Listening e.g. P&G House Proud
Crowd
Open Innovation Challenge
e.g. UBS FoF Challenge
Open Inside Outside In Inside Out
Degree of Openness
Figure 67: UNICEF Innovation Fund Plotted on the Open Innovation Methods Matrix (Adapted from Harwood, 2016)
The major challenge for UNICEF is how to internalise the external capabilities. Possible future evolution of
UNICEF's strategy of investing in start-ups identified by UNICEF Ventures and captured in the mission model
(Figure 24) and strategic staircase (Figure 27) include taking equity stakes in successful start-ups and / or
acquisition.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:109
Driving Organizational Goodwill
Driving organisational goodwill was the second most noted secondary benefit from interviewees with 80%
returning positive observations along with creating a sustainable network of long term relationships
mentioned earlier which had an equally positive response.
Driving Organizational Goodwill (e.g. New Funders/ Allies): Key Interview Observations
80% Positive Response
‘Public positioning of UNICEF, a lot of what Ventures and Futures does, are new things...people don’t expect shiny new things out of UNICEF but it is the Futures and Ventures group who is doing that... there is a tremendous amount of publicity for the organisation, of repositioning the organisation to be highly relevant, highly innovative... future focused... that I would capture under bullet number 8’ (driving organisational goodwill)
‘It positions... UNICEF is seen in the scenario of stakeholders as an innovative partner... dialoguing with new trends, open to adapt... and not insisting on the old type of communication... it strengthens our mission and our goal’
‘Eight yes, in that we had people.... who would never have funded UNICEF traditionally’
‘In terms of secondary benefits... we’ve attracted more donors and different partners that we otherwise would not have had, it’s also lead to many, many ideas...’
‘Other partners that we can bring to the table that are not currently partners...’
Figure 68: Driving Organizational Goodwill Interview Observations (UNICEF Interviews, 2016)
A number of informants referred to the work of the UNICEF Office of Innovation and UNICEF Innovation Fund
as ‘repositioning’ UNICEF as a ‘highly relevant, highly innovative future focused organisation’. Such
repositioning of the UNICEF brand based on a more diverse innovative value proposition can contribute
towards augmented mission delivery if it can be demonstrated to existing and new stakeholders.
Figure 69: Augmented Mission Delivery (Armstrong et al., 2009; Jobber, 2007 and Ashton, 2015)
Actual Mission Delivery UNICEF Country Programmes
Core Benefit UNICEF Mission
Meet Basic Needs, Advocate for Rights & Expand Opportunities
Augmented Mission Delivery UNICEF Innovation Fund
Start-ups & New Partners Open Source Communities of Problem Solvers
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:110
Aaker (1997) defines brand personality as ‘the set of human characteristics associated with a brand’ and
identifies five dimensions with which to understand it. UNICEF traditionally can be considered as a sincere,
competent and rugged international development organisation tackling some of the biggest challenges to child
rights and welfare globally with a strong mandate from the United Nations. With the addition of new ways of
doing things such as the UNICEF Innovation Fund the organisation enhances the excitement and sophistication
measures which again if communicated widely to its stakeholder can be leveraged to attract new revenue
streams, partners and further advance its mission.
Figure 70: UNICEF Brand Personality, Existing and New Traits (Aaker, 1997)
UNICEF Brand Personality (Aaker (1997)
Competence
Sophistication
Excitement
Sincerity
Ruggedness
Down to Earth
Honest
Daring
Spirited
Imagination
Up to Date
Reliable
Intelligent
Successful
Upper Class
(Leading or Premium)
Tough
Existing Traits
New Traits
New Traits
Existing Traits
Existing Traits
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:111
5. Discussion & Conclusion
5.1 Synthesis of Findings
This research has been conducted with the aim of understanding the potential value that venturing may create
in international development with a specific focus on the UNICEF Innovation Fund. The Fund is a new approach
which faces many challenges in its evolutionary phase of development including demonstrating to internal
stakeholders the value it can bring to the organisation. This study has researched and analysed the Fund on
four levels namely; (1) strategic, (2) individual initiative, (3) portfolio and (4) secondary effects level under the
following research question and objectives.
No. Level of Analysis Research Question and Objectives Revisited
1 Strategic Level General Research Question Research Question How can a large established international development organisation create value from a ventures approach to innovation such as that which is applied in UNICEF Innovation Fund?
2 Individual Initiative Level
Research Objective 1 Research suitable tools and methods to evaluate the investment potential of individual initiatives seeded by the UNICEF Innovation Fund and apply those approaches to two initiatives to demonstrate potential value to UNICEF's mission.
3 Portfolio Level Research Objective 2 Research suitable frameworks to evaluate the UNICEF Innovation Fund as a portfolio and demonstrate potential value of the Fund considering the majority of initiatives are expected to fail with only a limited few expected to be successful.
4 Secondary Effect Level
Research Objective 3 Investigate the potential secondary benefits that UNICEF Innovation Fund can bring to the organisation through doing new things, taking risks and accepting failure so as to capture learning benefits and reduce under-valuation of its innovation initiatives and processes.
Table 30: Four Levels of Research and Analysis
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:112
Strategic Level 1: The Venturing Approach to Value Creation
The UNICEF Office of Innovation’s management through three sub-divisions which ‘scan the horizons’ (UNICEF
Interviews, 2016) is consistent with business best practice such as McKinsey’s Three Horizons of Growth
Framework (Baghai, et al., 1999). The Ventures Horizons 2 provides a space for the UNICEF Innovation Fund to
invest early stage ‘smart capital’ in a ‘failure tolerant mind-set outside the parent risk averse culture’ (Lerner,
2013).
The mission model (Figure 24) is strong considering the purpose, strategy, values and behaviour reinforce each
other. The clear hypothesis that ‘in order to solve the biggest problems... we need to invest in places that have
those problems… connect those problem solvers to each other… open source … [and] if one does not work we
learn from it’ (UNICEF Interviews, 2016) is compelling and the findings herein suggest it should be supported.
The vision of evolving to multiple funds and a private equity portfolio is suitably aspirational, an essential
ingredient of leading business innovators (McKinsey, 2014 and 2015). The evolutionary phase of strategy
development (Sniukas et al., 2016) is being managed prudently in the short term as UNICEF Ventures learn the
maximum at the least possible cost (Ries, 2011 and McGrath, 2010) prior to mobilising additional resources
which have been identified in the strategic staircase (Hay and Williamson, 1991; Figure27).
The corporate venturing model (Figure 29) is a powerful approach with three types of value created even in
failure namely; (1) IP Stack, (2) the building of an open source community of problem solvers and (3) learning
benefits. If supported with the necessary resources the model has the potential to be sustainable in the long
term and provide a regular ‘floodplain’ of new solutions that create (4) impact at scale and (5) long term
growth. The model has attracted new revenue streams and the pooled funding mechanism allows them to be
efficiently leveraged.
Individual Initiative Level 2: Investment Potential of Individual Initiatives
The individual initiative evaluation framework applied herein acknowledges key concerns raised by
interviewees such as (1) not to cconcertize initiatives with frameworks such as theories of change (2) create
agile and flexible approaches that can deal with ambiguity and change, (3) capture data in real-time to
facilitate learning and decision making and (4) design with the user to ensure the product meets the
customer’s needs. These principals are satisfied through a Developmental Evaluation approach (Patton, 2015),
combined with an adapted evaluative framework based on Paulson (2007) together with the Value Proposition
Canvas (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010 and Stategizer, 2016). In applying the evaluation framework, positive
results were recorded for the two individual initiatives investigated namely Care for Children (Cambodia) and
MomConnect (South Africa) suggesting the potential to create value from such initiatives is strong.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:113
Portfolio Level 3: Evaluation of UNICEF Innovation Fund Portfolio
Research into the portfolio level concludes that evaluation should not discourage experimentation and that
traditional evaluation methods are inappropriate for a portfolio of innovation initiatives. Evaluations should
deal with issues such as value maximisation/return, strategic alignment, project selection/prioritisation, risk
appetite, balance/mix of projects, rate of attrition, interdependencies and secondary benefits. The challenge
of balancing innovation-specific metrics versus standardized metrics remains and is ripe for further study. The
Paulson et al. (2007) innovation portfolio evaluation tool is applied in this study to assess the portfolios
contribution to value creation. The current portfolio of initiatives scored satisfactorily (66%) and the portfolio
health scored well (73%).
The Innovation risk matrix (Day, 2007) has been applied to establish where initiatives fall on the spectrum of
risk and to gauge if they are sufficiently new to the organisation. The current portfolio of initiatives typically
adapts existing technology within programme countries. The majority of initiatives straddle the 60% relative
risk or probability of failure line (Day, 2007) which can be considered in the adjacent innovation category
defined by Nagji and Tuff (2012) as ‘expanding from existing business into new to the company business’.
The portfolio is expected to embrace further risk as additional start-ups are seeded, more consistent with the
failure rate anticipated in the corporate venturing model (Figure 29). The additional start-ups also have the
potential to move the portfolio towards a transformational innovation mix defined by Nagji and Tuff (2012) as
‘developing breakthroughs and inventing things for markets that don’t exist yet’.
Secondary Effect Level 4: Investigation into Potential Secondary Benefits
Evidence of all eight potential secondary benefits identified at the outset was uncovered through multiple
methods including interviews and desk based research. Organisational learning received the highest positive
feedback (90%) by interviewees with the benefit of ‘failing smart’ through learning considered a primary
benefit of the Fund (UNICEF Interviews, 2016).
The network of relationships through the open innovation model allowing ‘the world to become your lab’
(Chesbrough cited by Haas, 2016) was the next mostly highly noted benefit (80%). Driving organisational
goodwill received equal positive feedback (80%), where the benefit of transforming UNICEF's ‘public
positioning’ as a ‘highly relevant, highly innovative... future focused’ organisation was emphasised (UNICEF
Interviews, 2016).
As all secondary benefits were noted, with many identified as primary benefits, the findings make it clear that
UNICEF cannot afford not to invest a small percentage of its revenue in order to reap such benefits. As such,
any value assessment of the UNICEF Innovation Fund or initiatives needs to consider such secondary benefits
in order not to under-evaluate the Fund.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:114
5.2 Managerial Implications
Key Findings and Implications
On an academic level this project has sought to contribute to the understanding of the potential value that
corporate venturing creates in international development with a specific focus on the UNICEF Innovation Fund
across four core levels of analysis. In addition to this understanding there are numerous key findings that have
management implications going forward.
The managerial implications at strategic level are outlined below. The primary importance of the three
horizons structure, support of increased investment to grow the Fund and additional technical and business
management personnel required over the longer term are identified as the main strategic implications.
No. Key Findings Managerial Implication
1. Venturing Strategy and Value Creation
a. UNICEF Office of Innovation structures and manages innovation across three horizons: Futures, Ventures and Scale.
Managing the horizons is consistent with business best practice and is essential to provide a space for UNICEF Innovation Fund to operate in a failure tolerant risk embracing environment.
b. The Funds purpose based on the clear hypothesis that in order to solve the world’s biggest problems you need to invest in places that have those problems and connect communities of problem solvers.
The hypothesis is logical and takes a bottom up economic stance to solutions by investing in start-ups. If early evidence supports the hypothesis increased investment beyond the current low level will be necessary to grow the Fund and maximise the value it creates.
c. The new UNICEF Innovation Fund corporate venturing business model is a first in the UN and leverages options orientated investment strategies. Failure of circa 90% is expected and accepted. IP stack, community building and learning will accrue even from failed investments (continuous asset building). A small percentage of highly successful initiatives are expected to create significant value/impact at scale.
Close support to investees in the form of technical and business management guidance is necessary to leverage the value created even from failures and ensure assets in the form of IP stack, communities and learning are built. The small percentage of highly successful initiatives should be tracked further into the scale phase in order to demonstrate the value of those successes to current investors but more importantly to market the Fund attracting new investors and building growth.
d. The five year vision of growing and evolving to multiple funds between $10-20m and to develop a private equity portfolio would again be a first for a UN organisation.
The vision is suitably aspirational and challenges the traditional way of delivering the wider organisation's mission. Significant additional resources will be required to attain the vision some of which have been identified in the strategic staircase.
e. UNICEF Innovation Fund investment intensity as a percentage of UNICEF revenue is significantly lower than top business innovators.
The balance between maximisation of programme expense versus long term investment in innovation needs to be reviewed. An increase in the latter would appear to be highly necessary in order to align with the strategic plan 2014-2017 that places innovation as one of seven implementation strategies. UNICEF National Committees and other fund raising divisions need to market the Office of Innovation and UNICEF Innovation Fund to leverage higher percentages of investment. Benefits of the Fund such as driving organisational goodwill by transforming UNICEF's ‘public positioning’ as a ‘highly relevant, highly innovative... future focused’ organisation need to be leveraged.
Table 31: Strategic Level Key Findings and Managerial Implications
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:115
At individual initiative level, the potential value that could be created by initiatives such as Care for Children
and MomConnect has been demonstrated. The main managerial implication at this level is how to support
initiatives further including the small percentage of initiatives that after twelve months appear to have the
potential to create significant value and impact at scale. Initiatives after twelve months may also require
substantially more than $100,000 to ‘cross the chasm’ (Moore, 1991).
No. Key Findings Managerial Implication
2. Individual Initiatives Investment Potential and Value Creation
a. Seelos and Mair (2016) posit that innovation alone does not create impact but rather innovation + scale = impact. Putting in place clear paths to scale for the small percentage of highly successful initiatives is an important part of the UNICEF Innovation Fund strategy that would benefit from further development. ‘Crossing the chasm’ is identified by Moore (1991) as one of the main challenges for start-up ventures.
UNICEF Ventures currently plans to link the seeded organisations to its large network and scale investor partners. Access to UNICEF’s network is indeed valuable and offers a solution but further development of this strategy in the next twelve months would aid the transition or otherwise for the first round of private sector seeds. Moore (1991) advocates a focus on niche market first to provide a platform to cross the chasm. Such strategies would benefit from further study.
Table 32: Individual Level Key Findings and Managerial Implications
UNICEF Ventures currently intends to link its seeded organisation's to its scale investor partners and in the
short term this presents the most immediate solution. Considering the vision for the Fund to progress to
multiple funds and a private equity portfolio further emerging solutions to this challenge will need to be
developed as the Fund evolves and presents opportunities for further research.
The Revised Technology Adoption Life Cycle – Crossing the Chasm
Figure 71: The Revised Technology Adoption Cycle – Crossing the Chasm (Moore, 1991)
Innovators Early Adopters Early Majority Late Majority Laggards
Chasm
UNICEF Ventures & UNICEF Innovation Fund
Scale Investors
Moore (1991): To cross the chasm ‘target very specific niche markets
where you can dominate’ Levitt (1986): Whole Product Model – Generic, Expected,
Augmented & Potential Kim and Mauborgne (2005): ‘Create uncontested market
space’ (blue ocean)
Transition to Scale
Ries (2011) Lean Start-up Model: Test leap of Faith Assumptions (Value Creation Hypothesis & Growth Hypothesis) – MVP Minimum Viable Product Build-Measure-Learn
Potential Chasm Finance / Investment Options Potential Chasm Strategies
UNICEF Partners such as International Development Innovation Alliance (IDIA): Gates Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, USAID,
Grand Challenges Canada, Global Innovation Fund, etc.
Early Stage Strategies
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:116
Finding suitable means to evaluate the UNICEF Innovation Fund portfolio considering the time bound nature of
initiatives (12 months) remains a challenge. This challenge also extends to the tension of balancing innovation
specific metrics with standardised metrics which is currently being explored by UNICEF Ventures and its
partners which might also benefit from further research. Establishing suitable ways of stimulating interaction
and support between the communities of problem solvers within the portfolio is also a challenge currently
being addressed by workshops and mentoring initiatives (UNICEF, 2016l).
No. Key Findings Managerial Implication
3. Frameworks to Evaluate the Portfolio and Demonstrate Potential Value
a. Currently there is no panacea for the challenge of innovation portfolio evaluation in the international development industry following interviews with a range of experts on the subject. The early stage of initiatives, the time bound nature of the Fund, resource constraints, aversion to rigorous evaluation for early stage initiatives (which would hinder experimentation) are important challenges for the development of portfolio management approaches.
Cooper (1997, 1997a) highlights three primary innovation portfolio management goals; maximizing portfolio value, achieving balance and the linking of portfolio to business strategy. Paulson et al. (2007) and Day (2007) tools help with the latter two and can also help with maximising portfolio value but application of the corporate venturing model and its selection process is seen as more important in this regard. This cross sectional study has provided a snapshot evaluation but further empirical research into the approaches used and others is necessary to conclude the most appropriate approach for the UNICEF Innovation Fund.
b. The challenge in portfolio evaluation of balancing the tension between innovation-specific metrics (individualised, bottom-up) at initiative level and standardised metrics (aggregated top-down) to establish the collective value at portfolio level remains.
Evaluation should not discourage experimentation and as such traditional evaluation has been concluded as inappropriate for the evaluation of a portfolio of innovation initiatives. A portfolio’s performance, especially an innovation Fund, is reflected in its diversity and thus standardized metrics may not be appropriate. Therefore the development of any evaluation tool must be adaptable to individual initiatives.
c. Resource, market or technological interdependencies between projects can be a major source of competitive advantage (Mathews, 2010). The portfolio displays interdependencies and synergistic benefits. For example there are several variations of U-Report and 3 of the 5 start-ups are based on interactive voice response (IVR) systems. Both examples demonstrate how the same technology can be leveraged for different applications. Start-up workshops have commenced and will induce cross collaboration among teams & innovations. Balance (e.g. portfolio areas and technologies) and diversity of innovations is crucial for long term success and this is an area where improvements should be targeted as the Fund grows.
UNICEF Innovation Fund is intended to allow the organisation's seeded share within a community and leverage one another’s capabilities while exploring opportunities. As the Fund grows, management will require greater resources, including technical, portfolio management, and business management expertise. A forum to allow the start-up community share ideas and build on each other’s solutions needs is being nurtured. The first ‘mentors meet’ (UNICEF, 2016) where the five start-ups were hosted in workshops, introduced to each other and also introduced to experts who can mentor on business models, rapid evaluation and technical solutions is an important first step. The UNICEF Innovation Fund website, open source sharing and online webinars can be leveraged further to this end.
Table 33: Portfolio Level Key Findings and Managerial Implications
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:117
At secondary level it was noted that such effects are indeed primary benefits of UNICEF Innovation Fund.
Organisational learning is the most significant benefit noted and needs processes and systems to be put in
place to internalise the learning from external investments. The key challenge of merging open source
business models with value creation for children in a dual value creating sustainable model requires significant
support from the UNICEF Ventures team.
No. Key Findings Managerial Implication
4. Potential Secondary Benefits
a. Secondary benefits have been noted as primary benefits by a number of interviewees but are not systematically tracked and demonstrated by the organisation.
Secondary benefits should be emphasised when reporting to investors in order not to under value the Fund. Due to the diversity of effects and resources required to continuously track them it would not appear to be feasible to track them all regularly in the short term. Any tracking that can be automated through real time data should be leveraged and others should as a minimum be demonstrated annually to current and potential investors.
b. Organisational learning was most noted (90%) and is one of the three continuous forms of value expected from all investments along with IP stack and community building. The challenge of putting in place a framework to capture this learning needs to be addressed.
Procedures are being developed to manage the newly seeded start-ups. Processes to capture learning benefits and capabilities attained need to be established. The lean-start-up approach was explored herein as a possible framework within which to meet this challenge (see Figure 53) but further empirical research is necessary to validate its suitability.
c. A further key challenge is how to internalise the learning from external start-ups to build capabilities inside UNICEF.
A study into the development of intrapreneurship programmes within UNICEF would add value including perhaps the UNICEF Office of Innovations biggest challenge, stimulating widespread organisational change and mainstreaming innovation across the wider organisation. The ability to acquire start-ups or take equity stakes is part of the UNICEF Innovation Fund long term vision which also requires many internal hurdles to be crossed.
d. A key challenge identified by the UNICEF team is supporting the development of business models for new start-ups whose teams have stronger technical capabilities than business management capabilities.
Numerous variants of open source freemium business models were identified for possible adaptation in Table 29 and Figure 65. The key challenge remains merging those models with value creation for children in a dual value creating model. This challenge will require significant support from UNICEF Ventures and its ecosystem of experts and partners. The establishment of its first ‘mentors meet’ where start-ups met together in workshops and were advised by experts on business models and rapid evaluation is a significant first step in this regard which will require further support.
Table 34: Secondary Level Key Findings and Managerial Implications
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:118
Innovation Investment Intensity
Table 35 below compares the current UNICEF Innovation Fund investment intensity with the R&D investment
intensity of the Top 10 business innovators (Strategy& PwC, 2016). The Funds investment intensity is
significantly lower than R&D in the organisations benchmarked. This suggests the potential to significantly
increase investment in the UNICEF Innovation Fund in line with the vision captured in the strategic staircase
(Figure 27). Further benchmarking against Gates Foundation Grand Challenges programme and USAIDs
Development Innovation Ventures is shown in Appendix 5 which also demonstrates the relatively small size of
the Fund.
If the ‘identification and promotion of innovation’ is one of seven implementation strategies identified in
UNICEF's 2014-2017 Strategic Plan (UNICEF, 2013 & Appendix 2) then a higher investment intensity along with
other additional resources are necessary to support the UNICEF Office of Innovation going forward.
Rank Company R&D Spending ($Bn)
Revenue ($Bn)
Intensity (% Revenue)
1 Apple 8.1 231.4 3.5%
2 Alphabet 12.3 75.0 16.4%
3 3M 1.8 30.27 6%
4 Tesla Motors 0.7 4.05 17.28%
5 Amazon 12.5 106.8 11.7%
6 Samsung 12.7 177.4 7.2%
7 Facebook 4.8 17.93 26.8%
8 Microsoft 12.0 176.4 12.9%
9 General Electric 4.2 117.4 3.58%
10 IBM 5.2 81.7 6.36%
- UNICEF &UNICEF Innovation Fund 0.0112 5.0 0.224%
Table 35: UNICEF Innovation Fund Investment Intensity Compared with R&D Investment Intensity of the Top 10 Business Innovators (Strategy& PwC, 2016 and UNICEF, 2016j)
Innovation Opportunity Cost
Although the case for long term potential value creation by the UNICEF Innovation Fund has been found in this
study to be very strong the short term view of opportunity cost by external parties was a concern raised by the
authors. The challenge of marketing investment in initiatives, which if venture capital ratios hold true will fail
most of the time with some significant long term successes, rather than investing in proven core programmes
that deliver results today is not small in an industry where metrics such as the percentage expenditure on
administration are heavily scrutinised. One key informant gave the following explanation:
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:119
‘When you talk about children you don’t have a lot of time... The majority of children that die... are before the
age of five... 37% of those under five children die within thirty days... so we have to accelerate the trajectory
we are on and innovations give us the ability and opportunity to accelerate actions that add value. So we’re
not just innovating for the sake of innovating, we’re looking at that very real challenge.... Related to that are
the opportunities... [we need to improve] the quality of education. Again we don’t have a lot of time. By the
time they are 6-10 if we have not improved the quality of education it’s hard to catch up... So we need to
accelerate that trajectory’ (UNICEF Interviews, 2016).
This was perhaps one of the most compelling insights into the value of innovation in international
development and the UNICEF Innovation Fund.
5.3 Limitations and Avenues for Future Research
The six month timeline and part time study limited the research to that which is presented herein. The remote
proximity of the students to the client also limited the extent of engagement although regular conference calls
and emails were maintained. Although care was taken to be impartial the group are strong supporters of
UNICEF’s mission which can affect the conclusions. Working closely with the client, the group formed a
collegial working relationship which can also affect the framing of analysis and final output. The interviewee
list was drawn up by UNICEF Ventures which could skew the findings but the list contained those with most
knowledge of the UNICEF Innovation Fund and therefore the sample is deemed appropriate. The start-up
nature of the Fund also limited the extent to which concepts could be tested in this evolutionary stage.
The main avenues for further research include: (1) the challenges of resource allocation; (2) methods to
capture and internalise organisational learning; (3) business model innovation that provides dual value for
commercial start-ups and child rights; (4) appropriate strategies to ‘cross the chasm’ to scale; (5) portfolio
management approaches to address the time bound nature of the Fund and balancing innovation-specific
metrics and standardized metrics; (6) development of intrapreneurship programmes to stimulate
organisational change, cultural change and mainstream innovation across the wider organisation and the
related (7) internalisation of externally leveraged capabilities either through diffusion or acquisition.
5.4 Conclusion
This multi-method qualitative case study has assessed how UNICEF can create value from corporate venturing
through the UNICEF Innovation Fund and has analysed the investment vehicle on four levels namely, strategic,
individual, portfolio and secondary. The evidence uncovered suggests that the corporate venturing approach
has the potential to create value and gives UNICEF an efficient mechanism to make multiple small risk capped
bets in new initiatives. Creating a space for such a model in the Horizon 2 ‘creation of viable options’ (Baghai,
et al., 1999) is a forward looking strategy that could transform the way the organisation delivers its mission in
the long term. We hope this project can aid the understanding of such approaches in the international
development context. Finally we hope this report can be of some benefit to our client as they continue in their
most important of missions.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:120
References
Aaker, J. (1997) ‘Dimensions of Brand Personality’. Journal of Marketing Research, August 1997.
Agrawal (2014) How Companies can Attract the Best College Talent. March 17, 2014. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/2014/03/how-companies-can-attract-the-best-college-talent (Accessed: 05 November 2016)
Amatullo, M.V. (2015) Design attitude and social innovation: Empirical studies of the return on design: Innovation by Design at UNICEF: An Ethnographic Case Study. PHD. Case Western Reserve University. Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4VJMPZTikBga3BBVWZQUkQzOHM/view?pref=2&pli=1 (Accessed: 23 April 2016)
AMBS (2015) Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management: Study Guide. Manchester: Alliance Manchester Business School.
Anderson, E.G. and Joglekar, N.R. (2005) A Hierarchical Product Development Planning Framework. Production & Operations Management, 14, 344–61.
Ashton (2015) ‘Marketing: Study Guide’ Alliance Manchester Business School.
Baghai, M., Coley, S. and White, D. (1999) The Alchemy of Growth: Practical Insights for Building the Enduring Enterprise. London: Orion Business, The Orion Publishing Group Ltd.
Bain (2013) Taking the Measure of Innovation Performance. Available at: http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/taking-the-measure-of-your-innovation-performance.aspx (Accessed: 04 July 2015).
Baines, P., Fill, C. and Page, K. (2011) Marketing. 2nd
edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Banke-Thomas, A. O., Madaj, B., Charles, A., & van den Broek, N. (2015). Social Return on Investment (SROI) methodology to account for value for money of public health interventions: a systematic review. BMC Public Health, 15, 582. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26099274 (Accessed: 03/01/16)
Barahona, C. (2010) Randomised Control Trials for the Impact Evaluation of Development Initiatives: A Statistician’s Point of View, p. 4, 7 Available at: https://www.bioversityinternational.org/fileadmin/_migrated/uploads/tx_news/Randomised_control_trials_for_the_impact_evaluation_of_development_initiatives__A_statistician%E2%80%99s_point_of_view_1391.pdf (Accessed: 25 August 2016)
Bassi, A., & Vincenti, G. (2015). Toward a new metrics for the evaluation of the social added value of social enterprises. CIRIEC - Espana, (83), 9-42. Available at: http://search.proquest.com/openview/a43e254167c7ed7a80a5f4fc3707223a/1?pq-origsite=gscholar (Accessed: 03/01/16).
Baumbusch, J. (2010). Semi‐structured interviewing in practice‐close research. Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing, 15(3),255–258.
BCG (2015) The Most Innovative Companies 2015: Four Factors That Differentiate Leaders. Available at: https://media-publications.bcg.com/MIC/BCG-Most-Innovative-Companies-2015-Nov-2015.pdf (Accessed: 16 April 2016).
Beesley, A., Gulemetova, M., DiFuccia, M. (2009) Georgia Governor’s Office of Student Achievement Innovation Fund SROI Analysis, Final Report for IMPAQ International, LLC. Available at: https://www.impaqint.com/sites/default/files/files/Georgia%20SROI%20Final%20Report%20June%202015.pdf (accessed: 03 January 2016)
Behfar, K., Peterson, R., Mannix, El., Trochim, W (2008) The Critical Role of Conflict Resolution in
Benjamin L (2012) Nonprofit organizations and outcome measurement: from tracking program activities to focusing on frontline work. American Journal of Evaluation 33(3): 431–47.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:121
Biswas, K. et al. 2010. Social Return on Investment: Chaha Programme, Hove: International HIV/AIDS Alliance. Available at: https://www.bond.org.uk/data/files/SROI_CHAHA_report_04.02.11.pdf (accessed: 03 January 2016)
Bloom, L. and Faulkner, R. (2016) Innovation Spaces: Lessons from the United Nations. Third World Quarterly. Vol. 37, No. 8, pp. 1371-1387
Bowen, G.A., (2009) ‘Document analysis as a qualitative research method’, Qualitative research journal, 9(2), pp. 27-40.
Brest, P. and Born, K., (2013) ‘When can impact investing create real impact’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, 11(4), pp. 33-48.
Bubb, S. (2010) ‘From third sector to pole position; how the third sector is leading innovation in public services’, International Journal of Leadership in Public Services, 6(4), pp.38-41. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.5042/ijlps.2010.0636 (Accessed: 11/01/16)
Campbell, A. and Yeung, S. (1991), “Creating a Sense of Mission”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 24 No. 4,pp. 10-20.
Campbell, A., Devine, M. and Young, D. (1990) A Sense of Mission (Ashridge Management). London: Economist Books.
Canales, R., Cannon, C., Fabian, C., Fabricant, R., Kochi, E., and Rabison, R. (2014) ‘DIY innovation: Creating an innovation capability within your organisation’, rotmanmagazine.ca, Fall 2014, pp.66-71. Available at: https://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/Connect/Rotman-MAG/Back-Issues/2014/Back-Issues---2014/Fall-2014---The-Balancing-Act/Fall-2014-Free-Feature-Article---DIY-Innovation (Accessed 29 July 2016)
Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J. and Neville, A.J., (2014) ‘The use of triangulation in qualitative research’, In Oncology nursing forum, 41(5).
CGD (2006) ‘When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives through Impact Evaluation’. Report of the Evaluation Gap Working Group. Washington, DC: CGD.
Chanaron, J.J. (2013) ‘Innovation Valuation: Guesswork or Formalized Framework? A Literature Review’, In Emerging Dimensions of Technology Management, pp. 17-33. Available at: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-81-322-0792-4_2 (Accessed: 11/01/16)
Chesbrough, H. (2004) ‘Managing open innovation’, Research-Technology Management, 47(1), pp.23-26. Available at: http://search.proquest.com/openview/7a1e934eb44ab01f9c313b7f0175f046/1?pq-origsite=gscholar (Accessed: 11/01/16)
Chesbrough, H. (2011), “The case for open services innovation: the commodity trap”, California Management Review, Vol. 53 No. 3,pp. 5-20.
Chesbrough, H. (2016) Lecture by Henry Chesbrough at Haas School of Business. Available at: https://twitter.com/HenryChesbrough (Accessed 01 November 2016)
Chesbrough, H. and Rosenbloom, R. (2002), “The Role of the Business Model in Capturing Value from Innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s Technology Spin-off Companies”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 11 No. 3,pp. 529-555.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H., Sohyeong, K., and Agogino, A. (2014), “Chez panisse: Building an open innovation ecosystem”, California Management Review, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 144-171.
Christensen, C. M. (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma: When Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:122
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007) Research Methods in Education. 6th Edition.
Conger, S. (2009). Social inventions. Innovation Journal, 14(2). www.innovation.cc/books/conger_
Cooper, R.G. (2014) What's Next?: After Stage-Gate. Research-Technology Management, 57(1), pp.20-31.
Cooper, R.G. (2014) What's Next?: After Stage-Gate. Research-Technology Management, 57(1), pp.20-31.
Cooper, R.G. and Edgett, S. (2014) Portfolio Management for New Products: Picking The Winners. Stage-Gate International and Product Development Institute Inc. pp.3-6
Cooper, R.G. Edgett, S. and Kleinschmidt, E., 2001. Portfolio management for new product development: results of an industry practices study. R&D Management, 31(4), pp.361-380.
Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1998) Best Practices for Managing R&D Portfolios. Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J. and Kleinschmidt, E.J.(1999) New Product Portfolio Management: Practices and Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16, 333–50. Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J. and Kleinschmidt, E.J.(2000) New Problems, New Solutions: Making
Cordery, C. and Sinclair, R. (2013), “Measuring performance in the third sector”, Qualitative Research in Accounting &Management , Vol. 10 Nos 3/4, pp. 196-212. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/QRAM-03-2013-0014 (accessed: 03 January 2016)
Danila, N. (1989) Strategic Evaluation and Selection of R&D Projects. R&D Management, 19, 47–62. Davidson, E. J. (2005). Evaluation methodology basics: The nuts and bolts of sound evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage. (p126-127)
Day, G.S. (2007) ‘Is it real? Can we win? Is it worth doing? Managing risk and reward in an innovation portfolio’, Harvard Business Review, June 2002, pp.110-120.
Dean, H. (2015) Building innovation capability in an intergovernmental aid organization: A case study of UNICEF’s Innovation Unit. Available at: http://www.unicefstories.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/THESIS-Harald-Dean5b15d5b25d.pdf (Accessed: 21 April 2016)
Deloitte (2016) Deloitte Millenials Survey 2016. Available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/millennialsurvey.html (Accessed: 05 November 2016)
Demirag, I. and Khadaroo, I. (2011) Accountability and value for money: a theoretical framework for the relationship in public -private partnerships. Journal of Management and Governance, 15 (2) (2011), pp. 271–296
Denzin, N.K. (1978) Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook. New York: McGraw Hill.
Diamond, M.J., 2005. Establishing a performance management framework for government (No. 5-50). International Monetary Fund. Dozois, E., Langlois M., & Blanchet-Cohen, N. (2010). DE 201: A practitioner’s guide to developmental evaluation. Montreal, Canada. J.W. McConnell Foundation and the International Institute for Child Rights and Development.
Drucker, P.F. (1954), The Practice of Management, William Heinemann, London
Dushnitsky, G. and Lenox, M.J., (2006) ‘When does corporate venture capital investment create firm value?’, Journal of Business Venturing, 21(6), pp. 753-772.
Ebrahim, A. 2005. Accountability Myopia: Losing Sight of Organizational Learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(1): 56-87. Available at: http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/34/1/56.abstract (Accessed 15/01/16)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:123
Ebrahim, A. and Rangan, V. (2010). What Impact? A Framework for Measuring the scale and scope of social performance. University Of California, Berkeley, Vol.56 (3), 2014.
Ebrahim, A., &Rangin, V. (2010). The limits of nonprofit impact: A contingency framework for measuring social performance. St. Louis: Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis. Available at: http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/10-099.pdf (accessed on 19 December, 2015)
Eggers, J.P. (2012) All Experience Is Not Created Equal: Learning, Adapting, and Focusing in Product Portfolio Management. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 315–35.
Emerson, J., (2003) ‘The blended value proposition: Integrating social and financial returns’, California management review, 45(4), pp. 35-51.
Emni, A., Ozlem, E., Maja, K., Ilan, R., & Florian, S. (2011). Value for money: Current approaches and evolving debates. London School of Economics. Available at: https://www.bond.org.uk/data/files/LSE_Value_for_Money__Current_Approaches_and_Evolving_Debates.pdf (Accessed 15/01/16)
Fabian, C & Grote, S. (2016) UNICEF Innovation Diagram. Available at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/nc8c59qiz8gbu1n/for_zack.pptx?dl=0 (Accessed: 14 June 2016) (Note: Further update received from Grote, S. via email on 17 July 2016)
Flick, U. (1992) Triangulation Revisited: Strategy of Validation or Alternative?. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour Vol.22:2 pp. 176-177. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1992.tb00215.x/abstract (Accessed 18/01/16)
Flick, U. (2013) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis, e-book, accessed 31 July 2016, <http://manchester.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1707694>.
Florida, R.L. and Kenney, M., (1988) ‘Venture capital-financed innovation and technological change in the USA’, Research Policy, 17(3), pp. 119-137.
Foster, W., (2008) ‘Money to grow On’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Vol. 6(4), p. 50.
Gompers, P. and Lerner, J., (2000) ‘The determinants of corporate venture capital success: Organizational structure, incentives, and complementarities’, Concentrated corporate ownership, pp. 17-54, University of Chicago Press.
Greiling, D (2010) "Balanced scorecard implementation in German non‐profit organisations", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 59 Iss: 6, pp.534 – 554.
Harris, I., Mainelli, M. & O'Callaghan, M. 2002, "Evidence of worth in not-for-profit sector organizations", Strategic Change, vol. 11, no. 8, pp. 399.
Harwood, R. (2016) The Open Innovation Methods Matrix – Part 1. Available at: http://www.100open.com/the-open-innovation-methods-matrix-part-1/ (Accessed 29 October 2016)
Hay, M. and Williamson, P. 1991, “Strategic Staircases: Planning the Capabilities Required for Success", Long Range Planning, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 36 to 43.
Holtzman, Y (2014),"A strategy of innovation through the development of a portfolio of innovation capabilities", Journal of Management Development, Vol. 33 Iss 1 pp. 24 - 31
IDIA (2016). The IDIA Measuring Impact Working Group Document ‘Towards a Shared Impact Measurement Framework for Innovation’ (2016)
ILO (2014), Fooled by randomisation: why RCTs might be the real ‘gold standard’ for private sector development, The Lab Market Systems Development for Decent Work
Jagiello, K. (2016) Advanced Strategic Management (ASM): Full Workshop Slide Pack, Jagiello Associates for Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester.
Jagiello, K. and Jagiello, J. (2015) ‘Strategic Management: The Strategic Management Course Manual’ Available at:
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:124
https://online.manchester.ac.uk/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_35079_1&content_id=_3383007_1 (Accessed: 20 May 2015)
Kanter, R., (1985) ‘Supporting innovation and venture development in established companies’, Journal of business venturing, 1(1), pp. 47-60.
Kaplan, R.S. (2001) ‘Strategic Performance Measurement and Management in Non-profit Organizations’, Non-profit Management and Leadership, Spring 2001, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 353-370.
Katy, B., Turgut, E., Holzmann, T. and Sailer, K., 2013. Innovation intermediaries: a process view on open innovation coordination. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(3), pp.295-309.
Keizer, J.A. and Halman, J.I., 2007. Diagnosing risk in radical innovation projects. Research-Technology Management, 50(5), pp.30-36.
Kester, L., Griffin, A., Hultink, E.J. and Lauche, K., 2011. Exploring Portfolio Decision‐Making Processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management,28(5), pp.641-661.
Khurshed, A., Espenlaud, S., Strong, N., Garrett, I., Goa, N., De Cesari, A. (2014) Corporate Finance Study Guide and workbook. Manchester business School.
King, J., McKegg, K., Oakden, J., and Wehipeihana, N. (2013). Rubrics: A method for surfacing values and improving the credibility of evaluation. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 9(21), 11–20.
King, N.(2004) ‘Chapter 2 Using interviews in qualitative research’, Essential guide to Qualitative Methods in Organisational Research. Edited by Cassell C. and Symon G. London: Sage Publications
Klingebiel, R. and Rammer, C., 2014. Resource allocation strategy for innovation portfolio management. Strategic Management Journal, 35(2), pp.246-268. London: Routledge Falmer
Koen, P.A., 2004. The fuzzy front end for incremental, platform and breakthrough products and services. PDMA Handbook, pp.81-91.
Kressel, H. and Winarsky, N. (2015), ‘Why the Fail-Fast Approach Isn’t Right for Breakthrough Ventures’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. number unavailable, [Online]. Available at: https://hbr.org/2015/11/why-the-fail-fast-approach-isnt-right-for-breakthrough-ventures (Accessed: 25 October, 2016).
Krlev, G., Bund, E. and Mildenberger, G. (2014) ‘Measuring what matters—Indicators of social innovativeness on the national level’, Information Systems Management, 31(3), pp.200-224. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264090717_Measuring_What_Matters-Indicators_of_Social_Innovativeness_on_the_National_Level (Accessed: 11/01/16)
Kroeger, A, & Weber, C 2014, 'Developing A Conceptual Framework For Comparing Social Value Creation', Academy Of Management Review, 39, 4, pp. 513-540, Business Source Alumni Edition, EBSCOhost. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276183507_Developing_a_Conceptual_Framework_for_Comparing_Social_Value_Creation (Accessed 15/01/16)
Kurzweil, R. (2001) The Law of Accelerating Returns. Available at: http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns (Accessed: 29 October 2016)
Lacerda, F. M., Martens, C. D. P. and Freitas, H. M. R (2016) A Project Portfolio Management model adapted to non-profit organizations. Project Management Research and Practice
Lecy, J., Schmitz, H. and Swedlund, H. (2012), “Non-governmental and not-for-profit organizational effectiveness: a modern synthesis”, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organisations, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 434-457. Available at: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11266-011-9204-6 (Accessed 15/01/16)
Lerner, J., (2013) ‘Corporate venturing’, Harvard Business Review, 91(10), pp. 86-94.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:125
Letts, C.W., Ryan, W. and Grossman, A., (1997) ‘Virtuous capital: What foundations can learn from venture capitalists’, Harvard business review, 75, pp. 36-50.
Levitt, T. (1986) ‘The Marketing Imagination’. New York: Free Press.
Liket, K.C., Rey-Garcia, M. and Maas, K.E., (2014) Why Aren’t Evaluations Working and What to Do About It A Framework for Negotiating Meaningful Evaluation in Nonprofits. American Journal of Evaluation, 35(2), pp.171-188. Available at: http://aje.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/18/1098214013517736 (Accessed 15/01/16).
Lindgardt, Z., Reeves, M., Stalk, G. & Deimler, M. S. (2009) Business Model Innovation: When the Game Gets Tough, Change the Game. Boston: The Boston Consulting Group. Available at: https://www.bcg.com/documents/file36456.pdf (Accessed: 2
nd September 2016)
Lovbrand, E., Pielke, R. and Beck, S. (2011) ‘A Democracy Paradox in Studies of Science and Technology’, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 36, No. 4 (July 2011), pp. 474-496.
MacMillan, C. I., Van Putten, B. A., Mcgrath, G. R., and Thompson, D. J., (2006) ‘Using Real Options Discipline for Highly Uncertain Technology Investments’, Research Technology Management, 49, 1, pp. 29-37, Jan/Feb 2016.
Martinsuo, M. & Killen, C. (2014) ‘Value management in project portfolios: identifying and assessing strategic value’, paper presented to the European Academy of Management, June 4-7, Valencia, Spain.
Mathews, S (2011) 'Innovation Portfolio Architecture, Part -- 2: Attribute Selection And Valuation', Research Technology Management, 54, 5, pp. 37-46, Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost
Mathews, S 2010, 'Innovation Portfolio Architecture', Research Technology Management, 53, 6, pp. 30-40, Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 3 September 2016.
Matusik, S.F. and Fitza, M.A., (2012) ‘Diversification in the venture capital industry: leveraging knowledge under uncertainty’, Strategic Management Journal, 33(4), pp. 407-426.
McGrath, R. (2010) Business Models: ‘A Discovery Driven Approach.’ Long Range Planning. 43 (2010), pp. 247-261.
McKinsey (2014) The Seven Effective Traits of Effective Digital Enterprises. Available at: http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/organization/our-insights/the-seven-traits-of-effective-digital-enterprises (Accessed: 16 April 2016).
McKinsey (2015) The Eight Essentials of Innovation. Available at: http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/the-eight-essentials-of-innovation (Accessed: 16 April 2016).
McInerney, P. (2014) ‘Networks of innovation: tracing the structures of flows among not-for-profit open source software foundations, philanthropies and intermediaries'. Voluntary Sector Review, Vol 5, No 1, pp. 47–73, (2014). Available at: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tpp/vsr/2014/00000005/00000001/art00003 (Accessed: 01 January 2016)
Meagher, B (2015) Final Project Preparation Course Assessment 1: What do we mean by Triangulation? Why might triangulation be important in relation to researching an organization using a single case study approach?
Meagher, B (2016a) Advanced Strategic Management: Course Assessment 1: How can innovation capability at UNICEF be improved to add value to the organisation’s mission?
Meagher, B (2016b) Advanced Strategic Management: Course Assessment 3: UNICEF Innovation, Open Source Business Models & VC Portfolio.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:126
Meagher, B., McKeogh, D., Afifi, H., Miller, J. (2015) Final Project Preparation Course Assessment 2: Research Proposal: A Framework to assess value creation by innovation at UNICEF.
Meier, C. (2016) 5 Successful Business Models for Web-based Open-source Project. Available at: https://handsontable.com/blog/articles/5-successful-business-models-for-web-based-open-source-projects (Accessed 24 October 2016)
Melwani, A., Meagher, B., McKeogh, D., Afifi, H., Santiago-Miller, J., (2016) Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund, Assessment 2, Interim Report.
Meskendahl, S. (2010) The Influence of Business Strategy on Project Portfolio Management and its Success – A Conceptual Framework. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 807–17.
Metcalfe, B. “Metcalfe’s Law: A network becomes more valuable as it reaches more users,” Infoworld, Oct. 2, 1995. See also the May 6, 1996 column, hhttp://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayNew.pl?/metcalfe/bm050696.htmi.
Micheli, P & Kennerley, M (2005) Performance measurement frameworks in public and non-profit sectors, Production Planning & Control, 16:2, 125-134, DOI: Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09537280512331333039 (Accessed 15/01/16)
Moody, M., Littlepage, L. and Paydar, N. (2015), Measuring Social Return on Investment. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 26: 19–37. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/nml.21145/pdf (Accessed 15/01/16)
Moore, G. A. (1991) ‘Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling High-Tech Products to Mainstream Customers’. New York: Harper Collins.
Mulgan, G. (2016) Nesta: Good and bad innovation: What kind of theory and practice do we need to distinguish them? Available at: http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/good_and_bad_innovation_by_geoff_mulgan.pdf (Accessed: 26 July 2016)
Nagji, B. and Tuff, G., (2012) Managing your innovation portfolio. Harvard Business Review, 90(5), pp.66-74.
Nichols J, Coldwell H, McIntosh B and Thornton G (2016) Towards a collective understanding of Social Cost Benefit and Value. The Journal of Strategy, Operations and Economics. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241740717_Social_Return_on_Investment_SROI_and_Performance_Measurement (Accessed 15/01/16)
O'Connor, G.C. and DeMartino, R. (2006). Organizing for radical innovation: an exploratory study of the structural aspects of RI management systems in large established firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, pp. 475–497.
Ohr, R-C., and McFarhting, K. (2013) Managing Innovation Portfolios, from Innovation Management.Se, Innovation Management online concepts, https://www.innovationmanagement.se/2013/09/16/managing-innovation-portfoliosstrategic-portfolio-management/, Retrieved 20th July 2016
Osterwalder, A and Smith, A., (2016) Strategyzer.com, Value Proposition Tools, Available at: https://strategyzer.com/platform/resources (Accessed 18/09/16)
Osterwalder, A. and Pigneur, Y. (2010) Business Model Generation. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Parnell, B. (2016) More Corporations Are Looking to Corporate Venture Capital to Access Innovative Start-up Technologies Available [Online] at: http://www.rocketspace.com/ corporate-innovation/more- corporations-are-looking-to- corporate-venture-capital
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:127
Patton, M.Q. (2011) Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use (PDF e-Book). Guilford Press, 2011
Patton, M.Q. (2015) Developmental Evaluation Exemplars: Principles in Practice (EPUB e-Book). Guilford Press, 2015
Paulson, A.S., O'Connor, G.C. and Robeson, D., 2007. Evaluating radical innovation portfolios. Research-Technology Management, 50(5), pp.17-29.
Pawson, R. and Tilley, N., (1997) Realistic evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Platt, J., (1981) ‘Evidence and proof in documentary research: 1: Some specific problems of documentary research’, The Sociological Review, 29(1), pp. 31-52.
Polonsky, MJ, Landreth, s, McDonald, G (2016),"Perspectives on social impact measurement and non-profit organisations", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 34 Iss 1 pp. 80 – 98
Putten, A. B. and MacMillan, I. A. (2004) ‘Making Real Options Really Work’, Harvard Business Review, December 2004, pp. 1-7.
Ramalingam, B. and Bound, K. (2016) Nesta: Innovation for International Development: Navigating the Paths and Pitfalls. Nesta. [Online]. Available at: http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/innovation_in_international_development.pdf (Accessed: 30 April 2016).
Research Councils UK (2015), ‘Research Councils UK Common Principles on Data Policy’. Available at: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/datapolicy/ (Accessed: 25 July 2016), Research Technology Management, 41, 20–33.
Ries, E. (2011) The Lean Start-up. New York: Crown Publishing Group, a division of Random House, Inc.
Ruff, K. & Olsen, S., (2016) The Next Frontier in Social Impact Measurement Isn’t Measurement at All, Why we need skilled analysts to improve social capital markets. Available at:
Sarasvathy, Saras D., What Makes Entrepreneurs Entrepreneurial?, Vol., pp. 1-9, Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=909038 (Accessed 23 September 2015).
Saunders, M., Lewis P. and Thornhill, A. (2009) ‘Research Methods for Business Students’. 5th edn. England: Person Education Limited.
Saunders, M., Lewis P. and Thornhill, A. (2012) ‘Research Methods for Business Students’. 6th edn. England: Person Education Limited.
Sculley, S. (2014) Moonshot: Game-changing Strategies to build Billion-Dollar Businesses. New York: Rosetta Books.
Seelos, C. and Mair, J. (2016), ‘When Innovation Goes Wrong’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall 2016, pp. 26-33.
Shapiro, C. and Varian H. R. (1999). Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Sillanpää, V (2013) "Measuring the impacts of welfare service innovations", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 62 Iss: 5, pp.474 – 489
Smaje, C., (1997), Not Just a Social Construct: Theorizing Race and Ethnicity, Sage Social Science, Vol 31 No. 2, 307-327, Available at: http://soc.sagepub.com/content/31/2/307.short (Accessed 21/01/16)
Sniukas, M., Lee P. and Morasky, M. (2016) The Art of Opportunity: How to build growth and ventures through strategic innovation and visual thinking. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.social_inventions1_09232009min.pdf. Available
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:128
at: http://www.innovation.cc/books/conger_social_inventions1_09232009min.pdf (Accessed: 25 August 2016)
Soy, S. (1997) The Case Study as a Research Method. Uses and Users of Information -- LIS 391D.1 start-ups [Online]. Available at: http://bit.ly/InnovationFundPressRelease. (Accessed: 13 November 2016)
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., and Macnaghten, P. (2013) ‘Developing a Framework for Responsible Innovation’, Research Policy, Vol. 42, pp. 1568-1580.
Stirling, A. (2010) ‘Keep it complex: When knowledge is uncertain, experts should avoid pressures to simplify their advice’, Nature, Vol. 468, pp. 1029-1031.
Stokes D. and Bergin R. (2006) ‘Methodology or “methodolatry”? An evaluation of focus groups and depth
Stoten, D. W., (2013) NEETs a case study in addressing the issues relating to disengaged youth in East Cleveland Vol. 56 No. 5, 2014 pp. 467-480 Emerald Group, Available at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm (Accessed 24/01/16)
Strategy& PwC (2016) Global Innovation 1000: Software-as-a-Catalyst. Strategy+Business Issue 85 Winter 2016. Available at: http://www.strategy-business.com/media/file/sb85_16409_Global_Innovation_1000_SoftwareAsCatalyst.pdf (Date Accessed 31 October 2016)
Strategy& PwC (2016) The Global Innovation 1000: The Top Innovators and Spenders. Available at: http://www.strategyand.pwc.com/innovation1000#/tab-2016|VisualTabs1 (Date Accessed 31 October 2016)
Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal .28 (13), 1319 - 1350
Terwiesch, C, & Ulrich, K 2008, 'Managing The Opportunity Portfolio', Research Technology Management, 51, 5, pp. 27-38, Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 3 September 2016.
The University of Manchester, (2016) ‘Research Ethics’. Available at: http://www.manchester.ac.uk/research/environment/governance/ethics/ (Accessed: 25 July 2016)
The University of Manchester, (2016) ‘University Research Ethics Committee’. Available at : http://www.manchester.ac.uk/research/environment/governance/ethics/urec/ (Accessed: 25 July 2016)
Thomas, W (2016) ‘Shooting for the Moon’, Ivey Business Journal Online, Spring 2006, Jan/Feb 2016.
Thomson, D. (2010), “Exploring the role of funders’ performance reporting mandates in nonprofit performance measurement”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 611-629.
Tuan, M.T. (2008). Measuring and/or estimating social value creation: Insights into eight integrated cost approaches. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation—Impact planning and improvement. Available at: https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/Documents/WWL-report-measuring-estimating-social-value-creation.pdf (Accessed on: 18 December, 2015).
UNFPA (Undated) Disrupting the UN System – UNFPA’s New Vision on Youth Innovation. Available at: https://unjobfinder.org/articles/unfpa-youth-innovation-engagement-and-participation (Accessed: 04 November 2016)
Unger, B.N., Kock, A., Gemünden, H.G. and Jonas, D. (2012) Enforcing Strategic Fit of Project Portfolios by Project Termination: An Empirical Study on Senior Management Involvement. International Journal of Project Management, 30, 675–85.
Unger, B.N., Rank, J. and Gemünden, H.G. (2014) Corporate Innovation Culture and Dimensions of
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:129
UNHCR (2014) UNHCR Innovation. Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/5319ddb39.pdf (Accessed: 31 October 2016)
UNHCR (2016) UNHCR launches Fund to drive innovation in operations. Available at: http://innovation.unhcr.org/unhcr-launches-fund-drive-innovation-operations/ (Accessed: 31 October 2016)
UNICEF (2005) Annual Report 2004 [Online]. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Annual_Report_2004.pdf (Accessed: 10 February 2015).
UNICEF (2006) Annual Report 2005 [Online]. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Annual_Report_2005.pdf (Accessed: 10 February 2015).
UNICEF (2007) Annual Report 2006 [Online]. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Annual_Report_2006.pdf (Accessed: 10 February 2015).
UNICEF (2008) Annual Report 2007 [Online]. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Annual_Report_2007.pdf (Accessed: 10 February 2015).
UNICEF (2009) Annual Report 2008 [Online]. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/UNICEF_Annual_Report_2008_EN_072709.pdf (Accessed: 10 February 2015).
UNICEF (2010) Annual Report 2009 [Online]. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/UNICEF_Annual_Report_2009_EN_061510.pdf (Accessed: 10 February 2015).
UNICEF (2011) Annual Report 2010 [Online]. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/UNICEF_Annual_Report_2010_EN_052711.pdf (Accessed: 10 February 2015).
UNICEF (2012) Annual Report 2011 [Online]. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/UNICEF_Annual_Report_2011_EN_060112.pdf (Accessed: 10 February 2015).
UNICEF (2013a) Annual Report 2012 [Online]. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/UNICEF-AnnualReport2012_8July2013.pdf (Accessed: 10 February 2015)
UNICEF (2013b) ‘The UNICEF Strategic Plan, 2014-2017: Realising the rights of every child especially the disadvantaged’ [Online]. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/strategicplan/files/2013-21-UNICEF_Strategic_Plan-ODS-English.pdf (Accessed: 23 June 2015)
UNICEF (2013c) ‘The UNICEF Strategic Plan, 2014-2017: Realising the rights of every child especially the disadvantaged [short brochure]’ [Online]. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/strategicplan/files/UNICEF_Strategic_Plan__2014-2017_e-version.pdf (Accessed: 23 June 2015)
UNICEF (2013d) UNICEF Stories: What Innovation Means to UNICEF. Available at: https://blogs.unicef.org/innovation/what-innovation-means-to-unicef/ (Accessed: 06 June 2016)
UNICEF (2013e) UNICEF innovation toolkit. Available at: https://unicefinnovationtoolkit.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/unicef_innovation_toolkit.pdf (Accessed: 25
th September 2015)
UNICEF (2014a) Annual Report 2013 [Online]. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/UNICEF_Annual_Report_2013_web_26_June_2014.pdf (Accessed: 10 February 2015).
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:130
UNICEF (2014b) UNICEF Innovation Annual Report 2014 [Online]. Available at: https://unicefstories.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/ui_ar_2014-1124.pdf (Accessed: 16 May 2015)
UNICEF (2015a) From Principle to Practice: Implementing the Principles for Digital Development: Perspectives and Recommendations from the Practitioner Community. Available at: http://www.unicefstories.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/From_Principle_to_Practice.pdf (Accessed: 31 October 2016)
UNICEF (2015b) Innovation in the UN: A Session of Joint Meeting of the Executive Boards of UNDP/UNFPA/UNOPS, UNICEF, UN-Women and WFP, February 2, 2015. Available at: http://www.unicefstories.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Innovation-in-the-UN_04.09.2015-1.pdf (Accessed: 31 October 2016)
UNICEF (2015c) The UNICEF Vision and Mission for Children [Online]. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/publicpartnerships/files/UNICEF_Mission(1).pdf (Accessed: 11 December 2015)
UNICEF (2016a) Annual Report 2015 [Online]. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/UNICEF_Annual_Report_2015_En.pdf (Accessed: 31 October 2016)
UNICEF (2016b) UNICEF Innovation: Focus Areas. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/innovation/innovation_73203.html (Accessed: 20 May 2016)
UNICEF (2016c) UNICEF Innovation: UNICEF Innovation Fund: About. Available at: http://www.unicefinnovationfund.org/#about-page (Accessed: 20 May 2016)
UNICEF (2016d) UNICEF Innovation: UNICEF Innovation Fund: Resources: Learn More About The Innovation Fund. Available at: http://www.unicefinnovationfund.org/learn-more (Accessed: 20 May 2016)
UNICEF (2016e) UNICEF Innovation: UNICEF Innovation Fund: Resources: List of UNICEF Programme Countries. Available at: http://www.unicefinnovationfund.org/programme-countries (Accessed: 20 May 2016)
UNICEF (2016f) UNICEF Innovation: UNICEF Innovation Fund: Resources: Principals. Available at: http://www.unicefstories.org/principles/ (Accessed: 20 May 2016)
UNICEF (2016g) UNICEF Innovation: UNICEF Innovation Fund: Resources: Short Background Note. Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwC3tr7jXADzNXJTNzk4d01qams/view?pref=2&pli=1 (Accessed: 20 May 2016)
UNICEF (2016h) UNICEF Innovation: UNICEF Innovation Fund: Resources: UNICEF Request for Expression of Interest (REOI) for Open Source Technology Solutions for Children. Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6-5qW-9eN2bUG9nOVA2eGpyU0k/view?pref=2&pli=1 (Accessed: 20 May 2016)
UNICEF (2016i) UNICEF Innovation: Who we are. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/innovation/innovation_73203.html (Accessed: 20 May 2016)
UNICEF (2016j) UNICEF Innovation: UNICEF Innovation Fund Dashboard. Available at: http://staging-innovation.herokuapp.com/ (Accessed: 09 November 2016)
UNICEF (2016k) - UNICEF Innovation Fund Backgrounder [Online]. Available at: http://www.unicefstories.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/UNICEF-Innovation-Fund-2-pager.pdf (Accessed: 13 November 2016)
UNICEF (2016l) UNICEF makes venture capital investments in emerging market tech start-ups [Online]. Available at: http://bit.ly/InnovationFundPressRelease. (Accessed: 13 November 2016)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:131
UNICEF (2016m) UNICEF Innovation fund Scoring Criteria for Request For Expression Of Interest (REOI) stage and Request For Proposal RFP stage.
UNICEF (2016n) UNICEF Global Innovation Centre: Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Frame work. UNICEF (2016o) IoGT Log frame Global Innovation Level Alternative Draft 20th June 2016
UNICEF (2016p) U-Report Log frame Global Innovation Level Draft 5: revised – 28th June 2016
UNICEF (Undated) UNICEF Innovation: Focus Areas: Real-time Information. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/supply/files/Day_2_5._Unicef_innovation.pdf (Accessed: 20 May 2016)
UNICEF. (2003) UNICEF's mission statement. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/about/who/index_mission.html (Accessed: 06 February 2015)
University of Manchester (2014), ‘Code of Good Research Conduct’. Available at: https://documents.manchester.ac.uk/display.aspx?DocID=2804 (Accessed: 25 July 2016)
University of Manchester, (2016) ‘University of Manchester Research Data Management Policy’. Available at: http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/services-and-support/staff/research/services/research-data-management/policy/(Accessed: 25 July 2016).
Von Hippel, E., Thomke, S. and Sonnack, M. (1999) “Creating Breakthroughs at 3M.” Harvard Business Review 77, no. 5 (September 1999).
Von Schomberg, R. (2013) ‘A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation’, In Own, R., Heintz, M., and Bessant, J. (eds.) Responsible Innovation. London: John Wiley.
Von Schomberg, R. (2014) ‘The Quest for the ‘right’ Impacts of Science and Technology: A Framework for Responsible Research and Innovation. In Van den Hoven, J., Doorn, D., Swierstra, T., Koops, B.J. and Romijin, H. (2014) Innovation 1: Innovative Solutions for Global Issues. Netherlands. Springer
WFP (2016) World Food Programme Launches Innovation Accelerator To Test Drive Hunger Solutions. Published 11 July 2016. Available at: http://www.wfp.org/news/news-release/world-food-programme-launches-innovation-accelerator-test-drive-hunger-solutions (Accessed: 04 November 2016)
Wilsdon, J. Willis, R. (2012) See-Through Science: Why public engagement needs to move upstream. Available at: http://www.csec.lancs.ac.uk/docs/nano%20project%20seethroughsciencefinal%20nov05.pdf (Accessed 23 July 2016)
Wood, C. and Leighton, D. 2010 Measuring Social Value – The Gap Between Policy and Practice. London: Demos. Available at: http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Measuring_social_value_-_web.pdf (Accessed on 21 December, 2015)
Yin, R. (2014) Case study research: Design and methods. (5th edn) Los Angeles: Sage.
Zappalà G, Lyons M. (2009). Recent approaches to measuring social impact in the Third sector: An overview. CSI Background Paper No. 6 July 2009.Available at: http://www.socialauditnetwork.org.uk/files/8913/2938/6375/ CSI_Background_Paper_No_5_-_Approaches_to_measuring_social_impact_-_150210.pdf (Accessed 21 December, 2015)
Zappalà G, Lyons M. (2009). Recent approaches to measuring social impact in the Third sector: An overview. CSI Background Paper No. 6 July 2009.
Zider, B., (1998). ‘How venture capital works’. Harvard business review, 76(6), pp.131-139.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:132
Appendices
Appendix 1: UNICEF Background and Context
UNICEF's Seven Strategic Outcomes (Medium Term Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
UNICEF Medium Term Strategic Plan 2014-2017 (UNICEF, 2013b&c) focuses on seven strategic ‘outcomes’. A
description of each outcome along with related programme areas are summarised below.
7 Strategic Outcomes Programme Areas
1 Health: Supporting global efforts to reduce under-five mortality through improved and equitable use of high impact maternal, new-born and child health interventions from pregnancy to adolescence and promotion of healthy behaviours.
Immunization; Polio eradication; maternal and new-born health; child health; health systems strengthening; health in humanitarian situations.
2 HIV&AIDS: Supporting global efforts to prevent HIV infections and increase treatment during both decades of a child’s life through improved and equitable use of proven HIV prevention and treatment interventions by pregnant women, children and adolescents.
Prevention of mother to child transmission and infant male circumcision; and treatment of young children affected by HIV&AIDS; adolescents and HIV&AIDS; protection and support for children and families; HIV&AIDS in humanitarian situations.
3 WASH: Supporting efforts to eliminate open defecation and increase use of safe drinking water through improved and equitable access to safe drinking water sources, sanitation and healthy environments and improved hygiene practices.
Water supply; sanitation; Hygiene; WASH in schools and early childhood centres; WASH in humanitarian situations.
4 Nutrition: Supporting global efforts to reduce under nutrition, with particular focus on stunting, through improved and equitable use of nutritional support and improved nutrition and care practices.
Infant and young child feeding; micronutrients; nutrition and HIV; community management of acute malnutrition; nutrition in humanitarian situations.
5 Education: Supporting global efforts to provide access to quality education for both boys and girls through improved learning outcomes and equitable and inclusive education.
Early learning; equity with a focus on girls’ education and inclusive education; learning and child friendly schools; education in humanitarian situations.
6 Child Protection: Supporting global efforts to prevent violence, abuse, exploitation and neglect through improved and equitable prevention and child protection systems.
Child protection systems strengthening; violence, exploitation and abuse; birth registration; strengthening families and communities; child protection in humanitarian situations.
7 Social Inclusion: Supporting global efforts to reduce child poverty and discrimination against children through improved policy environments and systems for disadvantaged children.
Child poverty analysis and social protection; human rights, non-discrimination and participation; public financial management; governance and decentralisation; social inclusion in humanitarian situations.
Figure 72: Strategic Outcome Description and Programme Areas (UNICEF, 2013b&c)
Innovation as an Implementation Strategy (Medium Term Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
The Medium Term Strategic Plan identifies seven implementation strategies to achieve the outputs one of
which is ‘Identification and Promotion of Innovation’ described as ‘identifying promising innovations and
supporting partners to adopt, adapt and scale up the most useful and promising approaches’ (UNICEF,
2013b&c) giving innovation a central role in the organisation's strategy.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:133
Demand Enhanced support for children, families and communities to promote knowledge, behaviour change,
demand for services and opportunities for participation
Supply Increased national capacity to ensure availability of, and access to, services and to strengthen systems
Enabling Environment Strengthen political commitment and national capacity to legislate, plan and budget for children
Humanitarian Action Increased country capacity and delivery of services to protect and provide for children in humanitarian
settings
Rights and Gender Equality Increased capacity of governments and partners, as duty-bearers, to identify and respond to specific
challenges related to the protection and promotion of the rights of children, to gender equality, and to the empowerment of girls and women.
Global & Regional Action Enhanced enabling environment at global and regional levels to realize child rights
Capacity Development Communication for development (C4D), training, tech., assistance.
Evidence Generation, Policy Dialogue and Advocacy Generate evidence using innovation to influence policy, dialogue and advocacy.
Partnerships National, local, civil society, academic and private sector.
South-South and Triangular Cooperation Triangular cooperation.
Identification and Promotion of Innovation Identifying promising innovations and supporting partners to adopt, adapt and scale up the most useful
and promising approaches.
Integration and Cross-Sectoral Linkages Learning from integrated programmes and partnerships.
Service Delivery Delivering essential services and commodities especially where institutional capacity is weak.
...through sound implementation strategies based on UNICEF’s comparative advantage in achieving results for children, especially the most disadvantaged and... through sound management practices and
operational excellence based on clear principles, achievement of concrete results, accountability and transparency.
Figure 73: UNICEF Strategic Plan 2014-2017 Overview (UNICEF, 2013b&c)
Health
Outcome
Education
Outcome
HIV/AIDS
Outcome
Child Protection Outcome
Social Inclusion Outcome
WASH
Outcome
Nutrition
Outcome
Realising the rights of every child, especially the most disadvantaged
Seven Strategic Outcomes
Common set of Six Outputs for each Outcome
Organizational Efficiency and Effectiveness
Seven Implementation Strategies
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:134
List of UNICEF Programme Countries
Country Country Country Afghanistan Ghana Palau
Albania Grenada Panama
Algeria Guatemala Papua New Guinea
Angola Guinea Paraguay
Anguilla Guinea Bissau Peru
Antigua and Barbuda Guyana Philippines
Argentina Haiti Qatar
Armenia Honduras Romania
Azerbaijan India Russian Federation
Bahrain Indonesia Rwanda
Bangladesh Iran (Islamic Republic of) Saint Kitts and Nevis
Barbados Iraq Saint Lucia
Belarus Jamaica Saint Vincent & Grenadines
Belize Jordan Samoa
Benin Kazakhstan Sao Tome and Principe
Bhutan Kenya Saudi Arabia
Bolivia, Plurinational State of Kiribati Seychelles
Bosnia and Herzegovina Korea, DPR Senegal
Botswana Kosovo under UNSC res. 1244 Serbia
Brazil Kuwait Sierra Leone
British Virgin Islands Kyrgyzstan Solomon Islands
Bulgaria Lao PDR Somalia
Burkina Faso Lebanon South Africa
Burundi Lesotho South Sudan, Republic of
Cambodia Liberia Sri Lanka
Cameroon Libya Sudan
Cape Verde Macedonia Suriname
Central African Republic Madagascar Swaziland
Chad Malawi Syrian Arab Republic
Chile Malaysia Tajikistan
China Maldives Tanzania, United Republic of
Colombia Mali Thailand
Comoros Marshall Islands, Republic of Timor-Leste
Congo Mauritania Togo
Cook Islands Mexico Tokelau
Costa Rica Micronesia (Federated States) Tonga
Cote d'Ivoire Moldova Trinidad and Tobago
Croatia Mongolia Tunisia
Cuba Montenegro Turkey
Congo (DRC) Montserrat Turkmenistan
Djibouti Morocco Turks and Caicos Islands
Dominica Mozambique Tuvalu
Dominican Republic Myanmar Uganda
Ecuador Namibia Ukraine
Egypt Nauru United Arab Emirates
El Salvador Nepal Uruguay
Equatorial Guinea Nicaragua Uzbekistan
Eritrea Niger Vanuatu
Ethiopia Nigeria Venezuela (Bolivian Republic)
Fiji Niue Vietnam
Gabon Occupied Palestinian Territory Yemen
Gambia Oman Zambia
Georgia Pakistan Zimbabwe
Figure 74: UNICEF Programme Countries (159) (UNICEF, 2016c&d)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:135
Appendix 2: UNICEF Office of Innovation Background and Context
Innovation Focus
The UNICEF Innovation Annual Report 2014 (UNICEF, 2014d) outlines three core focus areas namely;
information, opportunity and choice as follows:
1. Information: Innovation initiatives that apply either Real-time Data for two way communication and
better service delivery or Tracking ensuring mothers and children receive necessary, lifesaving
interventions. Example: RapidPro open source platform that allows design and adaptation of
solutions that provide access to information for better service delivery and interventions.
2. Opportunity: Innovation initiatives that remove barriers to, or provide new means of, Equitable
Access to services, facilities or products that give children an opportunity to survive and thrive.
Example: Mobistation portable multimedia education solutions.
3. Choice: Innovation initiatives that facilitate or improve Youth Engagement and/or Youth
Empowerment by bringing young people closer to government and other decision makers.
The UNICEF Office of Innovation website breaking them down into five more detailed focus areas as follows
(UNICEF, 2016a):
1. Real-time Information: ‘Tools that strengthen systems by providing real-time monitoring,
transparency, and accountability, which helps inform decision making’. Example: RapidPro (UNICEF,
2016a).
2. Youth Empowerment (engagement/choice): ‘Innovations that empower young people [to] become
social change agents who can influence and lead on solving problems in their communities. The ability
for young people to connect to each other and counsel each other also allows them to share and scale
their own solutions’. Example U-Report (UNICEF, 2016a).
3. Access to Information: ‘Emerging technologies can help overcome barriers that prevent young people
from accessing information and services. These new resources provide youth with more choices and
more opportunities’. Examples: Internet of Good Things, Virtual Reality (UNICEF, 2016a).
4. Infrastructure: ‘Solutions that overcome gaps in infrastructure -- such as connectivity, power, finance,
and transportation -- increase access to services and information’. Examples: Drones, Satellites
(UNICEF, 2016a).
5. Physical Products: ‘Product Innovation is about procurement of fit-for-purpose and value-for-money
supplies that have impact on our programmes and emergencies...’ Examples: Diagnosis kits, ORS &
Zinc Co-Pack for treating diarrhoea (UNICEF, 2016a).
Innovation Focus, Initiatives and Outcomes Map
Examples of some innovation initiatives for each of the five focus areas have been summarised and mapped
below. The link between each initiative and its contribution to UNICEF's wider strategic ‘outcomes’ is also
illustrated.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:136
‘Market’
Definition & Broad Focus
Innovation Focus (Detailed)
How Focus is Addressed
Initiative Groups / Platforms
Initiatives/Projects/Tools
Outcomes Health HIV/AIDS WASH Nutrition Education Child Protection Social Inclusion
Figure 75: UNICEF Office of Innovation; Focus, Initiatives & Outcomes Map (Created by the authors based on UNICEF, 2013b, c & d & 2016a-i & Meagher, 2016a&b)
International Child Welfare (Served) ‘Market’ (Focusing on 7 Strategic Outcomes – See final row)
Real-time Information & Tracking
Infrastructure Youth Empowerment, Engagement & Choice
RapidSMS (Birth Reporting)
RapidFTR (Rapid Family Tracing & Reunification)
Primero (Next Gen. RapidFTR)
Innovation at UNICEF: ‘to do something new or different that adds value...’ Broad Innovation Focus: Information, Opportunity & Choice
Access to Information Physical Products
Tools that strengthen real-time monitoring, transparency &
accountability to inform decision making (2-way
communication)
Solutions to gaps in connectivity, power, transport, finance &
administration increasing access to services&
information
Innovations that empower young people to become
social change agents, solve problems, connect & scale
solutions
Emerging technologies to overcome barriers to
accessing information & services giving the
opportunity & choice
Procurement of fit for purpose value for money supplies that impact programmes &
emergencies (mostly incremental innovations developed by country offices with some radical
innovations by UNICEF Supply)
RapidPro: Open Source Software Platform: design, pilot &
scale services connecting mobile phones without a developer.
RapidSMS delivery of
HIV test results
U-Report: 2 way real-time SMS
communication: Counselling Services,
Youth Influencing, Decision Making
Internet of Good Things
IoGT: Packaged content info. for
free & on low end devices
Virtual Reality: advocacy tool
to increase empathy trough
experience
Drones to transport HIV test samples
Satellites Connecting
Remote Communities
RemindMi (Mexico) SMS reminders to mothers on antenatal care, nutrition, delivery, postnatal care,
breastfeeding & immunisation
RapidPro SMS tracking
WASH kits in Pakistan
U-Report Voice
Matters protection
against abuse
U-Report: By Youth for Youth
UPSHIFT programme
encouraging youth to solve problems in their communities
by social media, lab website, etc.
PoC HIV Diagnostic
FOND Food Online
Nutrition Database
Temporary Emergency Structures
Primary School Furniture Design &
Procurement Guidelines
DigiSchool (Mobistation)Portable
solar powered multimedia kit with laptop, projector & speakers delivering educational content
in remote or un-served areas
Digital Kiosks Solar- powered
rugged computer kiosks for
youth centres in rural settings
Raspberry Pi eLearning tool interventions for out of school kids teaching basic core
and technology skills
mTrac (pregnancy monitor)
EduTrac (education monitor)
Health Products: ORS / Zinc co-pack for diarrhoea, COTZ End-to-end ORS/Zinc value chain in
remote areas, Amoxicillin
Dispersible Tablets, CHW+ Community Health Worker
pack & system, Weight Estimation Tape for CHWs,
ARIDA Diagnostic for Pneumonia, ViVa Stock
Visibility for Vaccines Online, Vaccine Supply to Last Mile
using Phase Change Material to avoid freezing, Emergency kit
labelling
HWTS Household water treatment & safe storage, Jerry Can Collapsible water container, Latrine
Additive to aid de-composition, Disabled latrines
Vaccine Supply to Last Mile using phase change material to avoid freezing
RapidPro: Successfully Creating Value after many Failures.
Benchmark for UNICEF Innovation Fund Expected Failure Rate. Inspiration for the ‘scanning the horizons’ approach.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:137
Focus (Broad)
How it is Addressed
Example Initiatives
Focus (Detailed)
Approach Office if Innovation Example Projects Launch Location Indicator / Metric
Possible Indicators (Metric)
Strategic Outcome
Information
Real-time Data: Two way communication & better service delivery
mTrac Birth Reporting Real-time
Information & Tracking (Information)
Tools that strengthen real-time monitoring, transparency, & accountability to inform decision making (2-way communication)
RapidSMS Birth Registration & RemindMi: Birth registration by SMS to central data base. Health check reminders during & after pregnancy
2010 Nigeria & Zambia
% Local Gov’t Areas Reporting
Identification of teams not performing
Health
mTrac: Disease surveillance reporting, drug stock monitoring & community feedback
2011 Uganda % Health Facilities Using
% health workers & % CHW using
Health
Tracking: Ensuring mothers & children receive lifesaving interventions
RapidFTR Primero
RapidFTR (Rapid Family Tracing and Reunification): 2011 Various TBC Mobilisation time, Time to reunite 50%, 75% 100%,
Child Protection (+ Health & Nutrition)
Primero (Next generation of RapidFTR) 2014 Pilot
TBC TBC Mobilisation time, Time to reunite 50%, 75% 100%
Child Protection (+ Health & Nutrition)
Opportunity
Equitable Access: Giving children an opportunity to survive & thrive
Mobistation Digital Kiosks Rasberry Pi ORS/Zinc Co-packaging Amoxicillin Dispersible Tablets
Access to information (Opportunity)
Emerging technologies to overcome barriers to accessing information & services
Digischool (MobiStation) (Schools): Portable solar powered multimedia kit built around a laptop, projector and speakers delivering educational content in remote or un-served areas
2012 Uganda No. of locations
Increase in No., No. of children taught, Increase in no. of kids taught
Education
MobiStation (healthcare training)
2014 Pilot
Uganda No. of locations
DITTO for health workers
Health (+Education)
Digital Kiosks: Solar- powered rugged computer kiosks for rural youth centres
2011 Uganda No. of kiosks
No. of kiosks / No. of rural centres
Social Inclusion (+ Education)
Raspberry Pi4L: eLearning for out of school kids teaching basic core and technology skills
2014 Pilot
Lebanon TBC No. of children using / No. of out of school
Education
Internet of Good Things: mobile-ready web-based resources & applications that bring good to life & education to children with no internet access
2015 40 countries (2015)
TBC No. of children using / No. of children without internet
Education (+ Social Inclusion)
Infrastructure (Opportunity)
Emerging technologies to overcome barriers to accessing information & services
RapidSMS HIV Test Results: Reduced cycle time of HIV test results leading to earlier infant diagnosis, treatment and statistically higher survival rates.
2010 Zambia Cycle Time: No. of Days
Ditto HIV/AIDS
Physical Products (Opportunity)
Procurement of fit for purpose value for money supplies that impact programmes & emergencies
Oral rehydration salts (ORS) & Zinc Co-packaging: Treatment for diarrhoea the second largest treatable cause of death
2010 UNICEF Supply
TBC No. of ORS & Zinc / No. of ORS
Health (+WASH)
Amoxicillin Dispersible Tablets: Dosage tracking antibiotic packet for pneumonia treatment
2011 UNICEF Supply
TBC No. of dosage tracking packets / Total No. of Packets
Health
Choice
Youth Engagement: Bring young people closer to government
Real-time Counselling Services Youth Influencing Decision Making
Youth Empowerment (Choice)
Innovations that empower young people to become social change agents, solve problems, connect & scale solutions
U-Report: Real-time Counselling Services, Youth Influencing, Decision Making SMS/Open Source weekly polls
2011 Uganda No. of users & No. of districts
No. of children using Social Inclusion,
U-Report: DITTO 2014 Nigeria No. of users DITTO Social Inclusion
U-Report: Individualised HIV counselling 2014 Zambia No. of users DITTO HIV + Social Inclusion
Figure 76: Sample Office Innovation Projects (Created by the authors based on UNICEF, 2014b and UNICEF 2013c&d & Meagher, 2016a&b)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:138
Principals for Digital Development
The Principals for Digital Development are at the very core of all UOI activities and are a key aspect of
assessment for initiatives applying for funding to UNICEF Innovation Fund. The principals have been developed
following years of iteration and lessons learned by UNICEF on the implementation of technology. The
principals have been endorsed by a wide range of global partners including other UN Agencies, the Gates
Foundation, private sector partners, governments and civil society organisation's (UNICEF, 2016e and
Meagher, 2016).
Figure 77: Principles for Digital Development (UNICEF, 2016f)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:139
Appendix 3: UNICEF Innovation Fund Background and Context
The UNICEF Innovation Fund was identified by the UOI as a core part of its strategy to pursue emerging
opportunities in the UNICEF Innovation Annual Report 2014 (UNICEF, 2014e).
Figure 78: UNICEF Office of Innovation Strategic Emphasis (UNICEF, 2014b)
The $10.5m venture fund was launched in 2015 to invest in open-source technologies that contribute towards
the organisation’s mission (UNICEF, 2016b). The UIF provides a pooled funding mechanism to support country
offices, small scale organisations and institutions to take their tested projects to the next stage (UNICEF,
2016b). The companies must be based in a country where UNICEF have an established country programme
which confirms that there is a need for the UNICEF mission.
The Innovation Fund supports projects for a 12-18 month period (UNICEF, 2016c) by which time it is
considered the project will have either succeeded in convincing scale funders of its potential or fail to go any
further. Evaluations conducted in this project aim to capture the few successes as well as learning from failures
which are expected as part of the Venture Capital style approach.
UNICEF Innovation Fund Stage of Innovation Process
A typical process for innovation based on the UNICEF Innovation Toolkit (2013) and UNICEF Supply Division
Innovation Process (Undated) is shown below. The process illustrated below is included herein to give clarity to
the stage at which the UNICEF Innovation Fund applies. The following 3 criteria give the overall nature and
stage of projects which can apply to UIF (UNICEF, 2016c):
1. Early stage
2. Prototype or pilot is complete (Proof of concept has been achieved)
3. A small amount of money (circa $100,000) is needed to demonstrate its value to scale
funders/investors
Thus UNICEF Innovation Fund is applicable immediately after proof or concept and ceases prior to scale up
phase as illustrated.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:140
Figure 79: UNICEF Innovation Fund and Innovation Process (UNICEF, 2013e & 2016a-i & UNICEF Supply Division, Undated & Meagher, 2016)
Step 1 Identifying
Need
based on database
research & UNICEF Strategy
resulting in a Project
Brief
Step 6 Development & Testing
Iteration Cycle:
1. Designing a technically feasible, desired & economically viable
product(Proof of Concept) 2. Prototyping to identify what is missing & explore
different possibilities, 3. Testing in lab & field in
typical usage environment, 4. Reflection on results to
facilitate redesign.
Step 7 Business Analysis
Financial viability of the
concept(s) assessed including Market Research, Return on
Innovation (ROI), Value Framework & Business
Model Canvas
Step 2 Idea Generation
Creative process
involving multidisciplinary
teams generating a
large quantity of ideas without
quality assessment
Step 3 Idea Screening
Evaluation
process involving multidisciplinary teams isolating
the most promising &
eliminating ideas unlikely to create
value
Step 4 Concept
Generation
Needs & ideas studied in the
field by a multidisciplinary
team applying human centred design gaining a
holistic understanding &
generating multiple product
concepts
Step 5 Concept Selection
Concepts
screened by a multidisciplinary
team using simple matrix
that prioritised concepts with
the highest impact & lowest
resources required based
on educated guesses resulting in the selection of one or more
concepts
Step 9 Implementation at Scale
Innovation scaled following
implementation plan for manufacturing &
distribution + monitoring & evaluation plan including
economic impact analysis & project evaluation plan
Step 8 Piloting
Final product
concept is tested across several regions in real
usage situation to ensure adoption
rates are high enough, test
manufacturing, raise awareness & demonstrate
value to decision makers
Stage Gate 0 Stage Gate 1 Stage Gate 2 Stage Gate 3
Phase 0: Explore Phase 1: Concept Phase 2: Field Trial Phase 3: Scale Up
Proof of Concept
(PoC) achieved
+ First
Prototype complete
UNICEF Innovation Fund
Internal & External projects eligible for $100,000 seed funding
investment over 12-18 months after PoC + 1st Prototype subject to
satisfying criteria
Scale Up Finance
Options: Private Sector investment, grant-funding,
UNICEF networks, International Development Innovation Alliance (IDIA), UNICEF
Innovation Procurement Acceleration Fund & Global
Innovation Centre
Principles For Digital Development 1. Design with the User; 2. Understand the Ecosystem; 3. Design for Scale; 4. Build for Sustainability; 5. Be Data Driven;
6. Use Open Data, Open Standards, Open Source, Open Innovation; 7. Reuse & Improve; 8. Address Privacy & Security; 9. Be Collaborative
Innovation Review Board evaluation
& resource allocation
Innovation Review Board evaluation
& resource allocation
Innovation Review Board evaluation
& resource allocation
Note 1:This process is illustrated based on UNICEF Innovation Toolkit (2013), UNICEF Process for Innovation at Supply Division (Undated) & UNICEF Innovation Website (accessed: 20 May 2016).
Country Office Budget
Country Office Budget
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:141
Typical Nature of UNICEF Innovation Fund Projects
The innovation projects can involve the following (UNICEF, 2016c):
1. Developing a new technology
2. Expanding/improving existing technology / platform
3. Piloting a new use for existing technology
4. Piloting an existing technology in a new area / country
Portfolio Areas
The initiatives or innovation projects must align with one of UNICEF Innovation’s three portfolio areas as
follows (UNICEF, 2016b):
1. Products for youth under 25: Needs – learning, youth participation, overcome barriers that prevent
access to information and services, connectivity and counsel peers.
2. Real-time information for decision making: allows vulnerable children be understood by decision
makers with the power to take action.
3. Infrastructure to increase access to services and information: connectivity, power, finance, sensors
and transport, access to information (especially real time). Examples of technologies identified as
priority for investment: Blockchain, 3D printing, wearables and sensors, artificial intelligence,
renewable energy, personal/social communications networks, satellites, mobile devices and UAVs.
Returns to Investors outlined by UNICEF
UNICEF identify three types of return from Innovation Fund as follows:
1. Growth: Small investments in innovative initiatives has the potential to grow solutions and
technologies more rapidly than simply investing all available funds in traditional means. Growth can
be measured real time measuring number of users, number of interactions by individual project or
product family
2. IP stack: Investors gain access to open-source intellectual property and benefit from UNICEF's
infrastructure, expertise, connections and environment for identification, piloting and scaling.
Investors can adapt the innovations to other contexts outside the UNICEF mission to benefit their
interests. This can be seen as a quasi ‘financial return on their investment through free access to new
tools’.
3. Communities: UNICEF is creating communities around innovation initiatives e.g. U-Report with 1.8M
users in 18 countries. UNICEF describe those communities as a ‘global change engine that can be
used to build solutions in the future’.
The foregoing returns ‘expected’ by UOI for investors in the fund will be explored further in the interview stage
of the project.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:142
Summary of UNICEF Innovation Fund Portfolio Areas, Returns and Value
Figure 16 endeavours to capture and summarise the main focus, portfolio areas and returns to investors the
UNICEF Office of innovation expect from the UNICEF Innovation Fund as narrated in the related documents
and websites reviewed to date. Figure 16 also introduces a means of breaking down value creation into three
parts namely value for the customer, organisation and ecosystem (Sniukas, et al., 2016). Moreover the linkage
of this value to the seven strategic outcomes of the wider organisation is also included.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page:143
Focus (Broad)
How it is Addressed
Example Initiatives
Innovation Fund Portfolio Area Returns to Investors Value Creation Strategic Outcome
Information
Real-time Data: Two way communication & better service delivery
mTrac Birth Reporting
1. Products for youth under 25 address a range of needs including learning and youth participation. Emerging technologies can help overcome barriers that prevent young people from accessing information and services. The ability for young people to connect to each other and counsel each other also allows them to share and scale their own solutions. 2. Real-time information for decision making: allows the situation of the most vulnerable to be understood by those who have an ability to address their circumstance. Real-time data can help identify where disparities are greatest, who is being reached, who is not using essential services, and why this is the case. Products that produce real-time information strengthen systems, improving monitoring, transparency, and accountability. 3. Infrastructure to increase access to services and information, including connectivity, power, finance, sensors and transport. Access to (life enhancing) information, is a human right. Innovation that builds and strengthens infrastructure holds great promise to address challenges that negatively impact children.
1. Growth: Projects and technologies become big, in a global ecosystem increasing the scale, reach, impact and efficiency of policies, service and information for children, ultimately generating financial and efficiency savings. This can be measured by real time growth (or lack of growth) of user bases, interactions. 2. IP Stack: The Fund invests exclusively in open source, but it is not without value. E.g.: UReport is an enterprise-level, cloud-hosted, multitenancy solution for youth engagement. Investors gain access to such open-source intellectual property, while UNICEF provides the infrastructure, expertise and environment for identification, piloting and scaling. Investors are able to apply for their own use, translating them into improvements in efficiency, reach, impact and scale of their own programmes and policies for children. Investors, therefore, receive a financial return on their investment through free access to new tools. 3. Communities: Created around the products. UReport has more than 1.8M users in 18 countries. It also has more than 1,953 commits to GitHub and 302 stars. Having access to robust communities of developers and entrepreneurs is also of value to our partners – as it will allow them to either extend work that’s been done through the fund for their own purposes and also access a global change engine that can be used to build other solutions in the future.
1. Customer Strategic Outcomes: Gain Creators: Satisfy Needs & Pain Relievers: remove barriers allowing access to: Information, opportunity, choice) 2. Organisation Financial (efficiency savings), Operational, Strategic & Other benefits (learning, readiness, etc.) 3. Ecosystem (Partners & Stakeholders) Financial (efficiency savings), Operational, Strategic & Other benefits (learning, readiness, etc.)
1. Health 2. HIV/AIDS 3. WASH 4. Nutrition 5. Education 6. Child Protection 7. Social Inclusion
Tracking: Ensuring mothers & children receive lifesaving interventions
RapidFTR Primero
Opportunity
Equitable Access: Giving children an opportunity to survive & thrive
Mobistation Digital Kiosks Rasberry Pi ORS/Zinc Co-packaging Amoxicillin Dispersible Tablets
1. Products for youth under 25 2. Real-time information for decision making 3. Infrastructure to increase access to services and information
Note: These three areas are ripe for investment due to rapidly changing technologies such as blockchain, 3D printing, wearables and sensors, artificial intelligence and renewable energy (Applicable to all focus areas: Information, Opportunity and Choice)
1. Growth 2. IP Stack 3. Communities
1. Customer 2. Organisation 3. Ecosystem
1. Health 2. HIV/AIDS 3. WASH 4. Nutrition 5. Education 6. Child Protection 7. Social Inclusion
Choice
Youth Engagement: Bring young people closer to government
Real-time Counselling Services Youth Influencing Decision Making
1. Products for youth under 25 2. Real-time information for decision making 3. Infrastructure to increase access to services and information
1. Growth 2. IP Stack 3. Communities
1. Customer 2. Organisation 3. Ecosystem
1. Health 2. HIV/AIDS 3. WASH 4. Nutrition 5. Education 6. Child Protection 7. Social Inclusion
Figure 80: UNICEF Office of Innovation & Innovation Fund Focus, Portfolio Areas and Value Creation (UNICEF, 2013b&c, 2014b,and 2016a-i and Sniukas et al., 2016)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 144
Benefits and Reasoning behind UNICEF Innovation Fund
UNICEF Innovation Fund has been designed to address the following (UNICEF, 2016c):
1. To reduce major inhibitors to innovation that can contribute to its mission in programme countries.
2. To improve risk management for both country offices and investors
3. To bridge the gap in early stage funding by providing small seed investments (circa $100,000)
4. To facilitate a portfolio style approach that provides:
a. Assistance and advice from technical experts
b. Reduce sector or country focused technical support allowing resources (cost and time) to be
balanced and shared
c. Free country level innovators from the need to individually look for funding sources reducing
costs of fragmentation and projectisation of funding
d. Provide investors with quality assurance through rigorous selection and technical support.
5. Internal applications from UNICEF Country Offices must provide matched financing doubling the size
and potential of internal investments.
Innovation Fund Investors
UNICEF welcomes investments in Innovation Fund from:
1. Governments
2. Private sector
3. Foundations
4. Academic institutions
5. Civil society
6. International financing institutions
7. Multilateral organisations.
The current investors which have provided the 10.5m include the Government of Denmark, Walt Disney
Corporation, the Government of Finland and the Page Family Fund Foundation.
Venture Capital Approach: Innovation Fund Eligibility and Scoring Criteria
UNICEF Innovation Fund applies venture capital methodologies in both its selection process and support of
initiatives thereafter. UNICEF's ‘Request for Expression of Interest (REOI) for Open Source Technology
Solutions for Children’ (UNICEF, 2016g) outlines the criteria by which individual initiatives will be assessed as
follows.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 145
Criteria Possible Score
Eligibility Criteria (Mandatory Requirements)
1 Registered in a UNICEF programme country Yes/no
2 Working on open source solutions, under the following licenses:
Software: BSD, AGPL, LGPL
Content and designs: Creative Commons CC-BY-SA or CC-BY
Yes/no
3 Working on a technology solution that aligns with three portfolio areas:
Products for youth under 25 to address a range of needs including learning and youth participation;
Real-time information for decision making and governance
Infrastructure to increase access to services and information, including but not limited to connectivity, power, finance, sensors and transport.
Yes/no
4 Generating publicly exposed real-time data that can be / is measured Yes/no
Scoring Criteria
5 Relevance of solution for children and young people
Potential impact on access to information, opportunity and choice
Potential application at global scale
20
6 Novelty of the project
Alignment with Innovation ‘Principles for Digital Development’
Alignment with desired stage of development
30
7 Suitability of the team and key personnel to implement the project 30
8 Project budget and financing 20
Total Score 100
Table 36: UNICEF Innovation Fund: Assessment Criteria for REOI (UNICEF, 2016g)
Applications that pass the REOI stage are further assessed in the requests for proposals (RFP) which also
applies Venture Capital selection criteria. The criteria applied in both the REOI and RFP stages provides further
emphasis on what UNICEF determine to be key characteristics of potentially successful initiatives whilst
acknowledging that failure is still likely.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 146
Typical Venture Capital Scoring Criteria Compared with UNICEF Innovation Fund Criteria
The assessment criteria for individual innovation initiatives considered for seeding by the UNICEF Innovation
Fund are modelled on those used by Venture Capitalists. Table 9 below compares ‘typical’ venture capital
assessment criteria with UNICEF Innovation Fund criteria with clear parallels established.
Typical VC Business Plan Requirements
Typical Venture Capital Assessment Criteria UNICEF Innovation Fund Criteria
Opportunity & Market Size
Identifiable Market:
Is there a clearly defined market for the product or service?
Does the product or service meet the identifiable need?
Does the company have a reasonable plan to meet the identified need in an efficient, revenue-generating manner?
Criterion No. 5 (Weight: 20) a. Relevance of solution for children
and young people b. Potential impact on access to
information, opportunity and choice
c. Potential application at global scale
Review of Competitive Landscape and Solutions
Sustainable Competitive Advantage:
Is the idea truly unique?
Has the company considered economic and technological change that may affect the business model?
Who are the competitors and what are their strengths and weaknesses?
Criterion No. 6 (Weight 30) a. Novelty of the project b. Alignment with Innovation
‘Principles for Digital Development’
c. Alignment with desired stage of development
Resumes of Management Team
Strong Management:
Does leadership inspire confidence?
Do they have vision, expertise and ability to generate significant growth?
Does the team consider best practices of those that have gone before?
Criterion No. 7 (Weight 30) a. Suitability of the team and key
personnel to implement the project
Detailed Financial Projections
Commercially Viable:
Does the company have a product or service that can be reproduced efficiently to generate revenue?
Criterion No. 8 (Weight 20) a. Project budget and financing
Capitalization Table
DITTO DITTO
Table 37: UNICEF Innovation Fund: Assessment Criteria for Expressions of Interest (MyCapital, Undated, noted by Smith, 2016 and (UNICEF, 2016g)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 147
Appendix 4: Innovation Portfolio: Initiatives Supported by UNICEF Innovation Fund to Date
Figure 41 included in the main body of this report provides a summary of innovation initiatives which have
received seed investment from UNICEF Innovation Fund. The projects are listed noting the portfolio area as
defined by UNICEF Office of Innovation.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 148
Appendix 5: List of Internal Documents received from UNICEF
The following is a list of all internal documents received from UNICEF Office of Innovation in relation to UNICEF
Innovation Fund. The documents were shared following the signing of ‘Conditions regarding services as a
volunteer with UNICEF’ with specific reference to obligation ‘b’ as follows: ‘to keep confidential any and all
unpublished information made known to me during the course of my service as a volunteer and not to publish
any reports or papers on the basis of information obtained during the period of my service, except with the
authorization of UNICEF’.
The list of internal documents is as follows:
Draft Terms of Reference for an Advisory Board (Not yet formally set-up).
Evaluation and Scoring Criteria for Expression of Interest stage.
Evaluation and Scoring Criteria for Request for Proposal stage.
Innovation fund agreement template between UIF and the selected companies for funding support.
Innovation fund agreement template that external investees will be asked to sign upon selection.
Innovation Fund Backgrounder document.
Investment made by UIF office for UNICEF Country Offices to date.
Open source product business model.
Real-time reporting website (continuously updated website).
Towards a Shared Impact Measurement Framework for Innovation Measuring Impact Working Group,
The International Development Innovation Alliance (IDIA), September 2016
The International Development Innovation Alliance Framework.
The request for expressions of interest (stage 1 of the external selection process).
The Terms of Reference template for the recent Request for Proposals that was issued to shortlist of
companies.
The UNICEF Office of Innovation team article co-written by Rodrigo Canales, Charlie Cannon,
Christopher Fabian and Erica Kochi, Robert Fabricant and Rebecca Rabison titled ‘DIY Innovation:
Creating an Innovation Capability within your Organisation’, which presents a framework for internal
innovation.
UIF funding agreement with the Government of Finland.
UIF office procurement strategy.
UNICEF internal memo for the establishment of a pooled fund setup.
UNICEF Request for Expression of Interest (REOI) for Open source technology solutions for children.
Independent multi-country review of innovations for scale
Innovations in programme monitoring
Open Source Brief and organisation interviews: Open Source Design
Evaluation report by the UNICEF Regional Office for Southern and Eastern Africa
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 149
DE Report from UNICEF OOE: Peace building, Education and Advocacy Programme in Ethiopia
Developmental Evaluation, June 2016
Various UNICEF Blogs including:
o Exponential thinking: A revolutionary mind-set for development?
o I went to Estonia, and saw the future.
o Digitalizing Cambodia’s inspection system to better protect children living in residential care
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 150
Appendix 6: Benchmarking UIF against Leading VC Innovation Investment Funds in International
Development
Funds administered by leading practitioners in international development were researched to benchmark the
UNICEF Innovation Fund approach. Amalgam and Bound (2016) cite two examples of similar funds financing
innovation in international development presently, namely the Gates Foundations Grand Challenges
Programme and USAIDs Development Innovation Ventures (DIV). A comparison of UNICEF Innovation Fund
and the aforementioned funds is provided in Figure 81.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 151
Comparison Criteria
Gates Foundation Grand Challenges Programme
USAID Development Innovation Ventures
UNICEF Innovation Fund
Founded 2003 (Grand Challenges in Global Health) & 2007 (Grand Challenges Explorations)
2010 2015
1 Goal / Purpose
Open innovation across disciplines and fields systematically sourcing ideas and solutions to development problems through challenges. Measuring the impact / value of interventions & building a global innovation marketplace.
Bring in creative new ideas for solving problems, increase accountability, delivery of more impact for less money & application of venture capital principals.
Invest in open source technologies for children. Pooled financing mechanism for innovators in developing countries. Models of finance, methodologies of venture capital funds and principals of UNICEF's Innovation Unit.
2 Idea Generation
Systematically sourcing & harnessing creative ideas via a challenge which involves extensive consultation with experts inside and outside the foundation.
Global Open Innovation competition for ideas
Global Request for Expression of interest (REOI) and proposals (RFP) harnessing open innovation to all external small scale start-ups and internal country offices in UNICEF programme countries with prototypes consistent with UNICEF's mission.
3 Countries that can avail of Funding
Global Global Countries with a UNICEF Country Programme, hence the need for improvement in child welfare & rights is established and bottom-up user centred innovation is encouraged.
4 Selection Criteria (Portfolio Criteria)
Systematic process of calling for, examine and rewarding ideas based on 3 Questions: 1. Is idea responsive to Grand Challenge; 2. Is the proposed work related to the strategy of the Foundation & 3. If successful would the work be important & impactful?
Innovations must satisfy 3 Primary Pillars: 1. Cost effectiveness; 2. evidence of impact & 3. pathway to scale
Mandatory requirements: 1. Applicants must be small scale start-up companies (not NGOs) or academic institutions registered in programme countries; 2.Open Source; 3. Software BSD, AGPL, LGPL; 4. Content & Designs Creative Commons CC-BY-SA or CC-BY; 5. Alignment with 3 portfolio areas; a. Products for youth under 25 (learning, participation), b. Real-time information, c. infrastructure to increase access (connectivity, power, transport...); 6. Publicly exposed measurable real-time data. Assessment. Other Criteria: 7.Team suitability; 8.Budget & financing; 9. Novelty. Most interested in: Blockchain, 3D printing, wearable’s, sensors, artificial intelligence & renewable energy.
5 Portfolio Size Grand Challenges in Global Health: $100m (Animesh, 2010)
Since 2010: $70m invested in 145 solutions in 9 sectors & 36 countries
$11.2m Innovation Fund with plans to grow
6 Investment Format & Size
Reviewers internal and external permitted to champion individual ideas backed by $100,000 seed funding for proof of concept.
Grant investments from initial seed of less than $100,000 up to $15,000,000.
$100,000 early stage seed funding for compliant applications that have achieved proof of concept, have a 1
st prototype or have completed a successful pilot.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 152
Comparison Criteria
Gates Foundation Grand Challenges Programme
USAID Development Innovation Ventures
UNICEF Innovation Fund
7 Scaling After 1 year of work facilitated by seed award projects are eligible to request a follow-on award for up to $1 million.
Structured staged financing awards in according to milestone achievements to mitigate risk with flexibility for grantees to iterate.
Innovation Fund does not cover the scaling phase. The fund is focused on providing VC style early stage seed investments only to grow the base of open source innovations contributing to UNICEF's mission. Other Options: Private Sector investment, grant-funding, UNICEF networks, International Development Innovation Alliance (IDIA), UNICEF Innovation Procurement Acceleration Fund & Global Innovation Centre
8 Management, Monitoring & Evaluation
Experts from the ecosystem review champion-based proposals assessing: 1. Innovative relative to existing approaches? 2. Scientifically feasible & valid? 3. Team capability & unique resources? 4. Budget& timeline relative to complexity, risk & potential impact? 5. Balance picking the best individual proposals versus building a portfolio of complimentary projects.
Tiered, performance based approach ensuring failed ideas fail fast & cheaply. Pay-for-performance milestones applied.
Fund is managed by a Fund Board including the Executive Director with support of 3 senior advisors. A further Strategic Advisory Board consisting of internal & external experts in child rights, venture capital and emerging technology due to be established. Day-to-day management and support by a management team at UNICEF Ventures (NYC). Evaluation metrics: All innovations must be capable of producing real time data. Metrics such as number of users etc. are tracked real time via a website open to investors and investees.
9 Risk Management
Stage Gate financing based on rigorous evaluations. Multiple small bets. $100,000/100,000,000 = 0.1% financial risk on each seed. Financial risk on follow on investments greater due to larger size.
Stage Gate pay for performance. Multiple small bets. $100,000/70,000,000 = 0.14% financial risk on each seed. Follow on >.
One Stage investment only therefore avoiding risk of follow on investments which are funded by other mechanisms. Multiple small bets. $100,000/9,000,000 = 1.11% financial risk on each seed.
10 Evidence / Measuring Impact & Value of Interventions
Given the lengthy process to demonstrate proof of concept and subsequent barriers to achieve scale and impact a framework for intermediate evaluation of Return on Investment (ROI) is used as a proxy of lives saved & lives improved.
Outcomes: 50% use randomised control trials (RCT) (when intervention is unproven (lengthy & costly)). 50% use key performance indicators (KPIs) (quicker process-oriented).
All open source innovations must be capable of providing real time data which is easily measurable in terms of coverage, uptake, results, etc. Stage Gate 3 Pilot Analysis: 1.Social Return on Investment (positive impact per $ invested over time), 2. Cost Utility Analysis (ratio of cost to benefit in life adjusted years for health innovations) &3. Cost Effectiveness Analysis (comparing relative costs & outcomes of 2 or more courses of action).
11 Support Technical assistance provided. Tech. assistance provided. Technical assistance provided.
12 Returns Financial & social returns. Financial & social returns. 1. Growth of social technologies in global ecosystem, 2. IP stack from open source still has value e.g. U-Report an enterprise-level, cloud hosted, multi-tenancy solution for youth engagement, 3. Access to Communities of developers & entrepreneurs to extend the work or build other solutions.
Figure 81: Comparison of Portfolios Investing in Innovation for International Development (Ramalingam & Bound, 2016, UNICEF, 2016a-m, Meagher, 2016)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 153
Appendix 7: Additional Literature
Research Objective 1: Evaluation of Individual Initiatives
Evaluation Uses
Evaluation can be used to satisfy accountability, legitimacy and efficiency (Moxham, 2014), to bear evidence
regarding value creation (Sillanpää, 2013), to improve organisational effectiveness and performance
benchmarking (Cordery and Sinclair, 2013), to manage risk (Benjamin, 2008) and to guide decision making
(Hatry, 1999 and LeRoux and Wright, 2010) (Melwani et al., 2016)
Various arguments state that they are too “ceremonial” in many organisation's (Hoefer, 2000), they show
legitimacy to external stakeholders (Greiling, 2010), that more comprehensive evaluations are required
Thomson (2010) vs. the argument that demands placed on time and resources are too large (Zappalà & Lyons,
2009; Benjamin, 2012) (Melwani et al., 2016).
Evaluations for the UNICEF Innovation Fund should consider the common qualities of transformative digital
technologies (Ramalingam and Bound, 2016, pp. 202-205).
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 154
Common Qualities of Transformative Digital Technologies
UNICEF Innovation Fund Criteria
1 Focused on appropriateness and relevance to culture and context. Focused on specific human needs grounded in context.
1. Registered in a UNICEF programme country (context). 3. Three portfolio areas: a. Products for youth under 25 to address a range of needs including
learning and youth participation; b. Real-time information for decision making and governance c. Infrastructure to increase access to services and information, including
but not limited to connectivity, power, finance, sensors and transport. 5. (a) Relevance of solution for children and young people. 6. (b) Alignment with Innovation ‘Principals for Digital Development’
Principal 1: Design with the user
Principal 2: Understand the ecosystem
2 Can be used by the poor and communities to meet their needs directly.
2. Working on open source solutions (or willing to be open source), under the following licenses: a. Software: BSD, AGPL, LGPL b. Content and designs: Creative Commons CC-BY-SA or CC-BY 6. (b) Alignment with Innovation ‘Principals for Digital Development’
Principal 1: Design with the user
Principal 2: Understand the ecosystem
Principal 6: Open data, open standards, open source, open innovation.
3 Not controlled by a single organisation.
2. Working on open source solutions 6. (b) Alignment with Innovation ‘Principals for Digital Development’
Principal 6: Open data, open standards, open source, open innovation.
4 Often have empowerment and inclusion as key goals.
5. (b) Potential impact on access to information, opportunity and choice. 6. (b) Alignment with Innovation ‘Principals for Digital Development’
Principal 1: Design with the user
Principal 9: Be collaborative
5 Platforms which enable development of an infinite number of solutions, not just a single specific solution). Can enable adaptation and iteration.
2. Working on open source solutions (or willing to be open source), under the following licenses: a. Software: BSD, AGPL, LGPL b. Content and designs: Creative Commons CC-BY-SA or CC-BY 6. (b) Alignment with Innovation ‘Principals for Digital Development’
Principal 6: Open data, open standards, open source, open innovation.
Principal 7: Reuse and Improve
Principal 9: Be collaborative
6 Can grow to considerable scale and lead to changes in whole systems.
5. (c) Potential application at global scale 6. (b) Alignment with Innovation ‘Principals for Digital Development’
Principal 3: Design for scale
Principal 4: Build for sustainability
Principal 6: Open data, open standards, open source, open innovation.
Table 38: Common qualities of transformative digital technologies compared to UNICEF Innovation Fund Criteria (Ramalingam and Bound 2016, UNICEF 2016a-h) (Melwani, et al., 2016)
A literature review of social value creation in the context of innovation has been undertaken (Figure 84) and
Table 39 summarises a portion of the research and ranks the papers relevant to that portion.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 155
Figure 82: Illustration of the sources researched along with some keywords and terms for objective 1 literature review
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 156
Summary of Best Practice Traditional Evaluation
Exemplars of best practice traditional frameworks are analysed in figure 59, though it is arguable that the
traditional method is too prescriptive for the UNICEF Innovation Fund investments. Those that adopt a more
flexible approach to the selection, definition and collection of indicators based on stakeholder interests,
program area and budget are ranked No.1 highest rank and No.5 lower ranked, as these are considered
methods that are less prescriptive and customizable to the innovations arising from the UNICEF Innovation
Fund.
1. CMS, 2015, 2. Miller & Hall, 2012. 3. Moxham, 2014 4. Micheli & Kennerley, 2005 5. Greatbanks et al., 2010. 6. Leipniz, 2014. 7. Benita and Balick, 2008. 8. Bubb, 2010.
1. Bassi & Vincenti, 2015, 2. Kroeger & Weber, 2014. 3. Moody et al., 2015, 4. Nicholls et al., 2009 5. Banke-Thomas et al., 2015, 6. Grieco, 2015. 7. Lynch-Cerullo & Cooney, 2011. 8. Emni et al., 2011, 9. Demirag & Khadaroo, 2011. 10. Krlev et al., 2014.
1. Biswas et al., 2010. 2. Ebrahim & Rangan, 2010. 3. Tuan, 2008, 4. Benjamin, 2012, 5. Liket et al., 2014. 6. Beesley et al., 2015 7. Cordery, 2013. 8. Choong, 2014 9. Carnochan, 2013 10. Chen, 2010 11.Kellogg Fdn. 2004 12.Zappalà & Lyons, 2009. 13. Sillanpää (2013)
1. Nichols et al. 2016 2. Serrano-Cinca, 2013 3. Wood & Leighton 2010. 4. Frigo, 2003. 5. Wu & Hung, 2008 6. Dawson, 2010. 7. DIFD, 2011. 8. Antadze & Westley, 2012.
1. USAID 2014 2. Polonsky et al., 2016 3. Cook et al., 1995. 4. Roper & Cheney, 2012
Peer Reviewed 2,3,4,5,6,7,8 1,2,3,5,6,7,9,10 4,5,7,8,9,10,13 2,4,5,6,8 4
Practitioner/Independent report
1 4, 8 1,3,4,6,11,12 3,7 1,3
Third sector/Public 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
ALL 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
1,2,3,4
Private sector 7 8,10,12
Case/pilot Study 6 1 1,5 6
Overview/Review of definitions, Principles, (dis)advantages of social value measurement methods/frameworks/ /metrics
2(SROI),3, 4,5,8
3(SROI), 5,6,7,8,10 3,4,7,8,9,10 (BSC),12
1,3, 4,6,7 1,2,3
Develops/implements frameworks/ methods/metrics
1,6,7 1,2,4 (SROI),5(SROI),8,9
1,2,5,10 (BSC),11 (Logic Model),13
2,5
Monetizing outcomes 4 1,3,5
Related to innovation 1,8 9,10 8 4
Refers to/develops a Logic model
4 1,3,4,6,7,8 1,2,3,5,7,9,12,13
7
Ranking First Second Third Fourth Fifth
Table 39: Social Value and Performance Measurement Research Table (Source: Meagher et al., 2016a)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 157
SROI Network, 2012
Social Impact Investment Taskforce, 2014, UK presidency of G8
WBCSD Social Capital, 2013
Purpose Capital, 2013
J.P. Morgan, 2012
Geo, Grantmakers 2012
Research Method
Collection from various authors and advisory group
Review of 60 publications and 45 expert interviews, supported by Deloitte
Developed with more than 20 companies to support measurement
Literature review of key publications on social metrics, interviews with 20 Canadian investors in impact investing
Written for professional investors. Written from own investment experience and interviews with 23 institutional investors.
Conversations with other grant makers to prepare specific guide to help grant makers decision making
Measure-ment Method
Six Stage Process, detailed guidance at each one. Detailed calculations including use of Net Present Value, Payback and Sensitivity Analysis
Seven Guidelines, successfully applied against five diverse organisation's
Four Step Guide, specific for business use. Exclusive focus on socio-economic impact.
No specific Staged Process, Focuses on Non-financial social metrics
Investment Approach Measuring against Impact, Return and Risk, cross referenced against numerous case studies.
Four Essentials for Evaluation: Lead, Plan, Organize Share.
Useful for which stage? (feasibility, innovation, project, completion)
Can be applied as a forecast as final outcome
Assessment geared towards final outcome
Applicable to any stage
Applicable to any stage
Can be applied as a forecast as final outcome
Assessment geared towards final outcome
Detailed tools and metrics
Detailed tools and calculations included
None included, however industry tools are referenced for guidance
10 different tools for different socio-economic uses
11 different tools for different social impact metrics
Bespoke referenced but not included
None included or referenced
Adaptable for high innovation
Part adaptable
Part adaptable
No No No No
Ranking 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 83: Traditional Evaluation Exemplars (WBCSD, 2013; SIIT G8, 2014, Purpose Capital, 2013; SROI Network, 2012; JP Morgan, 2012) (Melwani, et al., 2016)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 158
Traditional Evaluation Challenges
For innovative interventions Patton (2011) and ILO (2014) warn against the use of the traditional method as
the RCT’s are too premature for innovations that are still under development. Hence they will only produce
weak results that lead to poor decision making and inefficient use of resources. Social entrepreneurs (Conger,
2009) experienced that evaluation methods seem entirely unrelated to the nature of their enterprise.
Traditional evaluation frameworks are a static point in time measure, whereas, the process of innovation
operates in a dynamic environment. Hence, the development of evaluation tools for innovation in a non-profit
environment is fraught with challenges. The importance of developing reliable metrics is evident from high
failure rate associated with innovation (Chanaron, 2013, p. 18). Chesbrough (2004, p.24) highlights the
dilemma faced by many technology companies when dealing with ‘false negatives’ leading decision makers to
abandon innovations which were later proved viable (Melwani, et al., 2016)
Chanaron (2013) highlights the challenges due to the uncertainty linked with the probability of the projects
success and also explains that Traditional evaluation frameworks often fail to take account of “the [actual]
process or its ‘S’ curve representation” and often do not distinguish between the nature of innovation whether
it be incremental or disruptive (Melwani, et al., 2016)
Mulgan (2016) acknowledges the many challenges involved in assessing new technology which include the
following:
No one can predict precisely how technologies will evolve.
It is difficult to predict who will benefit.
It is extremely difficult to define the counterfactual to any given innovation.
Incumbents who stand to lose from innovation are likely to be well organised and powerful.
Despite the challenges Mulgan (2016) actively seeks input on how best to tackle such assessments and offers a
broad framework on which to build which includes the following:
Pragmatic stage gate approach to knowledge, risk and uncertainty.
Distinguish between different types of good and focus innovation to the ones with the greatest
potential (e.g. good with network effects or positive externalities that increase in value with increased
consumption).
Consider distributional effects (hard to predict).
Ethical assessment and the golden rule test (good innovations, the ones we want ourselves).
Contrary to the above recommendation of stage gates by Mulgan (2016), Nagji& Tuff (2012) warn of the
dangers of using such an approach asserting companies should use the polar opposite—a combination of
noneconomic and internal metrics—to assess transformational efforts in their early stages. They posit that this
can improve the team’s ability to learn and explore, citing the example of Google where the only hurdle such
an imitative must clear is its likelihood of learning from the process.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 159
Cooper's (2014, p.20) article assesses what leading firms are doing to move beyond their current idea-to-
launch methodology and attempts to integrate these practices into a next-generation system. Cooper, who is a
creator of stage-gates, observes that in some organisations it’s an evolution of Stage-Gate to a better, faster
model; in others, it’s closer to a revolution, moving to a very different system.
Ruff & Olsen (2016) highlight that a common mistake, that evaluators seek out the best measurement tool. On
small scale this can work for many grant-making foundations who can apply a common tool across their
portfolio. However for large individual initiatives that differ in mission, theory of change within socio,
economic or geographic context the common measures do not work well as they ask the wrong questions,
measure the wrong things and miss the real impact.
Next Generation Evaluation
Gopalakrishnan and Preskill (2016) describe the Next Generation Evaluation and propose three methods which
will shape how evaluations are undertaken in the future. These include DE, Shared Measurement and Big Data.
DE as summarized above is used by leading foundations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,
the J. W. McConnell Family Foundation, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, and the Grand
Rapids Community Foundation.
Shared Measurement aims to facilitate collaboration and speed to sharing information. The method
of evaluation for Project SAM was still based on traditional methods of surveys or short term
indicators to measure and track. It could have used on other methods however it arguably a way of
encouraging collaboration rather than a specific unique way of evaluation and thus it is debatable
whether it is a method in its own right. DE already encompasses collaboration and data sharing.
Big Data characterized by the “3 V's”—sheer volume, greater variety, and increased velocity will serve
to support DE and other methods such as impact measurement, RCD, and formative/summative
evaluation. As it is primarily a useful tool for generating and analysing data it is arguably another
supporting tool as interviews and personal interaction will still be needed to complete evaluations
such as DE.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 160
DEVELOPMENTAL EVALUATION DIAGNOSTIC CHECKLISTS
Developmental evaluation is evaluation in support of social innovation and tackling complex issues. It is appropriate certain situations and conditions, and not others. The following assessment tool will help you assess whether a situation is suitable (or not) for a developmental evaluation, and whether your group is a good match for a developmental evaluation process. These checklists ask you to rate a series questions. The checklists are followed by a set of more open-ended questions that can help to start to plan your developmental evaluation. The checklist can be completed by an individual, or as a group, using the questions as a prompt for discussion. Once you have responded to all the statements, tally up the results, and make a judgement about if, when and how you might proceed. The sections are:
Developmental situation – is the initiative truly adaptive, requiring new and constantly adapted
approaches, or it a more conventional effort requiring efficient delivery of relatively established
responses?
Adaptive capacity – do the decision-makers, and those supporting them, have the capacity and
interest to work in the adaptive way required for social innovation and working with complex
issues?
Readiness for developmental evaluation – are the innovators involved ready to productively use
developmental evaluation?
Preparation for planning the developmental evaluation – some things to consider as you think
about how to gather information and interact with the innovators
Before you begin the assessment, keep the following things in mind:
1. In this document, ‘the group’ refers to the would-be innovators, which might be a small project
team, the board and staff of an organization, or the members of a collaboration. It may be
helpful to think of the ‘we’ in the questions from multiple perspectives (the evaluator, the
hands-on innovators, the organization’s decision makers, and the funder).
2. In this document, ‘intervention’ refers to any project, program, strategy or model that is in
some form of adaptive development (something innovative is being created and/or something
already established requires radical restructuring/rethinking.)
3. The checklists build on each other: if a situation is not innovative, there is no need to assess the
group’s readiness for adaptive leadership; similarly, if a group demonstrates weak adaptive
leadership, they will not make productive use of developmental evaluation feedback.
4. We do not describe how to gather the data or assess the data you might use to answer these
questions (we have plans to introduce this shortly). We do encourage you, however, to be
thorough, reflective and clear about the data you are using when you rate each statement.
The checklists are presented with a scoring tool. You may find the scoring a useful guide to help you see where you are at, or you may prefer to reflect on each of the statements without scoring using the questions as a way of prompting your own thinking. Please proceed in the way that you find the most beneficial.
Figure 84: Developmental Evaluation Diagnostic Checklist (Cabaj and Gamble, 2011)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 161
IS IT A DEVELOPMENTAL SITUATION?
Statement Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral
Agree Strongly Agree
1 The challenge we want to address is difficult to define.
1 2 3 4 5
2 There are multiple causes that contribute to the challenge, and these are inter-dependent and difficult to predict.
1 2 3 4 5
3 The factors that contribute to progress on meeting this challenge are unknown or unclear.
1 2 3 4 5
4 The stakeholders involved (directly and indirectly) have diverse values, interests and perspectives.
1 2 3 4 5
5 The group is experimenting with different ways to turn their theory into reality, (e.g. a grant program, a training course) and these are not-yet-established nor tested.
1 2 3 4 5
6 The innovation’s outcomes (types, scale, speed) are uncertain and/or unpredictable.
1 2 3 4 5
7 The context in which the group is operating (e.g. funding, partners, demographics, stakeholders) is rapidly changing.
1 2 3 4 5
Sub-Total 32
Total
Results
7 to 12 Non-developmental Situation
Your intervention is very well developed and may be working in a stable environment. You may be seeking evaluation feedback for accountability which aims to find out if you are implementing it with fidelity to a well laid out and proven model.
13 to 20 Effectiveness Situation Your intervention is very well developed. You may be seeking evaluation feedback to judge the model’s effectiveness.
21 to 29 Improvement Situation Your intervention is relatively stable and/or operating in a stable environment. You may be seeking evaluation feedback to improve the model.
30 to 35 Developmental Situation
Your intervention is either not yet clear or in need of radical restructuring. You may be seeking evaluation feedback to develop the model.
Figure 84 (continued): Developmental Evaluation Diagnostic Checklist (Cabaj and Gamble, 2011)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 162
DO YOU HAVE ADAPTIVE CAPACITY?
Statement Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral
Agree Strongly Agree
1 We have a history of innovation and tackling complex challenges.
1 2 3 4 5
2 We are comfortable with ambiguity, uncertainty, and the tension of adaptive work.
1 2 3 4 5
3 We are motivated to try something new and committed to a systematic process of innovation.
1 2 3 4 5
4 We have sufficient resources to carry out its work, and can invest more if/when promising new avenues emerge.
1 2 3 4 5
5 We are willing to “learn-by-doing”, allowing the intervention to emerge over time, rather “plan the work and work the plan”.
1 2 3 4 5
6 We have the flexibility and authority to change the emerging intervention to reflect new learnings and shifts in the environment.
1 2 3 4 5
7 We have permission and room to make “safe-to-fail” errors and mistakes in search of what works.
1 2 3 4 5
8 We are more interested in learning and getting results, than being perceived to be “right”.
1 2 3 4 5
9 We have time and patience to experiment with new approaches and generate results.
1 2 3 4 5
Sub-Total 37
Total 69
Results
9 to 18 Non-Existent Your group is working with a fairly rigid context that does not allow it to engage in an authentic process of exploration and innovation.
19 to 24 Low Your group’s ability to work adaptively is very limited. You should proceed with extreme care (if at all) and work hard at addressing your weak areas before or during the innovation process.
25 to 37 Good Your group has the adaptive capacity to move forward, though some areas may need extra attention before or during the innovation process.
38 to 45 Excellent Your group is in an excellent position to innovate and/or work on complex issues.
Figure 84 (continued): Developmental Evaluation Diagnostic Checklist (Cabaj and Gamble, 2011)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 163
ARE YOU READY FOR DEVELOPMENTAL EVALUATION? Statement Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral
Agree Strongly
Agree
1 We are hungry for feedback on our work.
1 2 3 4 5
2 We understand that we all operate with cultural and cognitive biases that “shape” the way we think about and see the world.
1 2 3 4 5
3 We have a history of gathering, analysing and using evaluation to inform our work (or we are fully prepared to going forward).
1 2 3 4 5
4 The group has a culture of curiosity, inquiry and critical reflection.
1 2 3 4 5
5 We have a demonstrated commitment to “data-based” decision-making.
1 2 3 4 5
6 We’ve had positive experiences with evaluation (and evaluators) in the past.
1 2 3 4 5
7 We understand and broadly support developmental evaluation.
1 2 3 4 5
8 We are prepared to commit time and resources to the developmental evaluation?
1 2 3 4 5
9 We have someone (internal or external) clearly in the role of developmental evaluator.
1 2 3 4 5
Sub-Total 33
Total 102
Results
9 to 18 Poor Your group’s readiness is too low to proceed. You require significant work to improve the conditions for developmental evaluation before you move forward.
19 to 24 Low Your group readiness for developmental evaluation is limited. Proceed with caution. Address short-comings before you begin and/or intentionally approach the work moving forward as an opportunity to strengthen your capacity for developmental evaluation. Be prepared for the fact that you may choose to discontinue developmental evaluation mid-way through the process, or you may say you are doing developmental evaluation when you are in-fact using evaluation in more of a formative or summative mode.
25 to 37 Medium Your group is sufficiently ready for developmental evaluation to begin, though it should keep on an eye on its weaker areas of readiness and/or identify measures to strengthen them as you proceed.
38 to 45 High You group is an excellent candidate for developmental evaluation.
Figure 84 (continued): Developmental Evaluation Diagnostic Checklist (Cabaj and Gamble, 2011)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 164
Planning the Developmental Evaluation Once you have determined if a developmental evaluation is right for your initiative, the following questions will help you begin to plan.
1. What are the major questions that the innovators involved with this initiative are interested in answering?
2. What are the decisions they anticipate making in relation to this initiative?
3. When will those decisions get made? By whom?
4. What information, findings and analysis would support them in learning more about their
innovation and inform effective decision making about it?
5. What is the frequency with which this initiative implements different iterations? Is it an activity that is carried out on a weekly basis (meaning there is opportunity for rapid feedback and on-going changes) or is it the sort of thing that only happens once or twice in a year?
6. When this innovation is being ‘tried-out’, are there opportunities to test out different variations
(for example, multiple groups, different geographies...)?
7. What is the consequence if something you try out is not successful? Would it negatively affect anyone? Impact the organization’s reputation? Would it be expensive? Are there possible harmful implications?
8. How would you characterize the information preferences and learning style of the innovators
who are involved? Do they prefer/trust certain kinds of data more than others? How do they process information when making decisions?
Figure 84 (continued): Developmental Evaluation Diagnostic Checklist (Cabaj and Gamble, 2011)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 165
Research Objective 2 Literature Review: Evaluation of Innovation Fund Portfolio
The literature review for objective 2 in section 2.4 above summarises key considerations for portfolio evaluation from the literatures most prominent authors on portfolio
evaluation. Below is an illustration of the breadth of authors researched and some keywords and terms.
Traditional evaluation
Expected Return
Value accrues in indirect ways
High uncertainty
Economic value difficult to quantify
Paulson et al (2007)
Value maximisation
Mix and balance
Project prioritisation
Strategic alignment
multiple methods to select projects
willingness to continuously
assessoptimise the
portfolio
Risk appetite
Embracing failure
resource allocation
IPM
Interdependencies
Time horizon
Flexibility
Tailored approach
Inappropriate decision rules e.g. NPV, hurdle rates
Cost of the evaluation
coherent portfolio strategy
Day (2007)
Strategic buckets
Real options
Scorecards
Profitability Index
performance measurement
strategicmisrepresentation
Optimism bias
IRR
Sensitivity analysis
Evaluative Questions
CBASROI
CEA
Optioneering
Portfolio matrices
AHP
Scoring models
ROI
Leadership Champion
Developmental Evaluation
High Innovation
Realistic Evaluation
rate of attrition
Specific Versus Standardised
evaluation metrics
Figure 85: Illustration of the authors researched and some keywords and terms for objective 2 literature review on portfolio evaluation
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 166
Paulson (2007) Portfolio Evaluation Tool Methodology and Adaptation.
This tool should be completed by the portfolio manager with input from each project leader. Sections 1 to 10
are project/initiative level considerations which requires the portfolio manager with input from the project
leaders to rate a series of 10 sets of questions (called Value drivers) about each initiative in the portfolio. For
each question, two responses are required: a) an importance weighting/relevance indicating that driver of
value's relevance to the specific project, and b) an assessment of the extent to which the initiative exhibits that
driver of value. In the first column for each initiative, place a 0 next to questions which are not relevant to the
specific initiative and a 1 next to items that are important to consider for that project. There is an opportunity
to give each question higher/lower rating by lowering/increasing the relevance. This should be done for each
initiative in the portfolio. An index score is generated for each initiative as presented in the main findings
above. The resultant 'Performance Profile' bar chart indicates the areas of strengths and weaknesses for each
project, and cumulatively for the portfolio.
Subsequent to the completion of sections 1 to 10, Section 11 'Portfolio health' is completed and this is where
Portfolio level considerations are addressed. The same methodology should be followed here. Again an index
score is generated for the overall portfolio health as presented in the main findings above.
According to Paulson et al. (2007, cited in Meagher et al. 2016) when designing an innovation portfolio
evaluation tool, the following elements should be considered;
Address the interrelationships in risk among potential innovation investments and among current
businesses. Also to consider the return relationship between the initiatives within the same portfolio.
The tool must consider the learning and discovery in a flexible approach that considers all the
information and data within the company and outside the company. This Flexibility approach is
required since the innovation environment is highly dynamic.
The evaluation of a project in high-uncertainty environment cannot be summarized from single point
of view such as the dollar term of generated cash flows since this demission might be misleading at
the initial stages of evaluation.
The tool was adapted to include UIF's initiative selection and assessment criteria, UIF's expected returns UIF
and portfolio areas, UNICEF's innovation Principles, UNICEF IoGT & U-Report Log frames, Interview findings,
UNICEF GIC Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Framework & documentation on measurement metrics
from the IDIA. The aim was to strike a balance between maintaining the intent and theoretical basis of the
Paulson et. al. (2007) tool whilst at the same time making the tool as context specific and useful as possible.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 167
Paulson et al. (2007) Portfolio Evaluation Tool Application
As highlighted above, sections 1 to 10 were completed (except for section 8 which was not attempted as the
authors have no knowledge of the make-up and dynamics of the start-up teams) for each of UNICEF
Innovation Funds current investments generating an index score for each initiative which is illustrated by the
bar chart in Figure 46 in the main body of this report. The following tables exhibit the application of the tool
for all current UNICEF Innovation Fund investments. There are two tables per section as all 14 initiatives will
not fit horizontally across one page/table.
An aggregated performance profile is generated for each value driver as shown in figure 47 above. In this
application 'sustainability', 'scalability' and 'Firm capabilities (UIF)' score well (low-mid 70's), whereas 'projects
impact on company renewal' and 'Innovativeness' scored low-mid 60's. This second score is a result of the
portfolio mix at the time of this study which includes many internal initiatives based on adjacent technology.
These initiatives were invested in first by the UNICEF Office of Innovation to launch the Fund and many of
those type of initiatives, such as U-Report and RapidPro solutions, have since moved to scale. More innovative
initiatives are expected in the next rounds of investments as the UNICEF Innovation Fund matures and as the
ecosystem grows.
As highlighted above the tool enables the assessment of the relative values of initiatives within the context of
the entire innovation portfolio at any point in time and changes in the relative value of the portfolio can be
tracked over time (Paulson et al., 2007). Mom-connect, Seycel and 9needs were the highest scoring initiatives
and whilst the subjective and assumptive nature of application due to the time and proximity limitations of
this research project is noted, the authors believe that application of the tool by those who are part of the
initiatives development process will generate valuable information thus making a valuable contribution to the
learning and feedback process.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 168
Section 1
I
Potential impact on accelerating results for beneficiaries: The
extent to which this initiative is likely to have a significant impact in
bringing wholly new benefits or significant leaps in known benefits
to beneficiaries.
Weighting 0.25
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
1.1Expected/projected lives saved or improved from this initiative are
substantial1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 5
1.2Solution has the potential to positively impact the lives of the most
vulnerable children 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 4
1.3 The available evidence indicates effectiveness of the initiative 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 3 1 4
1.4There are no insurmountable barriers that users will face in
accessing the product/service.1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
1.5 The initiative does no harm. 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5
1.6The actual number of lives saved or improved from this initiative is
significant. [Outcome indicator]0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
1.7The initiative has brought behaviour change amongst the target
population [Outcome indicator]0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
1.8
Engaged users show improved knowledge and awareness and more
positive attitudes/are more empowered to voice opinions.
[Outcome indicator]
0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
Total Value 17 17 17 17 16 19 21
Maximum Potential Value 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Initiative Aggregate /Potential impact for beneficiaries
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
70.33% 62.5 68.0 62.5 68.0 62.5 68.0 62.5 68.0 62.5 64.0 62.5 76.0 62.5 84.0
U-Report
Brazil
Advocacy
Project
MomCon-
nect (South
Africa)
U-REPORT
Fiji
U-Report
Guatemala
Care for
Children
Response Per Individual Initiative (Initiatives 1 to 7)
Figure 86 (Sheet 1 of 2): Portfolio Evaluation tool Section 1: Potential impact on accelerating results (Adapted by the authors from Paulson et al., 2007)
U-Report AppU-Report
Burkina Faso
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 169
Section 1
I
Potential impact on accelerating results for beneficiaries: The
extent to which this initiative is likely to have a significant impact in
bringing wholly new benefits or significant leaps in known benefits
to beneficiaries.
Weighting 0.25
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
1.1Expected/projected lives saved or improved from this initiative are
substantial1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
1.2Solution has the potential to positively impact the lives of the most
vulnerable children 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 3
1.3 The available evidence indicates effectiveness of the initiative 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 3
1.4There are no insurmountable barriers that users will face in
accessing the product/service.1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 3
1.5 The initiative does no harm. 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5
1.6The actual number of lives saved or improved from this initiative is
significant. [Outcome indicator]0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
1.7The initiative has brought behaviour change amongst the target
population [Outcome indicator]0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
1.8
Engaged users show improved knowledge and awareness and more
positive attitudes/are more empowered to voice opinions.
[Outcome indicator]
0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
Total Value 18 18 17 17 17 20 17
Maximum Potential Value 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Initiative Aggregate /Potential impact for beneficiaries
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Driver
s
Import-
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
70.33% 62.5 72.0 62.5 72.0 62.5 68.0 62.5 68.0 62.5 68.0 62.5 80.0 62.5 68.0
Response Per Individual Initiative (initiatives 8 to 14)
Saycel IPAL
Figure 86 (sheet 2 of 2): Portfolio Evaluation tool Section 1: Potential impact on accelerating results (Adapted by the authors from Paulson et al., 2007)
Better
Teachers,
Better
Learners
9Needs Mpower MAPP VACSomleng
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 170
Section 2
II
Potential impact on accelerating results for the International Child
Rights and Welfare Market: The extent to which this initiative is
likely to have a significant impact in bringing wholly new benefits or
significant leaps in known benefits to the market
Weighting 0.06Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
2.1The initiative has significant market opportunity and relevance
across geographic locations (with UNICEF programs).1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 5
2.2
Initiative data could be used to inform policy and
programmes/solution could improves accountability of
governments and other providers of lifesaving services.
1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 0 1 5
2.3The initiative involves collaboration and engagement within the
wider community/ecosystem. 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4
2.4Value chain members are enthusiastic concerning the potential
applications of this initiative.0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 1 3 1 4
2.5
This initiative solves a problem which is poorly addressed at this
time in the market and wider ecosystem (e.g. currently not
addressed by initiatives in the Global Innovation Exchange &
Innovation award repository).
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 4
2.6This initiative could offer a solution to an impending regulatory
threat.0 - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 0 -
Total Value 14 14 14 14 14 14 22
Maximum Potential Value 20 20 20 20 20 20 25
Initiative Aggregate/Potential impact on the market
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
71.84% 66.7 70.0 66.7 70.0 66.7 70.0 66.7 70.0 66.7 70.0 66.7 70.0 83.3 88.0
Response Per Individual Initiative (Initiatives 1 to 7)
U-Report
Guatemala
U-Report
Brazil
Advocacy
Project
Figure 87 (Sheet 1 of 2): Portfolio Evaluation tool Section 2:Potential impact on the market (Adapted by the authors from Paulson et al., 2007)
U-REPORT
Fiji
U-Report
Burkina Faso
U-Report
App
Care for
Children
MomCon-
nect (South
Africa)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 171
Section 2
II
Potential impact on accelerating results for the International Child
Rights and Welfare Market: The extent to which this initiative is
likely to have a significant impact in bringing wholly new benefits or
significant leaps in known benefits to the market
Weighting 0.06Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
2.1The initiative has significant market opportunity and relevance
across geographic locations (with UNICEF programs).1 4 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 3
2.2
Initiative data could be used to inform policy and
programmes/solution could improves accountability of
governments and other providers of lifesaving services.
1 3 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3
2.3The initiative involves collaboration and engagement within the
wider community/ecosystem. 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 3
2.4Value chain members are enthusiastic concerning the potential
applications of this initiative.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2.5
This initiative solves a problem which is poorly addressed at this
time in the market and wider ecosystem (e.g. currently not
addressed by initiatives in the Global Innovation Exchange &
Innovation award repository).
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 3
2.6This initiative could offer a solution to an impending regulatory
threat.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Value 14 12 15 15 14 16 12
Maximum Potential Value 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Initiative Aggregate/Potential impact on the market
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Driver
s
Import-
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
71.84% 66.7 70.0 66.7 60.0 66.7 75.0 66.7 75.0 66.7 70.0 66.7 80.0 66.7 60.0
Figure 87 (Sheet 2 of 2): Portfolio Evaluation tool Section 2:Potential impact on the market (Adapted by the authors from Paulson et al., 2007)
Somleng
Response Per Individual Initiative (initiatives 8 to 14)
9NeedsIPAL
Better
Teachers,
Better
Learners
Saycel MAPP VACMpower
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 172
Section 3
III
Initiatives Impact on UIF's Growth, Renewal & Secondary benefits:
The extent to which this initiative leverages UIF's current strengths
to develop existing & new lines of growth (e.g. causing UIF to learn
about and move into unfamiliar domains) whilst als
Weighting 0.06
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
3.1
The new initiative will promote a sustainable pipeline of innovation
oriented initiatives, either through the area of technology it focuses
on, or the external leads developed, etc.
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 5
3.2The initiative creates significant potential for growth among new
customer segments not currently served by the organisation.1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 5
3.3This initiative has engendered large numbers of potential
applications and options for potential applications.1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 5
3.4This initiative is requiring the team to develop/ leverage internal
networks.1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 4
3.5The initiative is requiring the team to develop/leverage external
networks.1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4
3.6
The initiative contributes significantly to key secondary benefits
(e.g. exposure to new market partners/development of ecosystem,
organisational learning, new capabilities, new technology frontiers,
new business models etc.)
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 4
3.7There are no insurmountable barriers that users will face in
accessing the product/service.1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
3.8 The initiative utilises GIC/UIF expertise. 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 5
3.9The aggregate market potential for all applications coming from this
initiative is significant to UNICEF.1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 2 1 5
3.10The timing of expected first value creation for this initiative is
reasonable.1 4 1 4 1 4 1 5 1 3 1 4 1 4
3.11Initiative makes viable Business case for the private sector
application 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 1 2 1 5
Total Value 31 31 31 30 31 32 49
Maximum Potential Value 50 50 50 50 50 55 55
Initiative Aggregate / Company Growth & Secondary benefits:
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
65.65% 100.0 62.0 100.0 62.0 100.0 62.0 100.0 60.0 100.0 62.0 100.0 58.2 100.0 89.1
Response Per Individual Initiative (Initiatives 1 to 7)
U-Report
Guatemala
U-Report
Brazil
Advocacy
Project
Care for
Children
U-Report
Burkina Faso
MomCon-
nect (South
Africa)
Figure 88 (Sheet 1 of 2): Portfolio Evaluation tool Section 3: Company Growth & Secondary benefits: (Adapted by the authors from Paulson et al., 2007)
U-Report
App
U-REPORT
Fiji
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 173
Section 3
III
Initiatives Impact on UIF's Growth, Renewal & Secondary benefits:
The extent to which this initiative leverages UIF's current strengths
to develop existing & new lines of growth (e.g. causing UIF to learn
about and move into unfamiliar domains) whilst als
Weighting 0.06
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
3.1
The new initiative will promote a sustainable pipeline of innovation
oriented initiatives, either through the area of technology it focuses
on, or the external leads developed, etc.
1 4 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
3.2The initiative creates significant potential for growth among new
customer segments not currently served by the organisation.1 3 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
3.3This initiative has engendered large numbers of potential
applications and options for potential applications.1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
3.4This initiative is requiring the team to develop/ leverage internal
networks.1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
3.5The initiative is requiring the team to develop/leverage external
networks.1 4 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 3
3.6
The initiative contributes significantly to key secondary benefits
(e.g. exposure to new market partners/development of ecosystem,
organisational learning, new capabilities, new technology frontiers,
new business models etc.)
1 3 1 3 1 5 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 3
3.7There are no insurmountable barriers that users will face in
accessing the product/service.1 4 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 3
3.8 The initiative utilises GIC/UIF expertise. 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3
3.9The aggregate market potential for all applications coming from this
initiative is significant to UNICEF.1 3 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
3.10The timing of expected first value creation for this initiative is
reasonable.1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
3.11Initiative makes viable Business case for the private sector
application 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 0
Total Value 34 33 43 35 32 34 31
Maximum Potential Value 50 50 55 50 50 50 50
Initiative Aggregate / Company Growth & Secondary benefits:
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Driver
s
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
65.65% 100.0 68.0 100.0 66.0 100.0 78.2 100.0 70.0 100.0 64.0 100.0 68.0 100.0 62.0
Response Per Individual Initiative (initiatives 8 to 14)
IPAL MAPP VAC
Better
Teachers,
Better
Learners
Figure 88 (Sheet 2 of 2): Portfolio Evaluation tool Section 3: Company Growth & Secondary benefits: (Adapted by the authors from Paulson et al., 2007)
9Needs Mpower SomlengSaycel
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 174
Section 4
IVSustainability: the extent to which sustainability in terms of
initiative/fund longevity/performance is enhanced.
Weighting 0.15
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
4.1This initiative does not threaten the sustainability of other
initiatives within the portfolio.1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 4 1 4 1 4
4.2
Initiative sustainability is enhanced given its fit within the portfolio
and its linkages with the ecosystem and the system of support
provided by the UIF.
1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 4
4.3
Both the initiative team and the company sponsored observe good
governance and sound financial practices, particularly with regard
to budgeting, reporting and monitoring.
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
4.4 The initiative leverages on economies of scale/scope. 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 5 1 5
4.5Sustainability is supported given the viability and affordability of the
product/service being developed.1 3 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 4
4.6
No significant/highly probable risks (e.g. Regulatory barriers) exist
that could undermine the sustainability of the solution (e.g. reliance
on single supplier, unsupportive policy environment etc).
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 3
4.7Robustness of results of initial prototyping/piloting/ past data
collection and initiative milestones are high.1 4 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 5
4.8To the best of our knowledge there are no competing approaches
to solve the problem that this initiative works towards solving.1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 4
4.9 The initiative has the Potential to influence policy / systems change 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 5
4.10Smart partners (especially from country governments and
companies/investors) willing to co-fund0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
4.11 Proven entrepreneurial success of the team 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
4.12The possibility of negative repercussions from beneficiaries in terms
of social or political implications of this initiative is low.1 4 1 4 1 4 1 5 1 5 1 5
Total Value 9 34 34 29 34 31 30 43
Maximum Potential Value 45 45 40 45 45 40 50
Initiative Aggregate /Sustainability
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
76.26% 75.0 75.6 75.0 75.6 72.7 72.5 75.0 75.6 75.0 68.9 72.7 75.0 83.3 86.0
U-Report
App
U-REPORT
Fiji
U-Report
Guatemala
U-Report
Brazil
Advocacy
U-Report
Burkina Faso
Response Per Individual Initiative (Initiatives 1 to 7)
Figure 89 (sheet 1 of 2): Portfolio Evaluation tool Section 4: Sustainability (Adapted by the authors from Paulson et al., 2007)
MomCon-
nect (South
Africa)
Care for
Children
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 175
Section 4
IVSustainability: the extent to which sustainability in terms of
initiative/fund longevity/performance is enhanced.
Weighting 0.15
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
4.1This initiative does not threaten the sustainability of other
initiatives within the portfolio.1 5 1 5 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 3
4.2
Initiative sustainability is enhanced given its fit within the portfolio
and its linkages with the ecosystem and the system of support
provided by the UIF.
1 3 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 3
4.3
Both the initiative team and the company sponsored observe good
governance and sound financial practices, particularly with regard
to budgeting, reporting and monitoring.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4.4 The initiative leverages on economies of scale/scope. 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 3
4.5Sustainability is supported given the viability and affordability of the
product/service being developed.1 4 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 3
4.6
No significant/highly probable risks (e.g. Regulatory barriers) exist
that could undermine the sustainability of the solution (e.g. reliance
on single supplier, unsupportive policy environment etc).
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
4.7Robustness of results of initial prototyping/piloting/ past data
collection and initiative milestones are high.1 4 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 3
4.8To the best of our knowledge there are no competing approaches
to solve the problem that this initiative works towards solving.1 5 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
4.9 The initiative has the Potential to influence policy / systems change 1 3 1 2 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 2
4.10Smart partners (especially from country governments and
companies/investors) willing to co-fund0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
4.11 Proven entrepreneurial success of the team 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
4.12The possibility of negative repercussions from beneficiaries in terms
of social or political implications of this initiative is low.1 4 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 4 1 5
Total Value 35 34 33 32 30 32 28
Maximum Potential Value 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
Initiative Aggregate /Sustainability
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Driver
s
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
76.26% 75.0 77.8 75.0 75.6 75.0 73.3 75.0 71.1 75.0 66.7 75.0 71.1 75.0 62.2
Figure 89 (Sheet 2 of 2): Portfolio Evaluation tool Section 4: Sustainability (Adapted by the authors from Paulson et al., 2007)
Better
Teachers,
Better
MAPP VACSomlengMpower9NeedsIPALSaycel
Response Per Individual Initiative (initiatives 8 to 14)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 176
Section 5
VScalability: Potential for application at national &
international/global scale
Weighting 0.15
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
5.1 The initiative has a viable Business model 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 4
5.2
An appropriate vision of scale can be developed for alternative
applications/other locations (replication of business model in
different geographies)
1 3 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 5
5.3
The initiative rates highly in terms of readiness or quick wins e.g.
the solution can be tested by users on a limited scale, without
requiring complete adoption.
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 5
5.4 The solution is able to use existing infrastructure and/or facilities. 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 5
5.5
The solution is designed in such a way that its core components
could be easily replicated, with contextualized tailoring only needed
for limited aspects of the program.
1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 4
5.6 The solution is low in complexity 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 2
5.7 The initiative is designed to reach a large number of people. 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 4
5.8The initiative is cost effective to enable integration into government
or other large-scale programmes.1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3
5.9 Expected demand / market readiness is high 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 5
33 34 34 34 32 31 37Maximum Potential Value 45 45 45 45 45 40 45
Initiative Aggregate / Scalability
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
75.89% 100.0 73.3 100.0 75.6 100.0 75.6 100.0 75.6 100.0 71.1 100.0 77.5 100.0 82.2
Care for
Children
Figure 90 (Sheet 1 of 2) Portfolio Evaluation tool Section 5: Scalability (Adapted by the authors from Paulson et al., 2007)
MomCon-
nect (South
Africa)
U-Report
Burkina Faso
U-Report
Brazil
Advocacy
Project
U-Report
Guatemala
Response Per Individual Initiative (Initiatives 1 to 7)
U-REPORT
Fiji
U-Report
App
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 177
Section 5
VScalability: Potential for application at national &
international/global scale
Weighting 0.15
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
5.1 The initiative has a viable Business model1 4
1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3
5.2
An appropriate vision of scale can be developed for alternative
applications/other locations (replication of business model in
different geographies)
1 3 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3
5.3
The initiative rates highly in terms of readiness or quick wins e.g.
the solution can be tested by users on a limited scale, without
requiring complete adoption.
1 3 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 3
5.4 The solution is able to use existing infrastructure and/or facilities. 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3
5.5
The solution is designed in such a way that its core components
could be easily replicated, with contextualized tailoring only needed
for limited aspects of the program.
1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
5.6 The solution is low in complexity 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 4
5.7 The initiative is designed to reach a large number of people. 1 3 1 5 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3
5.8The initiative is cost effective to enable integration into government
or other large-scale programmes.1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
5.9 Expected demand / market readiness is high 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
33 36 34 34 34 31 30
Maximum Potential Value 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
Initiative Aggregate / Scalability
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Driver
s
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
75.89% 100.0 73.3 100.0 80.0 100.0 75.6 100.0 75.6 100.0 75.6 100.0 68.9 100.0 66.7
MAPP VAC9Needs Mpower SomlengSaycel IPAL
Figure 90 (Sheet 2 of 2): Portfolio Evaluation tool Section 5: Scalability (Adapted by the authors from Paulson et al., 2007)
Response Per Individual Initiative (initiatives 8 to 14)Better
Teachers,
Better
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 178
Section 6
VIInnovation: Novelty of initiative and alignment with Innovation Principles
and desired stage of development.
Weighting 0.60
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
6.1 The initiative is developing new technology 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 - 1 1
6.2
Initiative is expanding/ improving existing technology/ platform (i.e.
it will be in a place where the technology is being used...but will
involve new tech being built)
0 - 0 - 0 - 0 0 0 - 1 5
6.3
Initiative is a new application/ piloting new use case for existing
technology (i.e little or no new tech will be built and it will be used
in the same place)
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 4
6.4Scaling existing, initial pilot to new areas (i.e. no significant new
tech, but also this will be in a new country)0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 0 - 1 4
6.5 The initiative aligns with all 9 UNICEF Innovation Principles 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 5
6.6The innovation is in line with most recent developments in related
technology space. 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 3
6.7 The business model itself is innovative. 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 3 1 5
6.8The model has relative advantage over existing practices (Current
solutions are considered inadequate).1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 4
Total Value 14 14 14 14 14 19 31
Maximum Potential Value 25 25 25 25 25 25 40
initiative Aggregate / Innovation
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
68.25% 62.5 56.0 62.5 56.0 62.5 56.0 62.5 56.0 62.5 56.0 62.5 76.0 100.0 77.5
Figure 91 (sheet 1 of 2): Portfolio Evaluation tool Section 6: Innovation (Adapted by the authors from Paulson, et al., 2007)
U-Report
Brazil
Advocacy
Project
U-REPORT
Fiji
Response Per Individual Initiative (Initiatives 1 to 7)
U-Report
Burkina Faso
U-Report
Guatemala
U-Report
App
Care for
Children
MomCon-
nect (South
Africa)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 179
Section 6
VIInnovation: Novelty of initiative and alignment with Innovation Principles
and desired stage of development.
Weighting 0.60
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
6.1 The initiative is developing new technology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6.2
Initiative is expanding/ improving existing technology/ platform (i.e.
it will be in a place where the technology is being used...but will
involve new tech being built)
1 4 0 1 4 0 0 0 0
6.3
Initiative is a new application/ piloting new use case for existing
technology (i.e little or no new tech will be built and it will be used
in the same place)
0 1 4 0 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3
6.4Scaling existing, initial pilot to new areas (i.e. no significant new
tech, but also this will be in a new country)0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6.5 The initiative aligns with all 9 UNICEF Innovation Principles 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 4
6.6The innovation is in line with most recent developments in related
technology space. 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 3
6.7 The business model itself is innovative. 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 3
6.8The model has relative advantage over existing practices (Current
solutions are considered inadequate).1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 4
Total Value 18 19 21 19 18 14 17
Maximum Potential Value 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
initiative Aggregate / Innovation
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Driver
s
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
68.25% 62.5 72.0 62.5 76.0 62.5 84.0 62.5 76.0 62.5 72.0 62.5 56.0 62.5 68.0
Response Per Individual Initiative (initiatives 8 to 14)
9Needs Mpower SomlengSaycel
Figure 91 (sheet 2 of 2): Portfolio Evaluation tool Section 6: Innovation (Adapted by the authors from Paulson, et al., 2007)
IPAL MAPP VAC
Better
Teachers,
Better
Learners
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 180
Section 7
VII
Initiative's Impact on the Portfolio: The extent to which the
initiative helps bring the portfolio to a healthy balance on any of
our desired dimensions for portfolio diversification.
Weighting 0.10
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
7.1There are possibilities for synergistic effects between this initiative
and other in the portfolio.1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3
7.2 If this initiative were killed, the portfolio would suffer. 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 2
7.3This initiative provides balance to the portfolio of innovations in
terms of pacing/stage of maturity of initiatives. 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 5
7.4This initiative is providing balance to the portfolio of innovations in
terms of desired risk in the portfolio.1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 5
7.5This initiative is providing balance to the portfolio of innovations in
terms of technology domains we’re invested in.1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 4 1 2
7.6This initiative is providing balance to the portfolio in terms of
expected returns (Growth, IP Stack, Communities). 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 4
7.7
This initiative is providing balance in terms UIF portfolio areas 1.
Products for youth under 25 2. Real‐time information for decision
making 3. Infrastructure to increase access to services and
information.
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 5 1 5
7.8At the portfolio level, committing to this initiative continues to
enhance the secondary benefits which accrue to the fund.1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 5 1 4
Total Value 20 20 20 20 24 31 30
Maximum Potential Value 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
Initiative Aggregate / Impact on Portfolio
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
68.96% 100.0 50.0 100.0 50.0 100.0 50.0 100.0 50.0 100.0 60.0 100.0 77.5 100.0 75.0
U-Report
Brazil
Advocacy
Project
U-Report
Burkina Faso
Response Per Individual Initiative (Initiatives 1 to 7)
Figure 92 (Sheet 1 of 2): Portfolio Evaluation tool Section 7: Initiative's Impact on the Portfolio (Adapted by the authors from Paulson et al., 2007)
MomCon-
nect (South
Africa)
Care for
Children
U-Report
App
U-REPORT
Fiji
U-Report
Guatemala
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 181
Section 7
VII
Initiative's Impact on the Portfolio: The extent to which the
initiative helps bring the portfolio to a healthy balance on any of
our desired dimensions for portfolio diversification.
Weighting 0.10
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
7.1There are possibilities for synergistic effects between this initiative
and other in the portfolio.1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3
7.2 If this initiative were killed, the portfolio would suffer. 1 4 1 4 1 5 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 3
7.3This initiative provides balance to the portfolio of innovations in
terms of pacing/stage of maturity of initiatives. 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 3 1 3
7.4This initiative is providing balance to the portfolio of innovations in
terms of desired risk in the portfolio.1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 2 1 3
7.5This initiative is providing balance to the portfolio of innovations in
terms of technology domains we’re invested in.1 3 1 3 1 5 1 4 1 4 1 2 1 3
7.6This initiative is providing balance to the portfolio in terms of
expected returns (Growth, IP Stack, Communities). 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3
7.7
This initiative is providing balance in terms UIF portfolio areas 1.
Products for youth under 25 2. Real‐time information for decision
making 3. Infrastructure to increase access to services and
information.
1 5 1 4 1 5 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3
7.8At the portfolio level, committing to this initiative continues to
enhance the secondary benefits which accrue to the fund.1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3
Total Value 33 32 36 33 32 24 24
Maximum Potential Value 40 40 40 40 40 40 40
Initiative Aggregate / Impact on Portfolio
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Driver
s
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
68.96% 100.0 82.5 100.0 80.0 100.0 90.0 100.0 82.5 100.0 80.0 100.0 60.0 100.0 60.0
Better
Teachers,
Better
Learners
MAPP VACSomlengMpower9NeedsIPAL
Response Per Individual Initiative (initiatives 8 to 14)
Figure 92 (sheet 2 of 2): Portfolio Evaluation tool Section 7: Initiative's Impact on the Portfolio (Adapted by the authors from Paulson et al., 2007)
Saycel
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 182
Section 8
VIII
External Start-up Team Capabilities & Pace of Progress: The extent
to which the initiative team is exhibiting the appropriate set of skills
and competencies and is making appropriate progress given the
initiative's stage of development.
Weighting
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
8.1The leader of the team is capable of taking this initiative to the next
level.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.2This initiative team is populated with members who exhibit a strong
experimental orientation.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.3 The initiative team actively supports the open innovation process. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.4
The initiative team displays the characteristics of effective Teams
(e.g. Task effectiveness, inter-team co-operation, team innovation,
team viability & team member well-being).
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.5
This initiative team is populated with members who have previously
struggled with the entire innovation process from discovery/idea
generation through commercialisation/scaling.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.6
This initiative team is making significant progress given the amount
of resources they have and the difficulty of the challenges they are
facing.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.7The initiative team has a clear division of roles and responsibilities
with clear visionary.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.8
Team has balance and diversity of expertise, strengths and
characteristics (incl gender) relevant to technology solution, sector,
context, sustainable business.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.9
Commitment/ sustainability of team members to each other & the
company (length of employment with the company; team members
employed full-time).
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.10 Team has strong connections with stakeholders. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maximum Potential Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initiative Aggregate / Team Capabilities
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
0.00% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
U-Report
Burkina Faso
MomCon-
nect (South
Africa)
U-REPORT
Fiji
Care for
Children
U-Report
Guatemala
U-Report
Brazil
Advocacy
Project
Figure 93 (Sheet 1 of 2): Portfolio Evaluation tool Section 8: External Start-up Team Capabilities & Pace of Progress (Adapted by the authors from Paulson et al., 2007)
Response Per Individual Initiative (Initiatives 1 to 7)
U-Report
App
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 183
Section 8
VIII
External Start-up Team Capabilities & Pace of Progress: The extent
to which the initiative team is exhibiting the appropriate set of skills
and competencies and is making appropriate progress given the
initiative's stage of development.
Weighting
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
8.1The leader of the team is capable of taking this initiative to the next
level.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.2This initiative team is populated with members who exhibit a strong
experimental orientation.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.3 The initiative team actively supports the open innovation process. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.4
The initiative team displays the characteristics of effective Teams
(e.g. Task effectiveness, inter-team co-operation, team innovation,
team viability & team member well-being).
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.5
This initiative team is populated with members who have previously
struggled with the entire innovation process from discovery/idea
generation through commercialisation/scaling.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.6
This initiative team is making significant progress given the amount
of resources they have and the difficulty of the challenges they are
facing.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.7The initiative team has a clear division of roles and responsibilities
with clear visionary.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.8
Team has balance and diversity of expertise, strengths and
characteristics (incl gender) relevant to technology solution, sector,
context, sustainable business.
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.9
Commitment/ sustainability of team members to each other & the
company (length of employment with the company; team members
employed full-time).
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8.10 Team has strong connections with stakeholders. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Maximum Potential Value 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Initiative Aggregate / Team Capabilities
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Driver
s
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
0.00% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Better
Teachers,
Better
Learners
IPAL
Response Per Individual Initiative (initiatives 8 to 14)
Somleng MAPP VAC9Needs
Figure 93 (Sheet 2 of 2): Portfolio Evaluation tool Section 8: External Start-up Team Capabilities & Pace of Progress (Adapted by the authors from Paulson et al., 2007)
Saycel Mpower
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 184
Section 9
IXUIF Capabilities for this initiative: The degree to which UIF has the
resources, motivation, and capability to bring this initiative to fruition.
Weighting 0.06
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
9.1 Executive support is strong for this initiative. 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 5
9.2We have the resources within UIF to accomplish the next steps
necessary for this initiative.1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 5
9.3The apparent path to market and scale for this initiative is one with
which we are comfortable.1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 5
9.4Cost of gaining the technical progress that is needed is appropriate
given ultimate promise for this opportunity.1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
9.5The chances of achieving the next crucial technical milestones are
high.1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
9.6This initiative is requiring the team to develop/ leverage internal
networks.1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4
9.7The initiative is requiring the team to develop/leverage external
networks.1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 4
9.8 This initiative will leverage and extend our current competencies. 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 4
9.9The initiative is able to leverage against the UNICEF brand,
contributing to the initiatives success.1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
Total Value 33 33 33 33 34 31 39
Maximum Potential Value 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
Initiative Aggregate / Firm Capabilities
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
76.67% 100.0 73.3 100.0 73.3 100.0 73.3 100.0 73.3 100.0 75.6 100.0 68.9 100.0 86.7
Response Per Individual Initiative (Initiatives 1 to 7)
U-REPORT
Fiji
U-Report
App
U-Report
Brazil
Advocacy
Project
U-Report
Guatemala
Figure 94 (sheet 1 of 2): Portfolio Evaluation tool Section 9: UIF Capabilities for this initiative (Adapted by the authors from Paulson et al., 2007)
Care for
Children
MomCon-
nect (South
Africa)
U-Report
Burkina Faso
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 185
Section 9
IXUIF Capabilities for this initiative: The degree to which UIF has the
resources, motivation, and capability to bring this initiative to fruition.
Weighting 0.06
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
9.1 Executive support is strong for this initiative. 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 3
9.2We have the resources within UIF to accomplish the next steps
necessary for this initiative.1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
9.3The apparent path to market and scale for this initiative is one with
which we are comfortable.1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
9.4Cost of gaining the technical progress that is needed is appropriate
given ultimate promise for this opportunity.1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
9.5The chances of achieving the next crucial technical milestones are
high.1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3
9.6This initiative is requiring the team to develop/ leverage internal
networks.1 4 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
9.7The initiative is requiring the team to develop/leverage external
networks.1 5 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
9.8 This initiative will leverage and extend our current competencies. 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 2 1 3
9.9The initiative is able to leverage against the UNICEF brand,
contributing to the initiatives success.1 5 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3
Total Value 38 35 35 35 35 32 31
Maximum Potential Value 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
Initiative Aggregate / Firm Capabilities
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Driver
s
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
76.67% 100.0 84.4 100.0 77.8 100.0 77.8 100.0 77.8 100.0 77.8 100.0 71.1 100.0 68.9
Figure 94 (sheet 2 of 2): Portfolio Evaluation tool Section 9: UIF Capabilities for this initiative (Adapted by the authors from Paulson et al., 2007)
9Needs
Response Per Individual Initiative (initiatives 8 to 14)
MpowerIPAL SomlengSaycel MAPP VAC
Better
Teachers,
Better
Learners
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 186
Section 10
IX
Financial indicators of value creation:
The degree to which the initiative contributes to the financial value
of the portfolio and UIF.
Weighting 0.06
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level (1-
5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
10.1The initiative provides a cost effective solution, when addressing
the problem / need (e.g. reduces the costs of implementation).1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 5
10.2 This initiative is contributing significantly to the IP stack. 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 3
10.3The initiative is attracting external attention which encourages
additional investment in the fund.1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 3
10.4The initiative replaces an existing offering/mode of delivery with
the potential for significant cost efficiencies. 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 3
10.5The initiative encourages efficient use of resources (value for
money).1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 5
10.6 Strong Potential returns (1. Growth, 2. IP Stack, 3. Communities) 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 4
10.7
Both the initiative team and the company sponsored observe good
governance and sound financial practices, particularly with regard
to budgeting, reporting and monitoring.
0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 4
10.8The cost estimates are realistic based on local context and
competitive prices/rates.0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 4 1 5
10.9The UIF investment fits within the company's overall strategy and
financial approach.1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 4 0
Total Value 20 21 20 21 24 26 32
Maximum Potential Value 35 35 35 35 35 35 40
Initiative Aggregate / Financial indicators
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
68.94% 77.8 57.1 77.8 60.0 77.8 57.1 77.8 60.0 77.8 68.6 87.5 74.3 88.9 80.0
U-Report
Brazil
Advocacy
Project
U-Report
Guatemala
Response Per Individual Initiative (Initiatives 1 to 7)
Figure 95 (sheet 1 of 2): Portfolio Evaluation tool Section 10: Financial indicators of value creation: (Adapted by the authors from Paulson et al., 2007)
U-REPORT
Fiji
U-Report
Burkina Faso
MomCon-
nect (South
Africa)
Care for
Children
U-Report
App
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 187
Section 10
IX
Financial indicators of value creation:
The degree to which the initiative contributes to the financial value
of the portfolio and UIF.
Weighting 0.06
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
Rele-
vance
(0, 1)
Value
Level
(1-5)
10.1The initiative provides a cost effective solution, when addressing
the problem / need (e.g. reduces the costs of implementation).1 5 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 4 1 4
10.2 This initiative is contributing significantly to the IP stack. 1 4 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 3
10.3The initiative is attracting external attention which encourages
additional investment in the fund.1 4 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 3
10.4The initiative replaces an existing offering/mode of delivery with
the potential for significant cost efficiencies. 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3
10.5The initiative encourages efficient use of resources (value for
money).1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4
10.6 Strong Potential returns (1. Growth, 2. IP Stack, 3. Communities) 1 3 1 3 1 4 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
10.7
Both the initiative team and the company sponsored observe good
governance and sound financial practices, particularly with regard
to budgeting, reporting and monitoring.
0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
10.8The cost estimates are realistic based on local context and
competitive prices/rates.0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -
10.9The UIF investment fits within the company's overall strategy and
financial approach.1 5 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 3 1 4
Total Value 29 24 27 24 25 22 24
Maximum Potential Value 35 35 35 35 35 35 35
Initiative Aggregate / Financial indicators
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Driver
s
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
% of
Drivers
Import-
ant
% of
Max
Value
68.94% 77.8 82.9 77.8 68.6 77.8 77.1 77.8 68.6 77.8 71.4 77.8 62.9 77.8 68.6
MpowerIPALSaycel
Response Per Individual Initiative (initiatives 8 to 14)
Figure 95 (sheet 2 of 2) Portfolio Evaluation tool: Section 10: Financial indicators of value creation: (Adapted by the authors from Paulson et al., 2007)
9Needs Somleng MAPP VAC
Better
Teachers,
Better
Learners
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 188
Analysis supporting Day’s Innovation Risk Matrix is as follows.
Initiative Brief introduction to the initiative. Familiarity with Intended Market Familiarity with Product/Technology
9Needs (South Africa) (New)
Initiative improves Early Childhood
Development services in South Africa using
blockchain infrastructure and smart contracts.
9Needs has prototyped a system which
strengthens current registration, contracting,
information and management systems.
This initiative is being launched for the first time
in a new market. Distribution and uptake rates
are unknown with little information on which to
base an estimate.
Intended Market Risk is considered HIGH.
The technology is new to the company, with
block chain being introduced for the first time.
Product/Technology risk is considered HIGH.
Care for Children (Cambodia)
Country based initiative involving close cooperation with Government authorities in relation to development of digital based performance reporting of child care institutions in Cambodia. This initiative has the potential to improve accuracy and timely collection of data for decision making purposes, leading to improvement in Government response times.
Initiative is being launched in a small segment of the market and much will depend on the success of this initiative before country level impact can be determined with any degree of certainty. Also, key to the success of this initiative will be the relationships formed with Government authorities. Although this initiative has the support of the Central Government, local authorities will need to be engaged if this initiative is to be scaled across Cambodia. Other considerations: - Significant scope for improvement in services - More re-engineering of the process of data capture - High scalability potential - Will expect to see more engagement with stakeholders, particularly Government Ministry. Intended Market Risk is considered MODERATE.
Application of this technology is new to this particular industry, and much will depend on uptake by local staff within the Ministry. Having said this, early indications are that staff at the Ministry are accepting of the changes, and there is an air of optimism around improved functionality and expected efficiency gains. Other considerations: - Will require training and acceptance by stakeholders Product/Technology risk is considered HIGH.
Somleng
Chatterbox
(Cambodia)
(New)
An efficient and low cost Interactive Voice
Response (IVR) and SMS platform, to be
integrated into the RapidPro platform to extend
its reach to communities with low literacy
levels.
Will complement the existing RapidPro
technology operating in the same market.
Intended Market Risk is considered MODERATE.
The IVR technology is relatively new to the
market, and acceptance/uptake has yet to be
proven.
Product/Technology risk is considered HIGH.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 189
Initiative Brief introduction to the initiative. Familiarity with Intended Market Familiarity with Product/Technology
U-Report App Syria
Priority areas include an increase in immunisation rates, enhancing school enrolment among internally displaced children and increasing the number of children accessing child-friendly spaces. U-Report adopts text message technology and serves as a community based feedback system, amplifying the voices of many. It also serves as a form of engagement with the community, capable of polling views across a range of important issues, as well as acting as an early warning device. U-Report provides a new model for engaging with communities, effectively empowering young people.
This initiative is being launched for the first time in a new market. Distribution and uptake rates are unknown with little information on which to base an estimate. Given the current political and economic environment, adoption of U-Report at country level may vary in success. Existing stakeholder relationships do not necessarily mitigate risk, and potential threats at country level are known with less certainty. Intended Market Risk is considered HIGH.
The technology will require the use of smart phones, and as such, other forms of social media may compete with this technology. Background: The technology used in this project is an open source RapidPro. ‘At the core of RapidPro lies our exclusive Flow engine. With Flows, anybody can create complex SMS and voice applications without the need of a programmer or expensive consulting company. Using a basic Android phone, you can launch your application instantly in any country while avoiding expensive set-up costs or external technical support". Having said this, the necessary services and functions are new by comparison with what was previously available. Expectations of quality/standards will also be higher. Product/Technology risk is considered HIGH.
U-Report - Brazil Advocacy Group
Collection of real time data from young people and provide them with critical information. Overall U-Report will align national with local and regional issues and campaigns carried out over 800 youth networks spread through the most vulnerable communities in far-away communities and urban centres. Issues include effects of the Zika virus on communities and to disseminate information on prevention practices.
This initiative is being launched for the first time in this market. Unfamiliarity with market environment and competitive pressure likely to be exerted from regulatory authorities and Telco’s in relation to communication products may adversely impact the effectiveness with which this product is introduced. Intended Market Risk is considered HIGH.
Although the technology is still relatively new to the company, U-Report has been introduced in other markets, and the company’s familiarity with this technology is improving. Having said this, SMS technology is proving to be unpopular (due to current call charges imposed by Telco’s); however, Facebook is growing in popularity. The preferred medium has yet to be determined. Product/Technology risk is considered HIGH.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 190
Initiative Brief introduction to the initiative. Familiarity with Intended Market Familiarity with Product/Technology
SayCel
Nicaragua
(New)
Improve low-cost open source GSM
communications suite used to run cellular
networks in rural regions by installing low-cost
technology & training local governments and to
maintain their own networks.
Initiative extends mobile cellular coverage to less
densely populated rural regions. Relationship
with stakeholders key. New initiative in the
market.
Intended Market Risk is considered HIGH.
Product technology is new to the organization,
suggesting greater degree of reliance may be
placed on vendor partners.
Product/Technology risk is considered HIGH.
Innovations
for Poverty
Alleviation Lab
(IPAL)
Pakistan
(New)
IPAL have developed an interactive voice
response (IVR) system that serves as a maternal
care hotline. Aims to provide fathers with access
to medical advice and guidance in accessible
formats.
Initiative aligns well within the real-time
information portfolio and UNICEF Innovation
Funds intended market
Intended Market Risk is considered MODERATE.
Product is relatively new, and as a form of
engagement, some overlap with existing
products is evident.
Product/Technology risk is considered HIGH.
U-Report - Burkina Faso
This initiative addresses issues such as safe pregnancy and good maternal and new born health.
This initiative is being launched for the first time in this market. Intended Market Risk is considered HIGH.
U-Report has been introduced in other markets as it is being scaled. Product/Technology risk is considered MODERATE.
U-Report Fiji
Community Feedback System built on U-Report (RapidPro platform) to cover all aspects of cyclone relief, recovery and transition to development, with scope for adaptation as a community engagement and polling and/or early warning system.
This initiative is being launched for the first time in this market. Intended Market Risk is considered HIGH.
U-Report has been introduced in other markets as it is being scaled. Product/Technology risk is considered MODERATE.
Learning labs Uganda
An initiative supported by UNICEF Uganda, U-Portal is a digital content management tool developed to support schools and youth centres across Uganda. U-Portal is currently undergoing a re-design/upgrade improving the scalability of the tool across UNICEF country offices, to serve as the go-to tool for digital content management.
The project targets the youth population of rural Uganda utilising human centred design and attempts to take into consideration how young people in this region are likely to use computers. The distribution channels which relate to this initiative remain much the same, and the initiative itself does not compete with existing initiatives. This initiative appears to be growing in popularity with target audiences. Intended Market Risk is considered LOW.
This initiative represents an extension/upgrade of an existing product which sits well within UIF's levels of competence/capability. The initial product design was kept simple and cost effective, with the design process taking account of user’s interaction with the technology. From this perspective, the risk of failure associated with product/technology is considered low. Product/Technology risk is considered LOW.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 191
Initiative Brief introduction to the initiative. Familiarity with Intended Market Familiarity with Product/Technology
Better teachers Maldives
E-learning platform to deliver large volumes of content to educators across the country. This has the potential to enhance the quality of teaching and possibly better learning outcomes for students in the Maldives. Content delivery across a single platform is one initiative which will address the disparity in education levels between the cities and the vast island population. It is expected that this initiative will serve 4,000 teachers across 200 islands through 220 schools.
This initiative is aligned with UNICEF's mission and the education strategic outcome and has support from the Ministry of Education The intended market aligns with well with UNICEF Innovation Fund portfolio. Intended Market Risk is considered MODERATE.
This initiative sits well with UNICEFs capabilities. Where the outcome is to improve the quality of education provided, the e-learning platform is one determinant of quality, and as such, a low to moderate level of risk does exist. Product/Technology risk is considered MODERATE.
U-Report - Guatemala
This initiative addresses issues around child marriage, adolescent pregnancy and sexual violence against girls.
This initiative is being launched for the first time in this market. Intended Market Risk is considered HIGH.
U-Report has been introduced in other markets as it is being scaled. Product/Technology risk is considered MODERATE.
Mapp 4 VAC Reporting Maldives
Increasing accessibility to information, enabling reporting of cases of violence against children from remote islands of Maldives. A mobile application that is linked to the call centre and the Maldives child protection database. The information from both calls and SMS would be centrally captured, analysed and used for timely response and action. This, enabling the social workers to respond to cases in a timely manner.
Given the vast reach required to ensure effectiveness, familiarity with intended market is considered low. Intended Market Risk is considered HIGH.
The organisation is familiar with the current product/technology. Product/Technology risk is considered LOW.
mPower
(Bangladesh)
(New)
Open Smart Register Platform (OSRP), an integrated digital registry platform that seeks to improve data collection and efficiency for frontline workers providing reproductive, maternal, new born and child services.
New market initiative. Initiative aligns well within the real-time information portfolio and UIF's intended market Intended Market Risk is considered MODERATE.
Product/Technology sits well within the organisation's domain. Product/Tech risk is considered MODERATE.
MomConnect South Africa
SMS maternal reminder program for pregnant women. Now building the technology as part of the RapidPro.
Currently in development for both the South African and Ugandan market place. Intended Market Risk is considered MODERATE.
The organisation is familiar with the current product/technology. Product/Technology risk is considered LOW.
Figure 96: UIF Portfolio (Current) including UIF's first portfolio of investments in private sector companies (UNICEF ,2016J; UNICEF , 2016L)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 192
Appendix 8: Interviews Findings
Interview Observations Relating to Objective 1
No. Key Valuation Themes
Significant Quotes from Interviewees Related to Objective 1
1 Typical process of Frameworks of Evaluation that Currently Applied at the Organization / Project Level
‘We don’t have a common evaluation framework in the sense that other than very
basic things, you have to have an evaluation plan across, a costed evaluation plan,
things like that’.
‘there’s a huge degree of flexibility to the degree that there is standardization’
‘The common evaluation frameworks would be sub-organisational and even
though they might not be very strong’.
‘We’re not much into methodological development, we tend to find and adapt and
refine things on the market that were familiar with’.
‘For SROI & ROI, we often don’t capture things in that way, it might be more
qualitative and descriptive’.
‘If we’ve done these many different things, we think we have logical model or
impacts model that says that this has been accomplished and we don’t feel the
need to always go out and try to validate things through national monitoring or
through certain kinds of evaluations’.
‘We set up a long-term agreement with 8 or 9 powerful global institutions, and so
UNICEF Offices that want to invest at a high level of rigor for impact valuations can
access these firms for doing visibility studies’.
‘we’re very appreciative of the need to respect the uncertainties that the offices
were facing and the partners were facing’
‘We tend to concentrate on evaluation by theme and understand what the learning
from that theme was or is’
‘highly committed as much as possible to having shared impact measurements’
2 Technological Changes Impact on Evaluation
‘one of the big problems we keep finding with new technology implementation is
its sustainability’
‘I worry about the standardisation given the variety of the kind of innovations that
are going on and the extent to which the items generalise across different kinds of
innovation.’
‘We are very much able to deal with emergent and contingent systems change
driven’.
3 Evaluation Team
‘We consider and assess the evaluation team dynamics while setting up the
evaluation team’.
‘The organization as a whole is very accepting of formative evaluations to see if the
programs and understandings are developing as hoped for and as predicted and if
not, then what can be learned about it’.
4 Developmental Evaluation
‘We have a colleague that got quite enchanted by that [DE], saw an opportunity to
do that. She applied it within peace building. So we put evaluators in 2 countries’.
‘By UNICEF putting monitoring evaluation officers in the country offices they have
often the very same outcomes and desires or goals as a Developmental Evaluator
in the sense that he has a facilitator role throughout the process and it’s an
iterative process and we have a lot of experience within that field of analysis’
Table 40: Interview Observations Relating to Objective 1 – Individual Initiative
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 193
Interview Observations Relating to Objective 2
No. Key Valuation Themes
Significant Quotes from Interviewees Related to Objective 2
1 Real Returns as Perceived
‘You can say so many doctors we’ve trained, so many kids vaccinated, that's how we measure, and you can say the infant mortality has gone down by this much. Those are things that we measure’, and ‘there is no return on investment on the value of life that's for sure’. ‘I would classify ourselves as relatively weak on using the kind of evaluative logic that the market uses that the private sector uses. We don’t traditionally concern ourselves very much with efficiency and ROI’.
2 Indicators are a fallacy/Real Returns are Reflected in the Portfolios Diversity.
‘that’s what an innovation fund ought to be doing’ also noting ‘…folks do too much interpretation too quickly without really seeing patterns and the other is that they don’t do it often enough to see what’s emergent.’ [the evaluation process is a] ‘reflective practice to figure out what’s going on…it becomes important to set up a process for interpretation and action that is manageable and is kept up with’. ‘the diversity approach is not to say that they all get evaluated by the same criteria, but in fact, what kind of diversity do we want, and are we getting that kind of diversity, that’s what an innovation fund ought to be doing.’ ‘What we want with most interventions in complex adaptive systems is they’re adaptive, but [the problem is] you keep doing the same thing over and over again.’ ‘The appropriateness or one way to handle this is to create a menu of these kinds of items, and ask them on a project basis to pick the items that are relevant for their particular situation that they believe are appropriate to be.’
3 Evidence Based Measures
‘There isn't really much evidence around the real return on investment…how to prove whether this kind of VC approach really will influence or transform or accelerate how development is done more efficiently faster bigger better and so on and that is at the core of the challenge of…justifying innovation and models such as the VC approach’. ‘… have to have an enormous hunger for the evidence of impact and things like that in a very rapid timeframe’.
4 Value Proposition
‘…real value accrues to UNICEF/Ecosystem via learning, and being able to move ideas incrementally forward [and that] Its only once you start scaling that you’re going to see real value [accrue towards the] end beneficiary’.
5 Substance Over Form (Qualitative Data)
‘Understanding the data, it’s not just what, what, what, it’s also the why, for example, if only 20% of women are using U-Report, we need to know the why … we need to dig into the qualitative data to understand’. ‘One of the things I feel with innovation is … we’ve got this backend system with access to quantitative data all the time and its real-time data, but actually, you need to dig into that data and a lot of that is qualitative right.’ ‘real time refers to, especially in the software industry, to data that’s entered at the point of consumption, and so its immediate’. ‘…timely data that would involve follow up with users may not be real time so that to the extent that one is gathering additional data from users and doing case studies of applications the feedback is timely and so it’s both real time and timely not all real-time data is evaluative or developmental’. ‘Real time data tells you what the pattern is, it doesn’t tell you what the pattern means and what to do about it, and that’s one of the confusions I find with real-time data’.
6 Themes ‘focus on evaluation by theme and understand what the learning from that theme was or is e.g. WASH program, or social protection’ and ‘… that (high level) metrics are comparable at sector level i.e. agricultural.’
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 194
No. Key Valuation Themes
Significant Quotes from Interviewees Related to Objective 2
7 Shared Impact/Platform indicators needed Business Intelligence
‘…in general we are highly committed as much as possible to having shared impact measurements’. ‘…so we found that one of the critical elements of doing this type of work is you have to have unified shared business intelligence’. ‘The language UNICEF are beginning to use has come from the private sector i.e. business intelligence / business case, especially if you want to attract funding and bring partners on board, need to speak the same language as the private sector.’
8 Standardised metrics – Pitfalls
‘I worry about the standardisation given the variety of the kind of innovations that are going on and the extent to which the items generalise across different kinds of innovation.’
9 Aggregation - Problematic
‘at the top level not all innovations are going to have the same metric’. ‘The discussion needs to be around [the meaningful nature of these top-level indicators, what will they really tell us?’ ‘In terms of managing initiatives at an aggregate level, this currently does not happen [at country level]. Initiatives are managed at functional level i.e. child protection, education section, etc.’ ‘we don’t aggregate our portfolio’
10 UNICEF’s MEL Framework
‘at the very top level, metrics are standardised and focus on reach i.e. number of users, etc.’ whilst at the other extreme, at country level, ‘indicators are innovation specific’.
11 Resistance ‘… impression I get with a lot of these innovations is let’s just do it.’
12 Pipeline ‘One would naturally lead to the other, right, the kind of like pilots going into scale. All the M&E you would be doing at the pilot should be feeding into the scale stuff because you need proof points to know it works in order to scale it, you should be having similar indicators, right.’
Table 41: Interview Observations relating to Portfolio Evaluation
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 195
Interview Observations Relating to Objective 3
Significant Insights into Secondary Benefits List
Significant quotes from key informants related to each of the eight potential secondary benefits are
summarised below.
No. Secondary Benefit
Significant Quotes from Interviewees related to the Secondary Benefit List
1 Organisational Learning (often through Failure) (90%)
‘I would move organisational learning and inspiring staff in particular to a primary benefit...’ ‘Definitely number 1, there was a lot of learning... we did fail several, several times, we had to redesign... we had to find our way working creatively with the government and our partners... and all of that was a huge benefit because the national scale up was able to be done... learning from those lessons they didn’t have to go through the same thing again... so that definitely was a plus’ ‘we can more thoroughly speak about this once we have gone through this first process with the Innovation Fund... more lessons... will come out of that...’ ‘organisational learning, absolutely captured because we are going to be failing a lot....’ ‘if you point out failure and just failure and there are a lot of evaluators that have that tendency then the evaluation goes nowhere... so one thing that is quite interesting is to show the successes up front’ ‘...a good distinction recently, that we’ve often talked about the importance in innovation of failing fast, but... a new iteration of that is actually failing smart and that captures the learning element which I think has been missing from the fail fast approach which was it’s not working, just drop it quickly and find another one and try that. Fail smart is much more about really understanding what it was that didn’t work, what influence your own organisation may have played in that process in particular. Because organisation's can make it pretty systematically difficult to scale innovation effectively just by virtue of the way they are set up, and the culture and the risk appetite. When innovation goes wrong by Christian Seelos, innovation pathologies... important for you to consider from a UNICEF perspectives and how it’s structured within the UN network’
2 Making the Organisation Ready for Change (60%)
‘making the organisation ready for change is a big one, especially with these emerging technologies we see... in our near future it’s important to be aware of them’ ‘...the second one, if this doesn’t prepare us for talking financially about things as an organisation I don’t know what will....’
3 Inspiring Staff and Attracting New Types of Talent (70%)
‘..Using the digital system is really bringing a new energy and enthusiasm to using the new tool.. which will... simplify their lives.. they will be able to carry out other tasks in the time that has been spared... the team... is extremely enthusiastic... as a learning process but also to enable them to better do their job... in a more efficient way... and being able to address other urgent problems that children are facing.... by simplifying.... and making a much more effective system....’ ‘...it definitely inspires staff, creates that motivating environment and yes we have attracted new types of talent’ ‘....third one, absolutely we’re seeing that already because we’re seeing people speaking with the VC language or capital mind-set language which is very interesting...’
Table 42: Interview Results: Significant Quotes from Key Informants (Part 1 of 2)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 196
No. Secondary Benefit
Significant Quotes from Interviewees related to the Secondary Benefit List (Continued)
4 Creating a Sustainable Network of Long Term Relationships even after completion (80%)
‘I think creating networks of relationships especially within the tech industry regulatory bodies within UNICEF is something I’ve been involved with governments... NGO’s... other UN Agencies... that are all trying to tackle the same problem...’ ‘...the fourth one, we’ve had so much positive outreach from people running other funds, who want to work with us because we’re not a threat and we’re investing in markets they’re interested in... we haven’t figured out quite how to do it yet but we’ve had everyone from family foundations, to.. venture funds which have said we’ll share pipeline to the IDIA group. Groups in all of those and people in all of those have expressed interest in collaboration... We haven’t got there yet because we need to get our house in order but there is definitely something there...
5 External Mimicry (50%)
‘...we just had another group in the UN publish... that they were so proud to be launching [a] fund in the UN that was mixed public and private funding, so they’re already doing that and copying... our stuff which is great, that’s UNHCR by the way....’
6 Creating New Business Models (70%)
‘New business models, absolutely, we actually had to come up with the open source cases and open source business models so that was a legit thing that we’re doing....’
7 Building Capabilities (70%)
‘what it all means to have different systems, interoperable systems and SMS technology, I’ve not just seen this with our UNICEF staff but I’ve also seen it with our healthcare providers for instance, our government counterparts, who want to understand.. better.. it’s helping them think differently and more effectively... this has been a major change, me myself I’ve learned so much by doing this that I wouldn’t have known... that’s definitely a... secondary benefit’
8 Driving Organisation Goodwill (i.e. new funders/allies) (80%)
‘Public positioning of UNICEF, a lot of what Ventures and Futures does, are new things...people don’t expect shiny new things out of UNICEF but it is the Futures and Ventures group who is doing that... there is a tremendous amount of publicity for the organisation, of repositioning the organisation to be highly relevant, highly innovative... future focused... that I would capture under bullet number 8’ (driving organisational goodwill) ‘It positions... UNICEF is seen in the scenario of stakeholders as an innovative partner... dialoguing with new trends, open to adapt... and not insisting on the old type of communication... it strengthens our mission and our goal’ ‘Eight yes, in that we had people like the.... who would never have funded UNICEF traditionally’ ‘In terms of secondary benefits... we’ve attracted more donors and different partners that we otherwise would not have had, it’s also lead to many, many ideas...’ ‘Other partners that we can bring to the table that are not currently partners...’
Table 43: Interview Results: Significant Quotes from Key Informants (Part 2 of 2)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 197
Additional Secondary Benefits Not Listed
Table 44 gives the secondary benefits noted by informants that were not listed in the interview question.
Whilst the benefits are important most are variants of the listed benefits and have been captured above.
No. Secondary Benefit
Additional Secondary Benefits noted by Interviewees Not Listed in the Question
9 The Potential to Guide Legislation in Emerging Tech. (10%)
‘And something that’s not on this list is the potential to guide legislation in countries... where we have good relationships with governments... being privy to and part of the regulatory process.... UNICEF can be the middle man as a sort between... companies that want to use their technologies and then governments that see these requests but maybe aren’t quite sure with what to do with them... UNICEF Innovation can be part of that relationship’.
10 Value of Open Source IP and Communities (10%)
‘The value created by these investments, the open source intellectual property... and I think that... there’s a flow of value that goes across everyone... and the other is the value of the community that we create... I think that this work can have a balancing effect on an out of kilter world and I think that can happen because your connecting a group in Pakistan working on this to a group in India working on that to a group in Brazil working on this suddenly people are working together on common problems and I think that that’s really valuable...’
11 Sectoral Programmatic Maturation (10%)
‘seeing... the different sectors start to... modify their common practices... is an important one over time’
12 Characteristics, Skill Sets and Behaviour of the Modern Development Professional (10%)
‘...we have seen a large shift... in the characteristics, skill sets and behavioural element that a more modern and future looking development professional seems to need and to have... that are different. So as an example we’ve seen less of a focus in new programming and looking forward on technical skill sets and much more on, can this partner integrate programmes well, are they a good partner manager... the general... DNA of what someone who is going to be successful in this in the next 10 years as development evolves we are seeing change fairly significantly.’
13 Evolution of Risk Management through Making Small Bets over Long Traditional Programmes (10%)
‘the actual risk and monetary calculation is something that we are continuing to see evolve so that the concept of making small bets and paying for results versus doing a large five year programme... and our traditional programming is something that we continue to be looking at...’ ‘we believe that programmes like [venture fund] are about taking smart and informed risk... this is why we like to double down and things like business intelligence, you’ll note that I don’t call it data because data does not mean anything to anyone. I specifically call it business intelligence because it’s information that we are using, in order to help us mitigate risk, make better decisions etc... we don’t fund a large percentage of what we get so we spend an enormous amount of time in that due diligence and in that risk mitigation to try to figure out. Is this a viable innovation? Is this a viable team? Does it have the combination of factors that we feel are worth that initial investment.... programmes like [venture fund] are the most conscious and intentional about understanding, mitigating and making decisions around a risk... compared to any other programming that [we do]..’
Table 44: Additional Secondary Benefits noted by Interviewees not Listed in the Interview Question (Interviews)
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 198
Appendix 9: Additional Information on Organisational Learning and Lean Start-up
Lean Start-up and UNICEF Innovation Fund
Ries (2011) posits that the way forward is ‘to see every start-up... as a grand experiment’ and ask pertinent
questions like ‘should this product be built’ and ‘can we build sustainable business around this set of products
and services?’ (Ries, 2011) which lends itself to the Ventures Horizon 2 that seeks to ask those questions at an
early stage before they pass to the Scale Horizon 3. The Lean Start-up methodology experiments following
scientific method beginning with a clear hypothesis and then tests those predictions empirically with the goal
of discovering how to build a sustainable business around the start-ups vision (Ries, 2011). The model fits the
corporate venturing approach of UNICEF Innovation Fund allowing hypothesis of the solutions seeded to be
tested rigorously, immediately and thoroughly based on real time data feedback.
Starting with a small seed or catalytic investment prevents a tremendous amount of waste without
compromising the overall vision of the start-up or that of UNICEF (Ries, 2011). This early stage evidence is
indeed one of the core objectives of UNICEF Innovation Fund (See Figure 29 - Corporate Venturing Model) and
the minimal viable products (MVP) of the Lean Start-up model are consistent with the early stage proof of
concept solutions targeted by the Fund. The minimum viable products (MVP) allow the start-ups and UNICEF
Ventures to ‘start the process of learning as quickly as possible’. Adaptations of the MVPs over 12 to 24
months under the guidance of with the support of UNICEF Innovation Fund technical and business
management assistance is manageable within the tight constraints of $100,000 seed funding, something that
would not be possible with large scale traditional product development.
‘One of the most dangerous outcomes for a start-up is to bumble along in the land of the living dead’
maintaining a false optimism even when it is clear that the initiative requires major changes if it to succeed,
‘the myth of perseverance’ (Ries, 2011). UNICEF Innovation Fund gives the organisation a ‘vehicle to try new
things’ but also the option of concluding a ‘hard no’ at the end of the Funds support period (UNICEF
Interviews, 2016). In order for UNICEF Ventures to systematically support start-ups and make informed
decisions at the end of that support period a systematic methodology is required.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 199
Innovation Accounting and UNICEF Innovation Fund
Innovation accounting has the potential to adequately support the pivot or persevere question and indeed the
scale question. Such a process will only be as effective as the metrics which are designed for tracking.
Currently the UNICEF Innovation Fund dashboard tracks gross cumulative metrics such as number of users and
number of commits but the authors posit that now that the first round of start-ups have been seeded
actionable metrics (Ries, 2011) should be developed with the start-up teams. A short review of possible types
of metrics follows to establish suitable approaches going forward.
Instead of just looking at cumulative totals or gross numbers such as total revenue and total number of users,
cohort analysis which looks at the performance of each group of customers or cohort that comes into contact
with the product independently (Ries, 2011). The tracking of conversion rates showing the percentage of new
users in a month who went on to take further action such as downloading, usage and purchase is done to
uncover the true performance of the start-up initiative over time. These funnel metrics, developed from the
traditional sales funnel track the progression or sequences of customer behaviour known as ‘flows’, allow a
deeper quantitative understanding of start-up performance and have greater predictive power than simply
relying on gross metrics alone (Ries, 2011).
Cohort analysis rules out attributing the reason for failure on any one sample of customers because ‘each
cohort represents an independent report card’ (Ries, 2011). This richer type of metric continuously updated by
the real time data requirements of UNICEF Innovation Fund provide deeper insights and facilitate more
accurate questions about why initiatives are not adding value or are not illustrating customer behaviour that
formed part of the value creation and growth hypotheses’. The data would allow UNICEF Innovation Fund and
the start-ups seeded make more informed and rapid conclusions about whether or not the right solution is
being built. If you are building the wrong solution no amount of optimization will produce the required results
without a fundamental strategic pivot aimed at achieving a sustainable solution. Innovation accounting
provides a framework that helps ensure that the requirement to pivot is made more clear and avoids relying
solely on gross metrics which Ries (2011) deems ‘vanity metrics’ and ‘success theatre’.
Funnel metrics utilising cohort analysis where possible should to be determined for each initiative. For
example funnel metrics for a UReport initiative (SMS youth advocacy tool) might be number of users, % logged
on once a week, % logged on once a day, % engaged once in surveys, % actively advocating by initiating
campaigns and % of campaigns leading to change with the latter two metrics being the most important
indicators of success.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 200
Funnel Metrics using Cumulative Gross Metrics (Vanity Metrics / Success Theatre)
Funnel Metrics using Cohort Analysis (Independent Report Cards based on Random Cohorts)
Figure 97: Cumulative Gross Metrics vs. Actionable Metrics using Cohort Analysis (Adapted from Ries, 2011)
Adding New Customers (Illusion of forward motion)
Difficult to draw clear cause and effect inferences making
strategic decisions and prioritization extremely
challenging
Adding New Customers but
not Improving Yield (Little real progress)
3 A’s of Metrics (1) Actionable: must
demonstrate clear cause and effect
(2) Accessible: Simple, tangible cohort based reports breaking down
complexity to behaviours that matter & shared
widely. (3) Auditable: credible, tested in real world and
spot checked
Easier to draw clear cause and effect
inferences which aids strategic decision making
and prioritization
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 201
Cohort based metrics combined with split testing (A/B testing) can further strengthen the cause and effect
relationship between changes to the MVP and results observed in real time data. One version maintaining the
its previous form being tested at the same time as a new iteration with changes or new features helps
establish if those changes add value or change customer behaviour. Split testing can form part of an extremely
effective form of validated learning and is entirely possible for UNICEF Innovation Fund start-up initiatives
giving the real time data requirement. The discipline can ensure that only validated changes will be kept as the
team continues to iterate. Ries (2011) argues that failure is a prerequisite to learning (Ries, 2011) and if the
foregoing methods can be applied to the UNICEF Innovation Fund the organisation and start-ups will capture
and benefit from that learning.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 202
Appendix 10: Participant Information Sheet
Venturing, Value creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund Participant Information Sheet
You are being invited to take part in a research study as part of a student project – conducted by students working towards an award of the Masters in Business Administration (MBA) post graduate degree with the University of Manchester (UK). It is hopeful that this research study will demonstrate in clear terms that innovation does generate significant value in a non-profit setting. Before you decide, it is important for you to understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please take time to read the following information carefully and discuss it with others if you wish. Please ask if there is anything that is not clear or if you would like more information. Take time to decide whether or not you wish to take part. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Who will conduct the research?
Name Student Number Email Contact
Brian Meagher 9589074 [email protected]
Declan McKeogh 9583776 [email protected]
Haitham Afifi 9595933 [email protected]
John Santiago-Miller 9577704 [email protected]
Ajay Melwani 9577194 [email protected]
All students are currently undertaking their final year of study in the Masters in Business Administration program with Manchester Business School. What is the purpose of the research? The purpose of the study is to demonstrate the value attributable to innovation in terms of being able to deliver against the organisation's mission (in a non-profit setting), with the value of innovation measured both in isolation and as part of a portfolio of innovation initiatives. Why have I been chosen? You were chosen as one of number of candidates by the Head of the Innovation Fund as being someone within the management team who could provide valuable insight into the management and operation of innovation initiatives managed within the fund. What would I be asked to do if I took part? You will be asked to take part in one or more semi-structured interviews with 2 researchers from the team. The interviews will take place either in person or by some on-line channel. Interviews will be scheduled well in advance, and at a time convenient to you. The interview will take the form of a discussion with specific questions relating to the innovation process, and the management of that process. We want you to know that you have the right to refuse participation, however, if you do choose to participate, you also have the right to withdraw your participation at any stage of the interview or for any part of the interview. Any information / data shared with the researchers will be treated on a confidential basis (if requested). If you wish to protect your anonymity, we will do so. What happens to the data collected? The data collected from the interview(s) will be analysed with other information also gathered during the course of this research project. The aim of the project is to demonstrate value and how this can best be demonstrated. The data collected will therefore be used to triangulate our findings against other sources of information, and findings will be reached in a generalised manner. The final report will endeavour to report generalised findings and will protect the anonymity of participants.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 203
Please note that this research project does not seek to obtain information that is confidential or personal in nature. Any such information acquired during the course of this project will be handled with care, ensuring anonymity, confidentiality and respecting the privacy of individuals. How is confidentiality maintained? All data of a confidential, sensitive or personal nature will be stored on the university network. All files will be encrypted. Access to this data will be restricted to the project team for the duration of the research project, and the project supervisor (appointed by the university) for a period of up to 5 years. If interviews are to be audio/video recorded (subject to permission received from participants), these recordings will be maintained and archived by the university for a period of up to 5 years. Any similar records/information maintained by the research team, will be destroyed at the conclusion of this research project. If as a result of the interviews, the researchers believe that there is any risk of harm to the participant, either physically, or by way of embarrassment, or which has the potential to affect the participant’s career prospects, the participant will be advised. The participant’s anonymity will be protected, and any personal information inadvertently shared will be respected. What happens if I do not want to take part or if I change my mind? It is up to you to decide whether or not to take part. If you do decide to take part you will be given this information sheet to keep and be asked to sign a consent form. If you decide to take part you are still free to withdraw up to a specified point (please stipulate at what point this is no longer possible e.g. time of publication) without giving a reason and without detriment to yourself. Will I be paid for participating in the research? There are no financial rewards or rewards of any kind attached to your participation in this research project. This project is unfunded, and any cost incurred is borne by the student researchers. What is the duration of the research? The duration of the research project is 4 months. The duration of interviews will be up to a maximum of 3 x 1hour interviews. Any telephone conversations will be will be brief. All interviews and telephone conversations will be scheduled in advance. Where will the research be conducted? All student researchers taking part in this research are global MBA students situated at various locations globally. Interviews will more than likely be conducted in your place of work or via the use of some multi-media platform. Will the outcomes of the research be published? The outcomes of the research will not be published for public consumption without express permission of the project sponsor. The project sponsor may wish to make the findings of the research available on their own website or the organisation's intranet. Who has reviewed the research project? The research is supervised by a member of staff from the University of Manchester and as such has received endorsement. What if something goes wrong? In the event that something does go wrong, participants can contact the student researchers by way of email. Please refer to email contacts for student researchers above. Please also ensure that when contacting the researchers, all members are copied.
Participants are also able to contact the University of Manchester. For contact details for the university please refer to: http://www.manchester.ac.uk/connect/contact-us/
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 204
What if I want to make a complaint? Minor complaints If you have a minor complaint then you need to contact the researcher(s) in the first instance. Formal Complaints If you wish to make a formal complaint or if you are not satisfied with the response you have gained from the researchers in the first instance then please contact the Research Governance and Integrity Manager, Research Office, Christie Building, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, by emailing: [email protected] or by telephoning 0161 275 2674 or 275 2046. What Do I Do Now? If you have any queries about the study or if you are interested in taking part then please contact the researcher(s). Please refer to the contact details for student researchers above.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 205
Value creation through the application of the Innovation Venture Fund at UNICEF
CONSENT FORM
Please note that example consent points 3-6 will most specifically relate to interview or focus group studies.
If you are happy to participate please complete and sign the consent form below.
Please initial box
I agree to take part in the above project
Name of participant
Date Signature
Name of researcher
Date Signature
1. I confirm that I have read the attached information sheet on the above project and have had the opportunity to consider the information and ask questions and had these answered satisfactorily.
2. I understand that my participation in the study is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time without giving a reason and without detriment to my treatment/service/self.
1. I understand that my data will remain confidential. Any comments of a private nature which is revealed during the course of the research will not be disclosed to any party. Confidential data will be subject to a confidentiality agreement where one is signed.
4. I understand that the interviews may be audio-recorded.
5. I agree to the use of anonymous quotes.
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 206
Sample Interview Guide:
Global MBA Project
Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Name Student Number Email Contact
Brian Meagher 9589074 [email protected]
Declan McKeogh 9583776 [email protected]
Haitham Afifi 9595933 [email protected]
John Santiago-Miller 9577704 [email protected]
Ajay Melwani 9577194 [email protected]
Semi-structured Interview Guide
UNICEF Office of Evaluation: <enter participant name>
Profile: <insert interviewee profile>
Date: <enter date>
Background Information
2. What is your position in the organisation? Can you briefly describe your role and responsibilities?
3. We understand the focus of UNICEF Scale is to identify and scale up proven innovative solutions.
a. Can you help us make the distinction between UNICEF Ventures and UNICEF Scale?
i. How does the Office of Innovation decide what initiatives should be funded by
UNICEF Innovation Fund (UIF) or the UNICEF Global Innovation Centre (UGIC) or
the International Development Innovation Alliance (IDIA)?
ii. Does an initiative need to have a certain number of users, or be active in a number
of countries to be considered now part of UNICEF Scales scope?
b. Can you explain the interaction/cross over between UIF and UNICEF Scale?
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 207
Core Questions
General Research Question: Ventures Approach
4. Our understanding is that the UNICEF Office of Innovation (UOI) is adopting a ventures strategy
through UNICEF Innovation Fund (UIF) which involves making multiple small investments, or small
bets, in initiatives after proof of concept stage. The majority of initiatives are expected to fail but the
application of venture capital methods typically results in a very small percentage of highly successful
investments making all the small failures worthwhile.
a. Can you please give your views on our interpretation of UIFs strategy?
b. Would you like to add anything further?
5. We consider that UNICEF Innovation Fund can create value for multiple stakeholders including:
(i) UNICEF's beneficiaries (children and mothers);
(ii) UNICEF as an organisation and
(iii) The wider ecosystem of partners and collaborators within which UNICEF works.
a. Can you please elaborate on value created for those 3 groups of stakeholders through the
UNICEF Innovation Fund (UIF)?
Objective 1: Individual Initiatives
6. Innovative initiatives such as those seeded by the UNICEF Innovation Fund are inherently uncertain,
ambiguous and subject to change with outcomes that are often emergent and systems change driven.
As part of our study we are investigating suitable frameworks/approaches to evaluate UNICEF
Innovation Fund initiatives and the fund as a portfolio. Can you please confirm the following citing any
reports or examples that we could explore further:
a. What scalability criteria or implications are considered, when evaluating an initiative prior
to scale up (apart from the Principals for Digital Development)? How does this help in your
decision making process?
b. Does UNICEF Scale have its own M&E approach? Is it prescriptive with RCT’s or some other
approach? Are the existing methods serving your purposes presently?
c. Do you think evaluations are needed at all for such highly innovative interventions with
benefits often taking more than 5 years to accrue?
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 208
d. We have identified Developmental Evaluation (DE) as a suitable approach to evaluate
innovation and adaptation. DE informs and supports innovative and adaptive development in
complex dynamic environments through processes of asking evaluative questions, applying
evaluation logic, and gathering and reporting evaluative data to support development with
timely feedback. The purpose is not to evaluate the initiatives and portfolio prospectively or
retrospectively but rather in real-time.
i. Do you believe this evaluation approach could continue to evaluate initiatives
which move onto UNICEF Scale?
ii. Are there any resource constraints to applying such an approach?
e. Can you describe UNICEF Office of Innovations application of the following:
i. Real-time data for adaptive management?
ii. Iterative design thinking?
iii. Rapid prototyping?
Objective 2: Portfolio
7. Perhaps the distinction between UNICEF Ventures and UNICEF Scale can also be defined through
assessments of uncertainty and risk? The below diagram illustrates such an approach plotting
initiatives to be funded by UNICEF Innovation Fund in the zone of highest technical/utility and
market/organisational uncertainty.
a. Is UIF the planned vehicle for venturing the more uncertain innovation initiatives with the
UOI? Is it the intention that the majority of initiatives in UIF will be of this nature?
b. Can you help us understand the differences between UNICEF Ventures Initiatives and
UNICEF Scale initiatives in terms of uncertainty?
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 209
Figure 1: UNICEF Innovation Diagram
8. Do you have any advice for developing an evaluation method which is suited to the UNICEF
Innovation Funds Venture Capital approach where 'the innovator' is external to the organisation
and the majority of initiatives are expected to fail?
Objective 3: Secondary Effects
9. The UNICEF Office of Innovation notes the often hidden value in the secondary benefits or innovation
such as:
(ix) Organisational learning (often through failure)Making the organisation ready for change
(x) Inspiring staff and attracting new types of talent
(xi) Creating a sustainable network of long term relationships even after completion
(xii) External mimicry
(xiii) Creating new business models
(xiv) Building capabilities
(xv) Driving organisation goodwill (i.e. new funders/allies)
a. Can you elaborate on any of the above giving examples of how value was captured and
demonstrated? Are you currently able to track second and third level effects? If so, how?
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 210
Closing
10. Is this anything further that you wish to add that we have not asked that you feel is relevant to our
study or any other points that you wish to share?
11. We may request a possible follow up interview or correspondence depending on the findings from
other participants. Would you be open to facilitating another engagement?
Thank you for your time. It is much appreciated.
----------End----------
Alliance Manchester Business School Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
Page: 211
Venturing, Value Creation & the UNICEF Innovation Fund
The Authors:
For further information regarding this report please do not hesitate to contact:
Brian Meagher
Email: [email protected]
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brian-meagher-872a4783
Twitter: @meagherbrian
Ajay Melwani
Email: [email protected]
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ajay-melwani-48b5b09/
Declan McKeogh
Email: [email protected]
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/declan-mckeogh-93635787/
Haitham Afifi
Email: [email protected]
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/haitham-afifi-14a5bb24/
John Santiago-Miller
Email: [email protected]
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-santiago-miller-0267033/
Innovation