Scaling Humanitarian Innovation: Navigating Complexities

Author:	Cassie Seo
Date:	8. November 2024

The graveyard of unrealised humanitarian projects – those that never make it past the pilot phase – continues to grow. Scaling innovation in the humanitarian sector is an enduring challenge, with countless promising ideas failing to break through initial phases. This was a key focus of a recent workshop hosted by the Centre for Humanitarian Action (CHA), where experts across fields came together to discuss what it takes to successfully scale humanitarian innovation. Building on an existing literature on humanitarian and non-humanitarian innovation, the CHA team presented their findings and working theories on success factors, inviting a diverse group of humanitarian innovation practitioners, funders, and academics to validate and expand on their experience and conclusions.

Is scaling the final phase of initial innovation?

As edifying humanitarians that we are, we began the workshop by immediately questioning and debating the definition of scaling from the working theses that CHA provided. A few participants questioned whether the term ‘final,’ used in CHA’s initial definition of innovation scaling (which was actually drawn from ELRHA), was appropriate; They noted that, although the term might make sense in theory, it rarely reflects the reality of innovation cycles, including those in the humanitarian field, where the process is often ongoing and adaptive. This led to a broader discussion on whether true finality is ever achieved in the innovation process. Many participants shared the perspective that while scaling can appear to be the culmination of an innovation cycle, the process is inherently iterative. Scaling is typically preceded by various feasibility studies, tests, and pilots, and, although it signals a transition to broader implementation and justifies further investment, it is not an endpoint.

The discussion over the term “final” morphed to a discussion whether there is ever true finality in any (and humanitarian) innovation process. Many participants expressed the view that, while scaling may seem like the culmination of an innovation cycle, the process remains inherently iterative. Scaling is often preceded by a series of experiments, feasibility studies and tests and pilots, and while it marks the transition to broader implementation, and justification for more investment, it is not an endpoint.

One participant referred to these Minimum Viable Products(MVP) as “orphans of (humanitarian) innovation”. The term MVP was initially popularised by an entrepreneur and author, Eric Ries, where he defined the term in his book Lean Startup as “the smallest thing you can make or do to test your hypothesis” where there’s no explicit need for the smallest thing to be an actual working product. In fact, Ries emphasises that the purpose of an MVP is to gather the maximum amount of validated learning about users with minimal effort – essentially, creating the simplest version of a product that enables meaningful learning.

We’re all familiar with these innovations – products, services, or initiatives that, despite significant initial development, remain incomplete or unadopted due to a lack of sustained effort. Some are discontinued for valid reasons, such as failing to prove efficacy standards. Others fall short because of factors like imbalanced risk tolerance (sometimes too cautious or overly aggressive), funding gaps, shifting priorities of the funders. Additionally, specific challenges, such as environmental disruptions and conflict, were highlighted as humanitarian-specific factors that often impact the sustainability of these innovations.

We often think of piloting as a way to guarantee and test whether the innovation is viable. It’s frequently seen as a stage where an experiment would undergo testing for market feasibility, impact, and financial viability. This phase is experimental by nature, allowing for adjustments and learning as uncertainties are explored, and insights are gathered to determine the potential for broader application or scaling. And once the solution has been tested and survived the rigorous evaluation, it promises some indication of the success in the real world. We think of the ‘transition to scale’ as a way to manage risks and reduce uncertainty – often cost-effectiveness comes into consideration. One of the participants pointed out that the problems that we are solving at the scaling stage are vastly different from the ones that we thought were solving at earlier phases of innovation, like when we were prototyping or piloting. Scaling is about expanding the reach and effectiveness of a solution, and it involves just as if not more levels of uncertainty and complexities as the innovation is adapted to new populations, new geographies and new situations.

The frameworks for scaling humanitarian innovation may not have fully evolved to address the complexities inherent in both humanitarian response and the innovation process. Traditional funding models, often structured around fixed humanitarian program cycles, frequently fall short of supporting the sustained, substantial investments needed for scaling. This issue is intensified by the nature of humanitarian situations, which are rarely linear; they often lack a clear beginning or end and remain protracted and complex – sometimes spanning decades.

Given these conditions, successful scaling of humanitarian innovations requires significant time and sustained commitment from both implementers and the funders. Examples like cash assistance and microfinancing illustrate how certain initiatives took decades to move from niche approaches to central components of humanitarian response. Innovation scaling often stretches across decades with inherent ambiguity and no assurance of success. The fundamental challenge lies in balancing the long-term ambition to innovate with the short-term, project-based nature of typical humanitarian funding structures.

Many funders are beginning to recognise this challenge and are thus exploring alternative funding approaches that offer more flexibility and agile innovation management while ensuring accountability.

In conclusion, scaling humanitarian innovation requires more than ‘good experiments’; it demands commitment to both long-term support and a rethinking of how we approach this stage of innovation. Often viewed as the final step, scaling is actually a dynamic phase, building on pilots and findings from experiments with continuous adaptation along the way. Only then can we truly transform promising innovations into sustainable, impactful solutions for those who need them most.

Who gets to innovate – localisation and humanitarian innovation

Among the key factors for successfully scaling humanitarian innovation, participants identified  localization as a critical component. In this context, localisation was defined as ensuring that each stage of the scaling process maintains local relevance and sustainability. This approach includes prioritising local partnerships, actively integrating local input and feedback, and investing in capacity strengthening to foster local ownership, drive uptake, and achieve long-term impact. Reflecting broader discussions, we explored how to meaningfully incorporate local engagement and ownership within the innovation process. Although the Grand Bargain’s goal of directing at least 25% of humanitarian funding to local organisations has fallen short in practice (and we voted it as an example of unsuccessful humanitarian innovation scaling), participants unanimously acknowledged the importance of localisation as a foundational step toward successful innovation scaling.

The discussion shifted to how existing power dynamics in humanitarian work are mirrored in the humanitarian innovation space. One critical issue raised was the imbalance in who gets to innovate. Humanitarian solutions are frequently developed and driven by external actors, so-called experts – often those from high-income countries or HQ offices – rather than by the communities they are intended to serve. This dynamic perpetuates a “coloniality” of aid, where interventions are designed externally, sometimes without fully understanding the local context. Many participants shared an internal dilemma: as predominantly headquarters-based actors with privilege, are we truly the right people to lead innovation in a sector that deeply needs local insights and agency?

In addition, innovation in the humanitarian space is frequently treated as an extracurricular activity – something that gets deprioritised when emergencies arise. As one participant noted, innovation is often viewed as an “extra task” that takes a backseat to immediate crisis response, making it difficult for humanitarian teams, especially local organisations, to focus on long-term, creative projects. Consequently, innovation becomes a luxury that only those with ample resources and flexible funding can afford to pursue.

Local organisations and youth-led initiatives face even more barriers in accessing this “luxury.” Unlike larger international organisations, they often lack core funding, multi-functional teams, staff, and the necessary resources to explore innovative ideas. Despite being on the frontlines and closest to the communities, they are frequently sidelined in favor of larger organisations with more visibility and capacity to scale their innovations.

Another important discussion point was the localisation of the humanitarian innovation supply chain, particularly in technological innovation. Participants noted that only a few key suppliers are routinely chosen by humanitarian agencies for digital solutions. These suppliers are often favored due to established relationships, their track record of delivering “tried and true” solutions, or simply because of their prominence among industry peers.

This imbalance reinforces disparities between well-established global providers and local tech actors when it comes to procurement of innovation solutions. Even when local innovators develop effective solutions, they encounter significant obstacles in securing the support needed to scale within the broader humanitarian system, particularly when it comes to navigating procurement processes. Additionally, these local successes often struggle to gain global visibility, limiting their potential reach and impact. Without established channels for broader communication and awareness, locally developed solutions may remain under-recognised, further reinforcing the dominance of larger, global providers. Despite many innovation funding schemes encouraging partnerships with the private sector to foster collaboration between humanitarian and commercial actors, these initiatives often lack localisation requirements when it comes to procurement. This omission makes it even harder for local innovators to compete with larger, established organisations, further entrenching existing power imbalances.

The competitive nature of the sector exacerbates this issue, as organisations often focus more on promoting their own branded innovations rather than adopting existing, proven solutions from their peers. This “branding over mission” mentality hampers collaboration and slows down progress in addressing shared challenges.

On the bright note, some funders are making strides to address this issue by incorporating localisation requirements into their innovation models. For example, Grand Challenges Canada has incorporated localisation into its Mental Health Innovation Grant, requiring that recipient organisations and projects be predominantly locally and youth-led, with at least 50% of the team composed of young people from that country. This approach shifts power dynamics by ensuring that those closest to the problem are leading the innovation process.

Conclusion

Reflecting on the initial definition of innovation scaling, one thing that we all agreed was that scaling must be considered from the outset of an innovation. This means embracing a greater level of uncertainty and complexity – not only during the initial stages of incubation but also as the innovation matures and is ready to demonstrate its successes. Scaling requires acknowledging that complexity remains, even after a solution has proven its viability in smaller contexts. True scaling involves amplifying these solutions to address the full scope of the social problems they aim to solve, and this often demands long-term commitment, adaptability, and sustained effort beyond the initial “survival” phase of innovation.

Cassie Jiun Seo is a public-interest technology specialist with expertise in responsible innovation and technology practices in complex environments. She currently serves as a Digital Health and Innovations Consultant at the World Health Organization. Previously, she led the Digital Transformation Unit at the Norwegian Refugee Council, where she directed a team to develop digital tools and infrastructures for large-scale humanitarian interventions.