Market systems approaches in East Africa

Market systems approaches
in East Africa
Workshop report
April 2015
1
Table of contents
Executive Summary
2
Introduction
4
Theme 1: Market Assessment and Awareness
4
Theme 2: Designing and implementing effective interventions
6
Theme 3: Collaborating with businesses to develop inclusive business models
7
Theme 4: Creating a programme that learns
8
Theme 5: Benefiting marginalised groups
10
Theme 6: Scaling up new pro-poor business models
11
Facilitation Tactics Training
12
Taking things forward
13
Executive Summary
A workshop on market system approaches in East Africa was held in Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania on 23-25 February 2015. The workshop, organised by the BEAM Exchange, the
Gatsby Foundation and the Aga Khan Foundation, brought together 37 participants from 17
programmes in seven countries to explore challenges, lessons learnt and emerging solutions
related to their practical work applying market system approaches. This report highlights the
main findings from the workshop in order to share with a broader audience current practice,
areas of success and remaining challenges in market system development. The workshop
covered six themes:

Market assessment and awareness: Participants stressed the importance of market
analysis as a precursor to intervention design, but also the need for ongoing market
intelligence as dynamic markets continue to change. Despite noting the value of the full
programme team carrying out market analysis, surprisingly few participants had
experience in analysis. Further knowledge sharing and guidance on the theme were called
for.

Effective interventions: Unlike market assessments, there was extensive experience
among participants in designing interventions. Three programmes shared their
approaches, followed by lively discussion on how to both initiate design (using market
assessment, developing the offer etc.) and manage interventions flexibly, adapting them
based on programme monitoring information. Challenges remain on planning for scale
from the start and designing interventions in thin markets.

Working with businesses: Participants had considerable experience engaging and working
with businesses. Characteristics to look for in partner selection based on these
experiences were discussed. Participants stressed the importance of understanding
business incentives and talking to these rather than poverty reduction, and being trusted to
2
respect business confidentiality. Participants disagreed on the best form of partnership
agreements. Further knowledge on approaches to cost-sharing would be valuable.

Programmes that learn: A healthy debate included inputs from M&E specialists and wider
programme staff alike, with most agreeing on the need for a well-embedded, crossprogramme M&E effort. Many participants stressed the importance of pro-active, ‘live’
M&E systems, grounded in robust results chains and backed up by formal systems and
procedures. Participants also called for a culture of honesty, and freedom to openly report
and address failures where necessary. A sub-group of M&E specialists called for the
establishment of a regional knowledge-sharing platform to address more technical issues.

Working with marginalised groups: Though two programmes presented practical
approaches to reaching marginalised groups, for a number of practitioners, the
discussions were fairly new and they felt their programmes had less experiences to offer.
The importance of involving women in all steps of the intervention was stressed, in
particular through facilitators promoting activities and strategies that make sense to the
majority of actors. Having a thorough understanding of the local context and profiles of
different marginalised groups was also seen as vital.

Scaling up and replication: Whilst a number of projects presented practical examples of
how successful business models could be promoted to other market players in order to
stimulate scaling up and replication, many more struggled with definitions and conceptual
issues in this area. Many projects had little or no experience with this stage of the project
cycle, and it emerged as a key area for further knowledge sharing.
Participants stated they would share the lessons learnt at the workshop with their teams and
to improve their programme implementation. New working relationships were developed
between practitioners in different countries and programmes. Participants saw these as
valuable information sources for future challenges. There was high demand for further
regional learning events, both for a similar event covering multiple challenges and others
focused on specific issues or industries. Participants also asked that tools and tips for carrying
out market systems approaches be shared on the BEAM Exchange website. The event
organisers will explore ways to take forward these suggestions, focus future knowledge events
on outstanding questions and support an emerging community of practice in East Africa over
the coming months
3
Introduction
A workshop on market system approaches in East Africa was held in Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania on 23-25 February 2015. The workshop, organised by the BEAM Exchange, the
Gatsby Foundation and the Aga Khan Foundation, brought together 37 participants delivering
programmes (i.e. not those managing programmes) from 17 programmes in seven countries
to explore the challenges, solutions and lessons learnt, related to their practical work. The
workshop focused on six themes based on challenges identified by the participants in a preworkshop questionnaire. These were:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Market assessment and awareness: How do programmes learn about the market they are
operating within and incorporate this into their work?
Effective interventions: How do programmes design and implement interventions to
maximise long-term impact?
Working with businesses: How do programmes ensure they understand business
incentives, negotiate effectively and design interventions that align business and
programmes interests?
Creating a programme that learns: What do effective results measurement systems look
like in practise and how can programmes develop a learning culture?
Working with marginalised groups: How relevant are market system approaches to
marginalised groups, such as women and the poorest?
Scaling and replication: How can successful interventions be scaled up and replicated in
other contexts?
Presentations by individual programmes on their approach, tips and challenges relating to the
theme, were followed by group discussions. The second day ended with a presentation by
George Mulamula, CEO of the Dar Teknohama Business Incubator, on technology’s role in
development where participants had the chance to discuss entrepreneurship, incubators,
competition and scale up.
On the third day of the workshop, Larissa Gross and Christine Livet of the Pollen Group,
provided training on Facilitation Tactics.
The programmes represented were: Business Innovation Facility (Malawi), Coastal Rural
Support Programme (Tanzania), Cotton Sector Development Programme (Tanzania), ELAN
DRC (Democratic Republic of the Congo), Financial Sector Deepening Kenya, Forestry
Development Trust (Tanzania), Grain Post Harvest Loss Prevention (Tanzania), Kenya Market
Assistance Programme (KMAP), Livelihood Enhancement through Agricultural Development
(Tanzania), Malawi Oil Seed Sector Transformation, Musika (Zambia), Private Enterprise
Programme (Ethiopia), Rural Livelihood Development Programme (Tanzania), SAPPHIRE II
(Tanzania), Skills Development for the Agriculture Sector (Tanzania), Tetra Tech (Uganda)
and Wood Foundation Programme (Tanzania).
The workshop was facilitated and this report written up by Ashley Aarons and Lucho Osorio
(BEAM Exchange), Tom Hilton (Gatsby Foundation) and Margaret Masbayi (Rural Livelihood
Development Programme).
Theme 1: Market Assessment and awareness
The Business Innovation Facility (BIF) Malawi presented its market assessment process.
This involves an initial, brief market assessment to prioritise which markets to work in using
criteria of relevance to the poor, market potential and feasibility. Deeper market analysis is
then carried out on focus sectors over an eight months period to collect primary data and
4
conduct workshops with industry leaders. A causality tree analysis is used to continue
questioning ‘why’ each market malfunction exists until the programme is satisfied that it had
discovered the root problem of the malfunction.
The Grains Post Harvest Losses Prevention Project (Tanzania) outlined findings from its
market assessment. This included inadequate awareness on grains losses and the availability
of technologies, and a lack of access to finance for the purchase of post-harvest technologies.
The project highlighted how failures in core markets can be due to failures in supporting
markets, with, for instance, the core business of supply and demand for improved storage
facilities affected by limited supplies of raw materials. Notably both programmes used the M4P
donut to visualise the different aspects of the market that a market assessment should review:
core market demand and supply, supporting functions, and rules and regulations. Key
messages from the subsequent group discussions included:

The importance of market assessment: Market assessment is a vital first step to learn
about the key constraints in markets and the key stakeholders. Although market
assessment is a regular element of programming, participants felt that its importance
should not be undervalued. One programme present did not carry out a market analysis
before implementation, which led to multiple problems in intervention design, while
participants also stressed that programme log frames should not be filled out until after
the market analysis rather than vice versa.
Participants also considered the role of donors, and the tensions between pressure for
quick delivery of results and the need for rigorous market analysis to inform intervention
design. Market analysis should be viewed as a tool to engage donors and to explain the
programme strategy – and show that just as the market changes; the programme’s
strategy may need to adjust too.

Challenges in finding root causes: One of the main challenges raised, however, was
how programmes can know when they have done enough analysis. Participants felt that it
was not always clear when the root cause of market failure had been found. Participants
said they would welcome more guidance on how to determine underlying market failure,
while the Pollen Group training also took participants through a root cause analysis.

Move towards continuous market intelligence: Though programmes can keep on
learning about the market, at some point they must make decisions and/or the marginal
utility of further analysis will be low. Moreover, during the implementation phase, over
reliance on the initial analysis can blind the implementers to new risks and possibilities,
and potential market changes. This posed the question of whether too much time and
money is invested in initial market analysis.
It was viewed that market analysis should not be seen as a one-off activity, but as a
continuous programme activity. BIF Malawi highlighted how continuous market
intelligence was part of its Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) processes. This
includes annually consulting key players to review changes in the market against market
level indicators; measuring interventions against intervention results chains; and tracking
the sales of firms against benchmarks. Beyond these formal processes, the programme
regularly speaks to market players and donors to keep updated on the latest market
changes.

Team involvement: Some of the participants expressed the need for programme staff to
be involved in market analysis rather than outsourcing the analysis. It was suggested that
5
programmes should invest in their staff so they have the ability to carry out market
analysis. However, only a third of the group had experience of market assessment or
analysis, suggesting that their frontline staff are less involved in analysis than initially
thought.
Theme 2: Designing and implementing effective interventions
How can programmes design and implement interventions to maximise long-term impact?
Based on presentations by three programmes and group conversations, it is clear that
practitioners had significant experience in intervention design.
Kenya Market Assistance Programme (KMAP) introduced its work with the inputs sector in
Kenya, in particular how they framed its offer to private sector partners and how cost shares
have changed over time. Private Enterprise Programme Ethiopia (PEPE) presented two
interventions: work in financial educational marketing and in tomato processing. For each, the
programme outlined the market malfunction being addressed, intervention design, intervention
monitoring processes and plans for scale up. SAPHIRE 2 (Tanzania) outlined its approach to
improve the storage and post-harvest treatment of maize and rice in the southern highlands of
Tanzania. The subsequent discussions highlighted the need to:

Understand the market: Participants agreed that market analysis was the key foundation
to intervention design. Theme 1 addressed more of the technical aspects of market
analysis, but it was noted that on a broader level that programmes should be open
minded to learn what is working and isn’t working in the local context. An example was
given that programmes shouldn’t have preconceived ideas that middlemen are exploiting
the poor and need to be removed from the market. Instead, programmes should respect
the role of all market actors. It was stressed that further analysis was needed to
understand different market actor incentives and their strengths and weaknesses. It was
also highlighted that programmes need to understand the political economy they are
operating within.

Developing the offer: KMAP discussed how they develop their offer for market actors:
The proposed change in a business model needs to make business sense to partners,
include a value adding offer from the programme (e.g. knowledge, skills, buying down of
first mover risk), and be clear on what the programme expects in return (e.g. agreement
on profiling the company to create a model for others). Programmes need to be clear on
their role as facilitators, with many businesses expecting programmes to provide grants
not facilitate. One programme gave the example of having to change its name as another
programme element was focused on grant support, distorting expectations of the
programme.

Flexible interventions: Participants were clear on the value of flexible interventions that
can adjust to new information and market changes. Several participants noted that it is
likely that some interventions won’t work and it is important to be open to this possibility.
In part as a response to this, participants stressed the importance of starting interventions
small (from the programme side, not necessarily the business) to reduce risk to the
programme; and after trials and improving the business model, then programmes can
scale up. For some tried and tested interventions, though, this may be unnecessary. MEL,
discussed specifically in Theme 4, was seen as vital. As with market awareness, staff are
increasingly recognising monitoring as part of their jobs and not to be left to a specialist
MEL team.
6

Challenge of indirect approaches: For programme staff, working with market system
approaches is a very different way of working to more direct approaches. Organisations
need to ensure they are prepared to work as facilitators. For experts with many years’
experience in certain sectors, there is a temptation to provide direct support rather than
facilitate. One presentation highlighted how they had learnt from experience to stop
project staff communicating buyer prices to farmers which was distorting the markets.
Now they ensure that buyers tell farmers themselves in person, text messages or through
an agent.

Upfront potential for scale: Participants highlighted the importance of designing
interventions with the potential for scale in mind and clearly thought through expected
routs for crowding in. PEPE highlighted, for instance, how following successful work with
a bank to use educational tools and training to increase financial knowledge among poor
women, the programme plans to publish a case study on the change which was shared
with finance institutions, and initiate a national dialogue on embedding education within
financial services. Theme 6 discusses scale up in more depth.

Working in thin markets: There were different views on what programmes can do in
very thin markets with few or no actors and a lack of wider market infrastructure. Can
programmes create new market actors or temporarily become market actors? Some
suggested that programmes should stay away from intervening in these markets. Others
highlighted the value of taking a longer term vision and being willing to build up actors and
institutions over time (but still being aware of exit strategies). Future knowledge sharing
on programme responses to thin markets would be of value.
Theme 3: Collaborating with businesses to develop inclusive business models
Theme 3 focused on how programmes ensure they understand business incentives, negotiate
effectively and design interventions that align business and programmes interests. Similar to
the previous theme, programmes displayed extensive experience.
The Cotton Sector Development Programme (Tanzania) presented its work outlining
interventions linking local village based agro-dealers to input suppliers, working with tillage
service providers and ginners, and knowledge transfer to lead farmers. Musika (Zambia)
followed with an overview of how the programme works with businesses, including an
innovative approach that helps smallholder lease tractors by temporarily acting as a guarantor.
The ensuing discussion focused on:

Partner selection: Musika highlighted the importance of working with partners who are:
willing to invest in the smallholder market; industry leaders with the ability to influence
industry based changes; able to take ownership; willing to invest into market innovations;
and agreeable to formalising relationships. However the group discussion stressed that it
can be hard to find ‘perfect partners’ and it involves a long process and significant
investigation.
Participants disagreed on how important firm capacity is. Some suggested low capacity is
not an issue as programme assistance should build this up. Others suggested sufficient
capacity was necessary so that partners can responsibly manage assistance and take
advantage of opportunities. A compromise view was general seen as needed so that
7
realistic expectations can be made of low capacity enterprises. Assistance should be
tailored to their capacity, while at the same time build up capacity.

Negotiation with the private sector: Programmes should be mindful that their objectives
are different to those of businesses and that collaborations with firms have to make
business sense. Programmes should be very clear of what the business case is, whether
through cost-minimization, sales maximization, etc. Programmes should use business
language when working with firms. This involves not just talking about the business case
rather than poverty reduction, but agreements, such as a Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU), should refrain from claiming the project will ‘give’ or ‘support’ the business, while
the business should be posited as taking the lead rather than relying on the donor. The
importance of market intelligence was stressed. By basing the case for more inclusive
business models on empirical market intelligence, programmes can be more persuasive
and show themselves to be knowledgeable (value-adding) partners. The importance of
ensuring firms take the lead, instead of pushing them, in new innovations was highlighted.

Partnership agreements: Having a written agreement with time-bound responsibilities
for both programmes and businesses is important, with elements such as clauses on
periodic review and conflict resolution suggested as valuable. However there was
disagreement about the optimal format of agreements, in particular between using
informal MoUs and more formal contracts. The former was preferred by some, due to its
flexibility and firms can be less amenable to signing contractual agreements. However
some found contracts more valuable as enforcement mechanisms. In general,
participants thought that formal contracts were more appropriate for larger organisations,
whilst MOUs are more appropriate for smaller partners. The group discussed which
agreements businesses should have with farmers. One example shared was farmers
refusing to sign contracts with businesses, fearing that their property would be confiscated
if they didn’t keep up with their obligations. Further analysis on the optimal format was
seen as valuable. Nevertheless, the importance of building up trust with and between
market actors irrespective of agreement format was generally agreed.

Managing relations with firms: The importance of engaging, interacting with, and
listening to, partners was stressed by the participants. One key message was the
importance of ensuring business confidentiality. Facilitators have proprietary information
on partners. The facilitator should promote trust and confidence that this information is
safe and will not be used to compromise the partners’ position within the market.
Theme 4: Creating a programme that learns
Theme 4 asked what do effective results measurement systems looks like and how can
programmes develop a learning culture? The Financial Sector Deepening (FSD) Zambia
presented its approach to MEL, providing a comprehensive outline of what seemed to be a
very strong system. This was followed by a presentation by Rural Livelihoods Development
Programme (Tanzania) (RLDP), who also outlined its approach, whilst raising a number of
additional issues and challenging the group with a range of stimulating questions.
A number of technical issues were raised, for example on defining and measuring systemic
change, or estimating attribution. These issues would be better addressed in a separate forum
for MEL specialists and it was agreed at the workshop that future efforts would be made
through the BEAM Exchange to develop knowledge sharing opportunities for MEL
practitioners and a number of participants signed up to participate in such a group. Despite
this, there were lively debates on the subject, including from non-MEL staff. This was an
8
encouraging sign of the value already being placed upon MEL efforts by the teams. Key
messages emerging from the debate included:

Importance of rigorous market analysis and programme strategy: An MEL system
can only be as strong as the programme’s overall understanding of the market system
that it operates in. MEL staff cannot be expected to look out for all changes taking place in
the market – a pre-defined expectation of exactly what a programme hopes to change,
and the mechanisms through which this change is expected to come about, will help MEL
staff to focus their attention on key areas. This is a key area where whole-team efforts on
MEL are required; MEL staff may not be technical experts in all areas that a programme
works in, and often one or two MEL staff may be responsible for a MEL system covering
very large and diverse programmes. MEL staff need to draw upon the technical expertise
of programme staff in order to better understand where and how change is likely to occur.

Use of results chains: Detailed results chains are an important tool to capture the
expected change discussed above. The FSD Zambia presentation emphasised the
importance of explicit recognition of wider systemic change in the results chains in order
to achieve this, and to better enable all staff to capture information on replication and
scaling. FSD Zambia also presented the option of using a traffic light system within results
chains, with logical steps being colour coded according to their implementation status.
Attribution: A clear attribution strategy needs to be defined from the outset to understand
causality and the role and contribution of the project within the market system. The results
chain traffic light system described above could be useful to better understand causality
and the true causes of any results observed. Participants also stressed that more
discussion and agreement between implementers and donors about what can be (and
should be) attributed and what can’t is necessary. A forthcoming BEAM webinar on
assessing attribution was highlighted.

Formalised processes and incentives for team buy-in: Whole-team buy-in to MEL can
be enforced through formal structures, such as regular MEL meetings to share updates
on progress against indicators. Programme staff can be incentivised based on the MEL
framework, which can assess the extent to which they have delivered their projected
results. This requires familiarity and ownership of the MEL framework.

Obtaining data from partners: Obtaining sensitive data from private sector partners can
be difficult. Teams should first seek to understand what data a partner is likely to routinely
collect as part of their own operations, and consider whether or not this information would
be useful or even suffice for monitoring purposes (if it can be obtained). It was broadly
suggested that businesses should only be asked to collect and report on data useful to
them, and the programme should be responsible for collecting other necessary data. In
order to obtain data, informational requirements should be specified as part of the MOU or
contract with the partner in advance, rather than ad-hoc informational requests later in the
relationship.
The point was also made as partner objectives may differ to the project; they are more
likely to collect different types of information based on their own needs. Any requests for
data should therefore be backed up with clear explanations of the project’s goals and
explanations on the purpose of the MEL system which may include concepts unfamiliar to
certain partners.
9

Reporting failure: Participants emphasised the case for a culture of honesty in an
organisation, and being able to recognise when something isn’t working, to learn from this
and act on it accordingly. The word ‘failure’ was used, but some participants said this was
too strong a term and that it suggests a problem can’t be resolved; whereas prior
acknowledgement that something might not be working can allow for corrective action. It
was claimed that MEL staff often face difficulties reporting ‘bad news’, for example if
interventions do not produce the expected results and there are often pressures to cast
the project in a positive light to management and donors. However, it was again
acknowledged that if the whole team buy into the MEL system and frequent monitoring
information is used to guide strategy, instances of ‘failed’ interventions – on any
significant scale – should be minimised.

Testing assumptions: Interventions always rest upon a set of assumptions. Participants
raised the importance of monitoring not only the progress made against the steps in the
results chain, but also the status of the assumptions that underpin strategy, as these are
liable to change over time too.

DCED Standard: The RLDP presentation highlighted how the DCED Standard had been
useful for shaping programme interventions, and also strengthening their credibility with
donors and more widely. Not all participants were familiar with the DCED Standard, so
further discussion on this area was reserved for a MEL-specific forum.
Theme 5: Benefiting marginalised groups
This session focused on the relevance of market system approaches to marginalised groups,
such as women and the very poorest. The Skills Development for Agricultural Sector
programme (Tanzania) introduced its approaches aimed at benefiting women smallholder
farmers and unemployed young people. Financial Sector Deepening (FSD) Kenya
introduced two of its interventions with marginalised groups in northern Kenya: the Hunger
Safety Net Programme and work with savings groups.
Aside from the presenting programmes, many of the participants had less experience working
with marginalized groups, perhaps suggesting further knowledge exchange would be valuable
here. Despite this, key points from the discussion included:

Involving women: The Skills Development for Agricultural Sector programme stressed
that involving women in all project phases was a key success factor. This has allowed the
team to access critical information on women’s needs, expectations and possibilities from
the beginning, which in turn allowed the team to design and implement activities that
resonated with women. Participants agreed with this and noted that successful facilitators
involved activities and strategies that make sense to the majority of actors (particularly the
most marginalised ones).
In the FSD Kenya interventions explored, the targets are households and communities.
There is no proactive targeting of women but savings groups tend to be dominated by
women. The examples prompted a conversation about the importance of projects
adapting to the realities and the nature of existing formal and informal groups, and
understanding how to engage them both in ways that contribute to more inclusion and
reduce power imbalance between men and women. FSD Kenya, for instance, mentioned
that they rely on churches and local administrations to raise awareness about social
norms and cultural barriers that hamper inclusion and women’s empowerment.
10

Understanding the role of men: There was agreement about the need to understand
that gender equality is not only a women’s issue. The group resonated around the idea
that it is important to understand the relationships, rules and structures that govern
dynamics between men and women, and see men as an ally in efforts to promote
inclusion and women’s empowerment. Participants mentioned the importance of finding
the right opportunity and environment to engage with, and empower, women (e.g. when
men leave the house to work or to socialise).

Importance of local actors: Local trainers, leaders and market actors (close to the most
marginalised actors) play a critical role in the scale up of initiatives to build capacity of
marginalised actors and increase their access to inputs and services. FSD Kenya
highlighted how they tried to engage local actors on the basis of their interests (social,
political, economic, etc). Franchisees and local agents were used to reach out to
marginalised actors. However, in Northern Kenya franchisees have not performed as well
as faith-based organisations and village resource-persons.

Expectations of handouts: To address the problems created by a ‘handout mentality’,
one programme recommended paying attention to the staff that interact with the market
actors; in some cases, staff members have been involved in projects that have used
handouts in the past and the stakeholders associate them with this practice. The project
ensured it used different staff when this problem appeared and clearly communicated and
managed expectations among market actors.

Defining inclusion: More generally, the term ‘inclusion’ was used in some cases to mean
‘access’ (to inputs or services) and in others it was linked with the idea of ‘agency’ (i.e.
capacity of marginalised actors to act on their reality). Participants said that exclusion was
not only a result of market dynamics that were driven by ‘outsiders’, but also of familyand community-related dynamics that are intrinsic to the marginalised groups. The
different interpretations on the meaning of inclusion have implications for programme
design, implementation and impact assessment. A related question is how access to
inputs and services enable or catalyse increased agency.
Theme 6: Scaling up new pro-poor business models
The final thematic session was on issues of scaling up and replication. This theme naturally
came at the end of the workshop in-line with the typical steps in a market systems project
cycle.
For many attendees this session proved the most challenging, not least because many
programmes are still relatively young, and as such they do not have practical experience in
scaling up pilots, or witnessing copying or crowding in. Broadly, participants struggled with
definitional issues, such as the difference between ‘replication’ and ‘crowding in’. A number of
projects understood the scaling up of a pilot to mean expansion of a particular intervention by
the project itself, rather than a certain behavioural change being taken to scale by other
market actors.
The session featured three presentations, from the Forestry Development Trust (Tanzania),
TetraTech Uganda, and Malawi Oil Seed Sector Transformation. A number of issues from
this session included:

Understanding success: Before attempting to scale up, it is important to understand
whether a pilot has actually been ‘successful’. Defining and understanding success, and
verifying this through MEL efforts, is vital before investing in scaling up.
11

Understanding context: Understanding ‘success’ requires an understanding of the
context it occurs in, if it is to be effectively scaled or replicated. Participants emphasised
the need to avoid ‘one size fits all’ thinking.

Active vs. passive scale-up: Some participants questioned whether or not a success
would need to be promoted by the project, or whether scale-up and replication would be
inevitable (and even a sign of a successful intervention). However, the consensus was
that a project can have an active role in promoting scale-up.

Promoting and demonstrating success: TetraTech Uganda provided useful examples
of how they proactively spread knowledge using its ‘Network and Noise Team’, which
utilises a range of formal and informal communications: networking with business,
consumers, media broadcasts, use of ‘role models’ and ‘champions’, exchange visits etc.
Other programmes commended this approach and/or discussed using a similar approach
to demonstrating and promoting successful innovations.

Commercial sensitivity and competition: A number of participants raised the issue that
information required to promote successful models (e.g. communication of business
models in order to prove their profitability to other sector actors) may be commercially
sensitive. Successful private sector innovators may have a legitimate profit incentive to
protect this knowledge.

Organic/gradual scale-up: Following the discussion on success, a number of
participants stressed the importance of gradual or ‘organic’ scale-up. Success on a small
scale does not guarantee effective scalability, so projects should be wary of investing to
artificially scale an intervention or push it into the private sector ahead of time.

Scaling up in thin markets: Participants raised concern on the possibility of scaling up in
thin markets where appropriate market actors are few or don’t exist.

Crowding in: There was little discussion of notions of ‘crowding in’ / the ‘respond’
element of the AAER framework (adopt-adapt-expand-respond), whereby other market
actors (not necessarily in competition with the core market actors) respond – in a pro-poor
manner – to the core innovations. Confusion over exactly what ‘crowding in’ refers to was
common, and there were few practical examples raised to shed practical light on this step
in the theoretical model. While definitional issues were further discussed and clarified
during the training sessions, this area could be one for more attention at future events
similar to this.
Facilitation Tactics Training
On the third day, the Pollen Group provided training to the participants. The training
presentation is available on the BEAM Exchange website. The main topics covered included:

Discussion and definition of sustainability as it applies to market system development and
effective market characteristics. This also included reviewing the ‘Who Does? Who Pays?’
framework.

Using a root cause analysis method to address market malfunction causes not symptoms
and locate leverage points
12

Partner selection and engagement. Reviewing the characteristics of early adopters and
using the ‘Will and Capacity Matrix’ to analyse partner needs and how to work with them.

Understanding the McKinsey Behavior Change Model and the roles of reinforcing
mechanisms, role models, understanding and conviction, and capacity building.

Influencing market actors through building business cases, buying down risk, pushing the
demonstration effect and accelerating crowding in. Ranking activities from light to heavy
touch.

Strategies on transitioning or ending support to a partner. How to ‘roll’ exit strategies
through continuously testing partners’ commitment to the change by putting conditions on
accessing project support.
Taking things forward
Participants were keen to take forward lessons learnt and connections made during the
workshop. Most said they would share lessons learnt with their programme co-workers who
did not attend. Participants were clear that the workshop would help them improve programme
implementation, whether through solving specific problems, in programme design or
implementation more generally. All themes explored were valued, but the most useful lessons
appeared to be in how to carry out market assessments and ensure continued market
intelligence; new tools and practices in partner selection; and improved practice in facilitation,
such as knowing when to move from light to heavy touch approaches. Participants
emphasised that they would stay in touch, and they all stated that they had met and
developed relations with peers who they could contact for professional advice in the future.
New forms of collaboration between practitioners within and across countries emerged,
including the establishment of a new informal regional M&E practitioner network.
Participants also recommended the next steps for the organisers. First is the
development of an online community and/ or email list for participants to stay connected.
There was clear interest in repeating the face to face workshop, potentially in other countries,
and also organising learning events focused on specific issues, challenges or industries (e.g.
work in the financial sector).
Emerging topics for further discussion include:





Monitoring and results measurement, in particular measuring systemic change
How to carry out initial market assessments and stay tuned to ongoing market changes
Working with difficult actors: identifying them, changing their minds, or if not, rejecting
them and how to work without them
How are programmes working with government agencies and the role of advocacy
Working alongside other programmes that are offering heavy subsidies.
13
Many tips, tools and templates were shared during the event and participants called for these
to be shared via the BEAM website. One resource has already been shared, the BIF
guidelines for country programme market selection, diagnosis and intervention planning, and it
is hoped many more will be shared. Several participants had taken part in internships or
exposure visits to other programmes before, had found them valuable learning experiences
and there was enthusiasm for more. The event organisers will explore ways to take
forward these suggestions, focus future knowledge events on outstanding questions
and support an emerging community of practice in East Africa over the coming
months. One example highlighted was a forthcoming BEAM webinar on assessing attribution.
For further information on the workshop, please contact Ashley Aarons at
Ashley.aarons@beamexchange.org.
The BEAM Exchange is a programme funded by the UK’s Department for International Development (“DFID”) and the Swiss Agency for
Development and Cooperation. It is administered by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, working with organisations including the Institute of
Development Studies and ITAD.
This publication has been prepared for general guidance on matters of interest only, and does not constitute professional advice. You should not act
upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice. No representation or warranty (express or implied)
is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this publication, and, to the extent permitted by law,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the other entities managing the BEAM Exchange (as listed above) do not accept or assume any liability,
responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this
publication or for any decision based on it.
14