Prizes for Innovation Impact Analysis in the ICT for Education Sector

Payal AroraUNESCO

Background PaperThe Learning Generation

This paper was prepared for the International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity as a

background paper for the report, The Learning Generation: Investing in education for a changing world. The views and

opinions in this background paper are those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by the Education Commission or

its members. For more information about the Commission’s report, please visit: report.educationcommission.org.

1

UNESCOREPORT2016

PrizesforInnovation

ImpactanalysisintheICTforeducationsector

PayalArora

ExecutiveSummary

Theuseofprizestostimulateinnovationineducationhasdramaticallyincreasedinrecentyears, but, to date, no organization has attempted to critically examine the impact theseprizeshavehadoneducation.Thisreportattemptstofillthisgapbyconductingalandscapereviewofeducationprizeswitha focusontechnology innovation indevelopingcountries.Thisreportcriticallyanalysesthediversityofeducationprizestogaugetheextenttowhichthese new funding mechanisms lead to innovative solutions in this sector. This issupplemented with interviews with sponsors and prize participants to gain the much-neededpractitioner’sperspective.Weaddress importantquestions thatpervadeasprizesarebeing implemented inthissector:Whatseemstobeworkingandwhy?Howdoprizescompare to other funding mechanisms to stimulate technology innovations? How issustainabilityachieved?Whatcanbelearnedthatcaninformthedesignoffutureprizes?

We structure our recommendations along the Doblin framework, which entails analyzingthedesignofprizesalongthecriteriaofResources(sponsorships&partnerships),Structure(types of prizes, eligibility criteria, scope, types of ICT projects, phases, & intellectualproperty rights), Motivators (monetary & non-monetary Incentives, Communications(marketing),and,Evaluation(measuring impactand long-termsustainability).Throughthisprocess, a number of important assumptions are re-examined, namely, that technologyinnovationiscentraltoeducationalreform,prizesstimulateinnovation,scalabilityisaproxyfor sustainability, and prizes are the most efficient funding mechanism to stimulateinnovation.Werecalibrateexpectationsoftechnologyinnovationprizesintheeducationalfieldagainstempiricalevidence.Werevealkeytrendsthroughthedeployingofprizesinthisfieldandoffercasestudiesasgoodpracticesforsponsorstoconsiderwhendesigningfutureprizes.Thereportmakesrecommendationsalongeachofthegivencriteriatoenhancetheimpact of prizes, drawing from interdisciplinary sources. The intent of this report is toenable sponsors to distinguish the hype surrounding these prizes and proceed to designprizesthatcanbestservetheeducationsector.

2

ContentsExecutiveSummary................................................................................................................................1

Introduction...........................................................................................................................................4

PARTI.....................................................................................................................................................5

OverviewofPrizes..................................................................................................................................5

TheRenaissanceofPrizes..................................................................................................................6

Resources...........................................................................................................................................7

Sponsorships..................................................................................................................................7

Partnerships...................................................................................................................................8

Structure............................................................................................................................................9

TypesofPrizes................................................................................................................................9

EligibilityCriteria............................................................................................................................9

Scope............................................................................................................................................12

TypesofProjects..........................................................................................................................14

Phases..........................................................................................................................................18

IncorporatingR&DinthePrizeProcess.......................................................................................19

IncorporatingField-TestingintothePrizeProcess.......................................................................20

IntellectualPropertyRights..........................................................................................................21

Motivators........................................................................................................................................23

MonetaryIncentives....................................................................................................................23

Non-monetaryIncentives.............................................................................................................24

Networking...................................................................................................................................24

Mentoring....................................................................................................................................25

Communications..............................................................................................................................25

MarketingofthePrize..................................................................................................................26

PartnershipsforPublicity.............................................................................................................26

Evaluation.........................................................................................................................................26

MeasuringImpact........................................................................................................................26

Long-termSustainability..............................................................................................................29

PARTII..................................................................................................................................................30

Whatseemstobeworking?.................................................................................................................30

Howdoprizescomparetootherfundingmechanisms?......................................................................31

Whataretheassumptionshere?.........................................................................................................33

3

Whataresomekeyrecommendationsinthedesignofprizes?..........................................................36

Resources.........................................................................................................................................36

Sponsorshipsandpartnerships....................................................................................................36

Structure..........................................................................................................................................36

Typeofprizesandeligibilitycriteria.............................................................................................36

Scope&Typeofprojects..............................................................................................................37

Phases,R&DprocessandField-testing........................................................................................38

IntellectualPropertyRights..........................................................................................................38

Motivators........................................................................................................................................39

Monetaryvs.Non-monetaryIncentives.......................................................................................39

Communications..............................................................................................................................39

Marketing.....................................................................................................................................39

Evaluation.........................................................................................................................................39

Long-termSustainability..............................................................................................................40

Concludingthoughts............................................................................................................................40

Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................................41

References............................................................................................................................................41

Appendix..............................................................................................................................................44

4

IntroductionThereisnoshortageofenthusiasmforprizestofosterinnovation.Ifwegobythemedia,“incentiveprizesdospurinnovation”(TheEconomist,2010).PeterDiamandis,thefounderoftheXPRIZEFoundationisconvincedthat,“focusedandtalentedteamsinpursuitofaprizeandacclaimcanchangetheworld.”Thiskindofthinkinghasbeeninfectious,aswitnessedintheexponentialriseintheusageofprizesasawaytostimulateinnovationacrossallsectors,includingeducation,thefocusofthereport.Prizes,giventheirinherentlycompetitive,market-orientedandresult-drivennatureareseenasanaturalchoiceforfundinginnovationandscalingsolutionsacrossglobalcontexts.Thiscomesatatimewheretechnologyinnovationhastakencentrestageinpolicyforsustainablepractice(Blok&Lemmens,2015).TheUnitedNationsGeneralAssemblyadoptedthe2030AgendaforSustainableDevelopment,namely,the‘SustainableDevelopmentGoals’(SDGs),wheretheyemphasize,Thespreadofinformationandcommunicationstechnologyandglobalinterconnectednesshasgreatpotentialtoacceleratehumanprogress,tobridgethedigitaldivideandtodevelopknowledgesocieties,asdoesscientificandtechnologicalinnovationacrossareasasdiverseasmedicineandenergy.(Recital15,2015)Whenitcomestofinancingandimplementingthedevelopmentagenda,globalpolicieshaveendorsedthe‘multi-stakeholderapproach,’whichmeansthatthepublicaswellastheprivatesectorandcivilsocietyshouldbeinvolvedforlong-termimpact.Inrecentyears,thispropositionhasbeenrecastas‘ResponsibleInnovation,’intheHorizon2020frameworkprogramforresearchandinnovationintheEuropeanUnion.Inresponsetothe‘grandchallenges’ofcontemporarysociety,responsibleinnovationservesasa,“transparent,interactiveprocessbywhichsocietalactorsandinnovatorsbecomemutuallyresponsivetoeachotherwithaviewtothe(ethical)acceptability,sustainabilityandsocietaldesirabilityoftheinnovationprocessanditsmarketableproducts(inordertoallowaproperembeddingofscientificandtechnologicaladvancesinoursociety)”(VonSchomberg,2013,p.19).Giventhissocio-politicalclimate,itisnotsurprisingthatthereisanaccelerationintheuseofprizestofacilitatetechnologyinnovationwithintheeducationsector.Themarketizationofeducationhasgainedseriousstrides,asitisviewedasthemostefficientpathtocreatingsystemicreform.However,theseambitionsandexpectationsarepoorlymatchedwithresearchthatcanvalidatesuchclaims.Forallthisenthusiasmtowardsprizes,therearenostudiestodatethatassessestherangeoftechnologyinnovationprizesofferedandthenatureoftheirimpactinthefieldofeducation.Hence,thisreportembarksonafirstofakindcriticalreviewofprizesintheICTsinEducationsector,withaspecialfocusondevelopingcountries.Afterall,thereishighexpectationthattechnologyinnovationinmarginalizedcontextscanhavefarmoresweepingreformsgiventheirpotentialtoleapfrogchronicbarrierstoaccessandqualityeducation.Itiswellworthkeepinginmindthatthismajorpushfortechnologyinnovationintheeducationsectorisreallyaboutadecadeold(Lepore,2014).Whilethereismuchresearchoninnovationanddisruption,muchofthisstemsfromthebusinesssector,withclearly

5

differentvalues,objectivesanddegreesofaccountabilityascomparedtothepubliceducationsystem.So,howdowedefinetheroleoftechnologyinnovationintheeducationalcontext?Tomeasuretheimpactofprizesoninnovation,weneedbenchmarks.TheOrganizationforEconomicCooperationandDevelopment(OECD,2014)definesinnovationineducationbyframingitasnewproductsandpractices“withinclassroomsandeducationalorganisations,howteachersdevelopandusetheirpedagogicalresources,andtowhatextentchangecanbelinkedtoimprovementsthatprovideasubstantialincreaseintheinternationaleducationknowledgebase.”

Toproceedwiththisinvestigation,thereportanalyzesthedesignofprizesusingtheDoblinframework,whichentailsthefollowingcriteria:1.)Resources(sponsorships&partnerships),2.)Structure(typesofprizes,eligibilitycriteria,scope,typesofICTprojects,phases,&intellectualpropertyrights)3.)Motivators(monetary&non-monetaryIncentives,4.)Communications(marketing),and,5.)Evaluation(measuringimpactandlong-termsustainability).

Throughthissynthesisandcritique,weexamineanumberofimportantassumptions,namely:technologyinnovationiscentraltoeducationalreform;prizesstimulateinnovation;scalabilityisaproxyforsustainability;andprizesarethemostefficientfundingmechanism.Inweighingtheseassumptionsagainstempiricalevidence,thisreportrecalibratestheexpectationsaroundtheimpactofprizesoneducation.Weproposeconcreterecommendationsalongeachofthegivencriteriatoenhancetheimpactofprizes,buildingonresearchfrominterdisciplinarysources.Thisreportenablessponsorstodistinguishthehypesurroundingtheseprizesagainstconsolidatedevidencefromthefield.

‘Impact’hereisnotautonomous,absoluteordecontextualized.Impactisdefinedinrelationtofulfillingkeypolicybenchmarks,promotingbestpracticesusingICTsforeducation,andovercomingcontemporarychallengeshighlightedbyexpertsinthefieldofeducationandtechnologyinnovation.Hence,studiesfromwide-rangingdisciplinesandareasconcerningintellectualpropertyrights,technologyinnovation,internationalpolicy,andeducationreformcontributetotheshapingofrecommendationsinthisreport.Furthermore,interviewswithsponsorsandparticipantssubstantivelyenhanceourarguments,givingthemuch-neededpractitioner’sperspectivetothistimelyandunder-examinedtopic.Weaddressimportantquestionsthatpervadeasprizesarebeingimplemented:Whatseemstobeworkingandwhy?Howdoprizescomparetootherfundingmechanismstostimulatetechnologyinnovations?Howissustainabilityachieved?Whatcanbelearnedthatcaninformthedesignoffutureprizes?Thebottomlinehereistoaddresswhatsponsors,policymakersandotherstakeholdersneedtoknowastheydesignandimplementprizestofosterinnovationusingICTsforeducationalequity.

PARTI

OverviewofPrizesThissectionprovidesabriefhistoricaloverviewoftheuseofprizesforinnovationfollowedbyacriticalsynthesisofthecurrentuseofprizesingeneralandwithineducationinparticular.WeanalyzethecontemporaryICTsineducationprizelandscapeusinga

6

frameworkbyDoblin,theinnovationpracticeofDeloitteConsulting(2014).Thecoreelementsofthe‘architectureofprizes’areresources,evaluation,motivators,structure,andcommunications.Throughthisreview,werevealkeytrendsthroughthedeployingofprizesinthisfield.Weofferanumberofcasestudiesasgoodpracticesforsponsorstoconsiderwhendesigningfutureprizes.Lastly,weenhanceouranalysiswithinsightsfromsponsorsandapplicantsfortheseprizes.Thiscritiqueofprizesre-examinesassumptionsandprovidesthefoundationforourrecommendations.

TheRenaissanceofPrizesTheuseofprizesforinnovationhasbeenundergoingarenaissanceinrecentyears(Adler,2011;McKinsey&Company,2009;Rourke,2010).Thereisaneedtotalkaboutarenewedratherthannewinterestinprizesbecausetheirusedatesbackhundredsofyears.Throughouttheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturiesaswellastheformerhalfofthe20thcentury,thepublicandprivatesectorcommonlyusedprizestospurinnovation(Kay,2011;Tong&Lakhani,2012).OneexampleistheRoyalAgriculturalSocietyofEngland(RASE),whichforadecade(1839-1939)awardedinnovationprizesattheirannualshow(Brunt,Lerner,&Nicholas,2012).Successfulandfrequentlycitedcasestudiesofhistoricalprize-basedinnovationsincludetheLongitudePrize(1714),NapoleonBonaparte’s(1800)foodpreservationprize,andtheOrteigPrize(1927)forthefirstnon-stopflightbetweenNewYorkandParis(McKinsey&Company;Nesta&theCentreforChallengePrizes,2014;Rourke,2010).Theseprizescommonlyserveasempiricaljustificationoftheiruseforinnovation.

Despitethepopularityofinnovationprizes,thepublicsectorincreasinglymovedtootherinnovationpolicessuchasexantegrantsandprocurementsinthelatterhalfofthe20thcentury(Nesta&theCentreforChallengePrizes,2014).Prizesdidnotdisappear,buttheirusebecameincreasinglylinkedtotheprivatesector.Inrecentyears,therehavebeensignsofrenewedinterestininnovationprizesfromthepublicsector.Forexample,in2009,theObamaAdministrationissuedagovernment-widestrategy“TheAmericaCOMPETESReauthorizationActof2010”thatauthorizedandencouragedtheuseofprizes(Nesta&theCentreforChallengePrizes,2014;Tong&Lakhani,2012).Similarly,since2014,theEuropeanCommissionhaslaunchedchallengeprizesundertheEU’sresearchandinnovationfundingprogramme(IP/14/849)aspartoftheHorizon2020framework.In2015,theylaunchedsixHorizonprizesworth$6millionintotalandtenmoreprizeswillbelaunchedin2016focusingonenergy,environment,health,socialinnovation,andtechnology(EuropeanCommission,2016).

Today,thescopeofprizesintermsofnumber,size,andvarietyislargerthanever,makingithard,ifnotimpossibletoprovideacomprehensiveviewontheexactnumberofprizesandtheirtotalvalue(McKinsey&Company,2009).Prizesaredeployedindifferentsectorssuchasarchitecture,arts,aviationandouterspace,business,climate,design,education,economics,energy,engineering,environment,governanceandsocialinnovation,health,humanitarianism,literature,mathematics,medicine,media,peace,science,andtechnology.Between2000and2009,theuseofprizesexpandedseven-foldwithinscience,engineering,

7

aviation,space,andenvironmentwhereastheartsandhumanitariansectorswitnessedadeclinefromone-thirdtotenpercent(McKinsey&Company,2009).

Oneplausiblereasonfortheproliferationofprizesinhardsciencesectorsisduetothehigh-risknatureoftheirresearchanddevelopment(R&D)(Kay,2011).Consequently,prizesareoftenassociatedwithscientificandtechnologicalinnovations.OnefrequentlycitedexampleistheGoogleLunarXPRIZE,thelargestinternationalincentiveprizeofalltime(US$30million),awardedtothefirstteamstosafelylandarobotonthemoon.

Inrecentyears,therehasbeenagrowinginterestamongpolicymakersandphilanthropistsinusingprizestoaddressthe‘grandchallenges’inhealth,environment,security,andeducation,thefocusofourreport.Thepromiseofnewtechnologiesasagamechangerineducationhasacceleratedthismomentum.Overthepastdecade,avarietyofpublicandprivateorganizationshasinitiateddiverseprizestostimulateinnovation,usingICTsineducation.Yet,therearenostudiestodatethatprovideacriticalreviewoftheseprizes.Hence,thisreportembarksonanalyzingtheseprizesemployingthe“architectureofprizes”frameworkprovidedbyDoblin(Table1).

Table1:FrameworkofAnalysis

1. Resources• Sponsorships• Partnerships

2. Structure• TypesofPrizes• EligibilityCriteria• Scope• TypesofICTProjects• Phases• IntellectualPropertyRights

3. Motivators• MonetaryIncentives• Non-monetaryIncentives

4. Communications• Marketing

5. Evaluation• MeasuringImpact• Long-termSustainability

ResourcesSponsorshipsAccordingtoMcKinsey&Company(2009),“corporationsandnewphilanthropistshaveprovidedmorethantwo-thirdsoftotalprizecapitalsince2000andarepursuingarenascloselylinkedtotheircommercialinterestsorindividualphilanthropicpassions”(p.18).Inotherwords,mostprizesareprivatelyfunded.Intheeducationsector,mostprizesareoverseenbyfoundations/non-profitorganizationswithgovernmental,corporateorprivate

8

sponsors–oramixofthethree.Forexample,thefoundationAllChildrenReadingGrandChallengeforDevelopment(ACRGCD)isjointlysponsoredbytheUSAID(USAgencyforInternationalDevelopment),thenon-profitorganizationWorldVision,andtheAustraliangovernment.Thedominanceofsuchblendedfundingisdrivenbyawin-winlogic:donorssubsidizesocialenterprises,withexpectationofhigherefficiencyingeneratingsocialbenefitswhileatthesametimereducingtheriskfortheinvestorsinthisfield(Bugg,Kogut&Kulatilaka,2012).However,thereisgrowingcriticismofthedisproportionateinfluenceprivateactorshaveonpublicpolicyastheylobbytheiragendasandpassionsthroughsuchfundingmechanisms(Reckhow&Snyder,2014).Sinceprivateactorssuchasphilanthropistsarenotsubjecttothesamelevelofscrutinyaspublicsponsors,thereisconcernthatshort-termandpoliticalinterestswillsupersedesustainablesocialgood.Hence,policy-makersneedtoscrutinizeatregularintervalsthecorrelationbetweenprizecapitalandlong-termeducationalagendas(outlinedforexampleinSDGs,nationaleducationalpoliciesetc.),toidentifygapsinfundingonmarginalizedprojectsandgroupsthatdonotfitthecommercialagenda.

PartnershipsPrizesponsorsareincreasinglyformingnon-fundingpartnershipsthatleveragethepartners’resourcesincludingtheirknowledge,expertise,andnetworks.ACRGCDformsnon-fundingpartnershipswitharangeofprizecompetitions.ForexampleinthecaseoftheEduApp4Syriaprize,whichisfundedbytheNorwegianMinistryofForeignAffairs,theACRGCDfoundationprovidestechnicalexpertise,inputonprizedesign,communicationcoordination,outreachactivities,andmanagesmediarelations.LivMarteNordhaug,SeniorAdvisorattheNorwegianAgencyforDevelopmentCooperation(NORAD)acknowledgesthegrowingimportanceoftechnologycompaniesaspartnersinprizessuchasEduApp4Syria;“ThecommercialcompaniesaremoreusedtothinkingaboutdemandsotheirexpertiseistotallyneededtoseewhattheendusergetsoutoftheseICTeducationproducts”(2016).However,attractingthemisfarfromsimple.Usingthecorporatesocialresponsibility(CSR)hookonlyworksifthesecompaniescanlinktheseprojectstotheircorebusiness.

PrizesponsorsarealsoincreasinglypartneringwithcrowdsourcingplatformssuchasInnoCentivetoleveragetheirestablishedglobalnetworksofmillionsofcontributors.Everett(2011)foundthattheopeninnovationapproachbyInnoCentivecouldleadtoa48%incostsavings.Thisstudycomparedtheaveragecostofproblem-solvingfordevelopingworldtechnologiespostedundertheRockefellerInnoCentiveinitiative(inwhich10challengeswerepostedviaanopeninnovationnetworkand6solvedin18months),withtheaveragecostofgrantcontractsunderDFIDRenewableNaturalResourcesResearchProgramme(withatypicalgrantbeing£70,000perannumforthreeyears).Whilethesecrowdsourcinginitiativeshavedemonstratedfinancialgainovertraditionalformsoffunding,thesestudiesdonotaddressissuessuchasdigitallaborexploitation.Ifsponsorswanttocreatelegitimatepartnershipswiththesenewintermediaries,theyneedtoexaminelaborpracticescloselybeforecommittingtothesecost-savingmechanisms.Furthermore,wefoundanoverarchingdearthofpartnershipswithbeneficiarycountriesandtheirgovernmentsintheprizesweanalyzed.Thatisproblematicassuchpartnershipscanbeextremelyvaluabletoensuresustainabilityoftheinitiativesdevelopedduringtheprize.

9

StructureTypesofPrizesPrizesareclassifiedintotwooverarchingcategories:incentiveandrecognitionprizes(Zients,2010).Putsimply,incentivepricesaredesignedtospurinnovationsthatdonotyetexist,arenotavailableinthemarket,orthatmakemajorimprovementstoexistingtechnologies,whereasrecognitionprizeshonorpastachievements.Historically,mostprizeshavebeenrecognitionprizessuchastheNobelPrize(McKinsey&Company,2009).Forexample,before1991,97percentofthevalueofthe219largeprizeswererecognitionprizes.However,after1991,78percentofthenewprizesinthisdatabasewereincentiveprizes.Thisnotableshifttowardsincentiveprizesinrecentyearsisgenerallyacknowledgedintheliterature,andasimilartrendisobservedintheeducationsector.

Outofthetwenty-nineeducationprizesthatweanalyzed,seventeen(59%)areincentiveprizesandtwelvearerecognitionprizes(41%).Thiscouldbeareflectionofhowthewholeaidindustryhaschanged,gearedtowardsresult-basedfinancing.Theobsessionwith“impact”haschangedtheprizelandscape,remarksLivMarteNordhaugfromNORAD(2016).Thisisalsoastrategicdecisiontoopenupinnovationinthissectortonewactorsandnewideasupfront,especiallygiventhatthetechnologymarketisbeyondthecorecompetenciesofmanyfundingagencies.RebeccaChandler-Leege,theAllChildrenReadingProjectDirectoratWorldVisionsuggeststhat,“it’saneasierwaytosourcewhatyouwanttosource.Youcanalwayscontractitoutbutyouarenotsurewhatyouwillreceiveintheend.Andso,bydoinganincentiveprize,yougettheproductupfront,youcanevaluatetheproductandalsoit’sagoodmodeltoattractnewproblemsolversandagoodwaytogetthemessageouttothepublic”(2016).

McKinsey&Company(2009)arguesthatthereareatleastsixprizearchetypes,namelyexemplarprizes,pointsolutionprizes,expositionprizes,networkingprizes,participationprizes,andmarketstimulationprizes.Exemplarprizesresemblerecognitionprizesinthesensethattheyhonorexcellencebasedonachievement.Similarly,pointsolutionprizesresembleincentiveprizesalbeitwithanarrowerfocusonsolvingaparticular,well-definedproblem.Whilemostifnotallprizescanbeclassifiedasrecognitionorincentiveprizes,theotherprizetypescanbeusedtorecognizecertainprizefeatures.Forexample,theWiseAwards,whilebeingarecognitionprizeinnature,aimstobuildacollaborativecommunityoflaureatesthroughtheWiseAwardsNetwork,whichisadistinguishingfeatureofnetworkingprizes.AnotherexampleistheHultPrize.Whilebeinganincentiveprizeinnature,itmayalsobedescribedasanexpositionprizebecauseitpromotesnotonlythewinnerbutalsotheotherfivefinaliststhroughtheClintonGlobalInitiativeinordertofacilitatefurtherinterestin,anddevelopmentof,thefinalistinitiativesbythirdparties,whichisadistinguishingfeatureofexpositionprizes.

EligibilityCriteriaPrizesintheeducationsectortendtoincludetypicaleligibilitycriteriasuchasclearobjectivesforsocialimpact,sustainability,scalability,relevancetobeneficiaries,cost-effectivenessandinnovativeness.Despitesimilareligibilitycriteria,thedifferencebetweenrecognitionandincentiveprizesisthattheformerarebasedondemonstrabletrackrecords.

10

Forexample,toqualifyfortheSocialEntrepreneuroftheYear–IndiaAward,theapplicants’projectsneedtohavebeenoperationalforatleastthreeyearsandscaledtodifferentsettings.Furthermore,theapplicantsarerequiredtoprovefinancialsustainability,measurableimpact,andhavemonitoringandevaluationplans(preferablyinvolvingthird-partyevaluators)inplace.Incontrast,prospectivecandidatesinincentiveprizesmustmerelydemonstrateapotentialtomeetthiscriteria.Thus,recognitionprizesareconfinedtoexistingpractitionerswhereasincentiveprizescanalsoattractaspiringpractitioners.Thepotentialofincentiveprizestoattractnewplayersthatwouldnotberecipientsoftraditionalfundingmechanismsisgenerallyconsideredagreatadvantageofincentiveprizesforinnovationastheycomefromvariousbackgroundsandbringnewperspectives.Clearly,thereisacurrentbiasinfundingaspiringentrepreneursoverexperiencedpractitionersinthefieldthroughincentiveprizes.

Trend#1:PrizesEngageAspiringSocialEntrepreneurs

Onenotabletrendinprizecompetitionsofferingincentiveprizesisthattheyaimtocreatethenextgenerationofsocialentrepreneurs.Forexample,oneofthestatedgoalsoftheD-Prize is to“encourageyoungentrepreneursto focustheir talentonthedevelopingworld,pilotnewsolutions todistributionproblems, and launchnewsocial ventures1.” Therearealso student-focused prizes including the Hult Prize and ACRGCD’s Mobiles for Readingprize.Furthermore,theTechAwardshaveaspecial“YoungInnovatorAward”withlessstrictcriteriaforprovenimpact.

Prizestendtobeopentoapplicationsfromindividualsanddifferenttypesoforganizations(i.e.NGOs,corporates,socialenterprises,governmentdepartments)withtheexceptionoffewprizesthatexcludegovernments(e.g.theKingHamadBinIsaAlKhalifaPrize),oronlyallowgovernmentsaspartneringorganizations(e.g.theACRGCDGrantCompetition).TheIndia-basedMobileforGoodAwardhasseparatecategoriesforNGOs/NPOs,for-profitorganizations,andgovernments,withthewinnersinthefor-profitandgovernmentcategoriesreceivingarecognitioncertificateinsteadofamonetaryprize.Similarly,theIndia-basedNASSCOMSocialInnovationForumAwardshaveseparate“ICTledSocialInnovation’prizesfordifferentcategories:‘NotforProfit’organizations,socialenterprises,corporates(responsiblebusinesses)andstudentsaswellascatalystgrantsforearlystageenterprises.

Whilediversityinapplicantsisappealing,itcontinuestobeachallengeforsponsorstoattractthe“righttype”ofapplicantsbestsuitedtofulfiltheirpolicyagendas.Forinstance,MichaelHollaender,theDirectorofDeutscheGesellschaftfuerInternationaleZusammenarbeit(GIZ)statesthat,“themoreconcreteyourexpectationsare,thepotentialmarketgetssmallerandsmallerandyoumightendupwiththetypicalsuspectsattheend”(2016).Ontheotherhand,AnthonyBloome,SeniorEducationTechnologySpecialistatUSAIDarguesthat,“ifwedidittoobroad,thenwewouldattracttoodiverseagroup”(2016),manyofwhomwouldnothavetheabilitytoservethelargergoalsoftheagencyforwhichtheprizeisdesignedfor.Clearly,thereneedstobesomebarriersofentry.LivMarte

1 www.d-prize.org

11

NordhaugfromNORADstatesthatitisimportanttohavetechnicalexpertstoscreenapplicantsontheimplementationcomponentas,“wehavetoseeiftheyareabletotransfertheirideassomehowfrompapertoagame”(2016).Hence,forEduApp4Syria,aprototypeisrequiredaspartoftheapplicationcriteria.Theyhaveaprofessorwhoispartofthejurywhohasthetheoreticalknowledgeandhasdemonstratedpracticalexperiencebydesigningasuccessfulgameinthepast.Inshort,diversityofapplicantsasacriterionneedtocomewithclearlydefinedbarriersofentry,tailoredtotheendgoalsoftheprizeandtheorganization.

ParticipationintheXPRIZEteamsummitinParisduringthe2016MobileLearningWeekwasinsightfulastotheactualcompositionofparticipantsthatcompeteinincentiveprizes.XPRIZE,likeseveralprizesinthissector,aredesignedtoattractapplicantsfromunexpectedplaces.MattKeller,SeniorDirectoroftheGlobalLearningXPRIZEsignalshowopenthisprocessisasanyonecanbeanapplicantfortheXPRIZEaslongas“youhaveagreatideaandthecouragetocarryitthrough”(2016).Theteamsarediverseinnature,rangingfromindividualsworkingfromtheirgarageintheirsparetimetolargeestablishedcompaniesorNGOswithexistingeducationalsoftwarethatisbeingtweakedforthecompetitionandeverythinginbetween–friendscomingtogethertoparticipate,codersandapporsoftwaredevelopersusingtheirexistingskillsforthegreatergood,anduniversitystudentsparticipatingaspartoftheirclassproject.Overall,thereseemtobemorenewthanexistingplayers,i.e.organizationsthatestablishedthemselvesforthecompetition.Thebackgroundsoftheteammembersarealsodiverse,comingfromvariousprofessionsinordertobringdifferentknowledgeandskillstothetable.Manyteamsalsorelyonvolunteersforspecificrolessuchastranslatingandstorywritingandsomeindividualteamsaremergingtoformlargerteams.

Whilethisclearlyfulfilsthecriteriaofdiversityinapplications,themorecriticalquestioniswhatkindofteamssurvivetothenextstage.KarenKaun,FounderofMakeosityandpastXPRIZEapplicantquitinthefirststage;“Ididn’thaveenoughmoney,astrongteam.AnyonecompetingfortheXPRIZEshouldseethisasamajorcommitment,afulltimejob”(2016).Someapplicantsemphasizedhowdifficultitistogetventurecapitalfundingfortheirideasduetotheopensourcelicenserequirementsorlowcommercialviability.Hence,theyfoundthemselveschannelingmoreoftheirenergiesintowritinggrantsandchasingsponsorsfortheirprototypesinsteadoffocusingontheirproduct.Thisisacommonchallengeforincentivegrantsasoftentheycomewithlittle(ifany)seedmoney,requiringtheinnovatorstoeitherbeindependentlywealthy,orcomewithexistingfunding(sponsors/grants)orbeestablishedentitiesthataremerelytweakingtheirproductstofittheprizeandgainthemuchneededmediaattentionthroughtheirparticipation.

ForICT-basedprizes,functionality(bothtechnicalandusability)requirementsarealsoincludedintheeligibilitycriteria.Inanalyzingthecriteriaandthenatureofprojectsthatstemoutoftheseprizes,certainproblemssurface.Ifthetechnicalrequirementsaretoorudimentaryandpushinnovatorstodesignproductsbasedonexistingtechnologyandnarrowlystructuredfield-testing(moreonthatinthenextsection),wewillgetabasicandpossiblyunimaginativeandredundantproductbythetimeitreachesthemarket.Severalprizesproducedevicespecificationsfortheinnovations,alreadynarrowingthescopeofthe

12

innovationforthissector.Wealsoneedtorecognizethepoliticalangletodevicespecifications.WehavedecadesofdevelopmentevidencethathighlighthowtechnologycompanieshaveusedsuchprojectstogetafirstmoveradvantageincountriesintheglobalSouth,atthepriceofcompetitivemarketsforsocialgood(Arora,2010b;2016).EdMcNierney,DirectorofTechnicalOperationsofXPRIZELearningtakesnumerousquestionsatthe2016Parissummitfromthenewapplicants,includingondevicespecifications.“Iwanttoemphasizethattheseareconservativeminimumrequirements.WeareworkingwithGoogletoprocuretabletsforthiscompetitionandpartofthisreasonwehavenotreleasedwhatmodelwewillbedeployingtheproductonisbecauseithasnotbeenbuiltyet…Weareaimingforarelativelyexpensivedevice.Thedevicewewillbeusingforthefieldtestwillbeexpensivenowbutby2019,itshouldbemuchcheaper.Wedon’twanttolimityouwiththetechnologytodayaswerecognizethatitneedstobeeffectiveforthetechnologyfortomorrow”(2016).Otherfeaturessuchassunlightreadabilityoftablets,GPSandprivatemeshnetworkingisdeemedasunfeasible.Interestingly,whileGoogleisakeypartnerhere,Googlemediaservicesareproprietaryandthereby,notanoptionforinnovatorsasthiswouldinitselfincreasethecostofthetabletandmakeitanon-sustainableproductandproject.Inshort,devicespecificitiesareimportantcriteriaininfluencingthescopeofinnovation.Mobilephones,whileomnipresentindevelopingcountries,aremostusefulforinformaleducationalcontexts,oftencircumventinglocalpartnerships.Ontheotherhand,innovationsontabletsandcomputersaregearedtowardstheformalcontext.Furthermore,theSDGagendarecognizesthattoleverageonICTsforinnovation,itisimportanttoprovide“universalandaffordableaccesstotheInternetinleastdevelopedcountriesby2020”(SDG9.5c)andexpandits“capacity-buildingmechanismforleastdevelopedcountriesby2017”(SDG17.8).CurrentglobalbroadbandpoliciesandtheriseofsmartphonesintheglobalSouthcanenableapplicantstoinnovateforthefuture.Thiswouldpushthemtocreatemoresophisticatedproductsthatleverageontheinternet,GPSandothertechnicalaffordancestoenhancelearningoutcomes.

ScopeEducationprizesarebroadinscope,addressingbothlocalandglobaldevelopmentchallengesindiverseeducationalsettings.Thereareseveraldistinguishingfeaturesintermsofscope.First,manyglobalprizesfocusondevelopingcountriesinaratherbroadsensei.e.withoutspecifyingparticularcountries.Forexample,inrecentyearstheWisePrizeforEducationhasawardedinitiativesthathavebeenimplementedinAfghanistan,Africa(Zimbabwe,Zambia,Ghana,Tanzania,andMalawi),LatinAmerica,andAsia(EastTimor,Vietnam,IndiaandBangladesh).Othereducationprizesarenotsolelyfocusedondevelopingcountriesbutincludethemintheireligibilitycriteria.Forexample,TheLibraryofCongressLiteracyAwardsrewardsprizestobotheducationinitiativeswithintheU.S.andabroad.Whileprojectsthatfocusparticularlyondevelopingcountriesareseldomawardedthisprize,PlanetReadwonin2013fortheSame-Language-SubtitlinginitiativeinIndia.IfsponsorswanttofulfilthegoalsofSDGs,theyneedtobemoretargeted.Forinstance,focusonthe“leastdevelopedcountries,smallislanddevelopingStatesandAfricancountries”(SDG4.7b)andinparticular,vulnerableandmarginalizedgroupsincludingwomenandgirls,

13

personswithdisabilities,indigenouspeoplesandchildreninvulnerablesituations(SDG5.6b)willbesidelinedunlesstheyareexplicitlystructuredintothescopeoftheprizes.

Secondly,manyoftheICTineducationprizestendtoexclusivelyfocusontechnologicalsolutionssuchastheACRGCDgrantandprizecompetitions,D-Prize,JapanPrize,MobileforGoodAwards,NASSCOMSocialInnovationForum,TechAwards,UNESCO-KingHamadBinIsaAlKhalifaPrize,andXPRIZEcompetitions.ThisisproblematicasitmeansthatthemostmarginalizedcountriesareexcludedbecausetheydonothavethenecessaryinfrastructureforICT-basedinitiatives.Thus,inreality,thescopeofICTineducationprizesismorerestrictedthanitseemsatfirstglance.FororganizationslikeUNESCOandUNICEFthathaveanequityapproach,ICT-basedsolutionscanonlybeasubsetoftheeducationalsolutionstheyaresourcingthroughtheirInnovationsinEducationprizes.

Thirdly,someprizesfocusexclusivelyoneducationwhereasothersaddressdevelopmentchallengesmorebroadly,whereeducationiseitheroneofthefocusareasorattheminimumincludedintheeligibilitycriteria.Forexample,theSocialEntrepreneuroftheYear–IndiaAwardfocusesonnumerousareasincludinghealth,education,environment,accesstotechnology,andjobcreation.Forthe2015awards,themajorityofthesubmittedsolutions(55%)focusedoneducation.Someeducationprizesfocusondiversechallengeswhereasothersarenarrowerinfocus.Forexample,theMilken-PennGSEEducationBusinessPlanCompetitionwelcomeinnovationsthataddressissuesofcurriculum,instruction,educatorprofessionaldevelopment,assessmentandevaluation,collaborations,learningdesign,technologicalinnovations,learning/schoolsupporttools,andmore.Incomparison,themanyACRGCDgrantandprizecompetitionsaddressspecificallyliteracyissues,whichisthemostcommonfocusofeducationprizes.ThisisnotsurprisingasseveralglobaleducationalpoliciessuchasEFA(2015)continuetoemphasize,“measurablelearningoutcomes…especiallyinliteracy,numeracyandessentiallifeskills.”Hence,basicliteracycontinuestobeapriorityamongcurrentprizes,inspiteofdecadesofevidenceoninnovationusingICTsineducationthatemphasizenewpedagogicmodelsoflearningandteaching.

Forexample,the2015HorizonReportjointlyconductedbytheNewMediaConsortium(NMC)andtheConsortiumforSchoolNetworking(CoSN)revealskeyfactorsinacceleratingtechnologicalinnovationfortransformingteachingandlearninginschoolsglobally(Johnsonetal.,2015).Thepanelwascomposedof56educationandtechnologyexpertsfrom22countriesonsixcontinents.Theexpertsagreedontwolong-termimpacttrends(p.4)1. Rethinkinghowschoolsworkinordertobolsterstudentengagementanddrivemore

innovation2. Shiftingtodeeperlearningapproaches,suchasproject-andchallenge-basedlearningTheyalsosuggestedmid-termimpacttrends,namelytheincreasinguseofcollaborativelearningapproachesandstudentsasself-organizedlearnersandshort-termimpacttrends,namelytheincreasinguseofblendedlearningandtheriseofSTEAMlearningusingnewtechnology.BringYourOwnDevice(BYOD)andmakerspacesarecurrentlybeinginstitutedacrossschoolsglobally,particularlytheuseofmobilephonestofosterthesenewpedagogicalapproaches.However,theexpertsadmitthat,“scalingtheseteaching

14

innovationsareawickedchallenge—onethatisimpossibletodefineletalonesolve.”(p.2).Itisalsoworthtakingnotethatthe‘global’focusalludestoeconomicallyprosperousnations.Hence,itisclearthatthereisadivideinexpectationsstructuredintotheseprizesonwhatconstitutesasinnovationandsuccessfulimpactbetweentheglobalSouthandtheglobalNorth.Inotherwords,basicliteracycontinuestobethedominantgoalforlearningoutcomesintheglobalSouthwhiledeeperlearningapproachesareencouragedintheglobalNorth.Lastly,majorityoftheprizesfocusonchildrenorchildrenandadultsasthebeneficiaries(seeTable2)withanemphasisonearlyeducation.TheonlyprizesthatdonotfocusonchildrenaretheAdultLiteracyXPRIZEandtheCamelbackVentures–LuminaFoundationChallenge,thelatterfocusingonpostsecondaryeducation.TheACRGCDgrantandprizecompetitionsputaspecialemphasisonearlygradelearners.Similarly,thethemeofthe2015HultPrizewas“EarlyChildhoodEducation”withtheaimofprovidingqualityeducationto10millionchildrenundertheageofsixinurbanslumsby2020.AccordingtoJuan-PabloGiraldo(2016),anEducationSpecialistatUNICEF,thereisanimplicitagreementthatorganizationswithscarceresourcesfocusonearly-childhoodlearningbecausewheneducationalinitiativesarefocusedonsecondaryeducation,theytendtoreproduceinequalities.Inmanymarginalizedcontexts,peoplewhohaveaccesstolower-secondaryeducationareconsideredrelativelyprivileged.Hence,whiletheSDGscommit,“toprovidinginclusiveandequitablequalityeducationatalllevels–earlychildhood,primary,secondary,tertiary,technicalandvocationaltraining”(2015,Recital20),thefactremainsthatmanyoftheprizesfocusonearlyeducationduetoscarceresourcesandtheneedtodeclarethemaximumimpactonthegroundsofequity.

Anotherconsequenceonfocusingprimarilyonchildrenistheneglectofteachersinthedesignofprizes.ThisissurprisingasitiswidelyrecognizedthattheroleofteachersarefundamentalforthesuccessofinnovationsusingICTsintheeducationalsystem(UNESCO,2011).AccordingtotheINEEsurveyontechnologyandeducationinemergencies,teachertrainingrankedasoneofthehighestlistedareasofprogrammaticfocusfortechnology-educationsolutions.Fifty-twopercentofrespondentsidentifiedteachertrainingasoneofthefocusareasoftheirinitiative.Supportingteachersinparticularleadstoexponentialbenefitsacrosstheeducationsectorthroughbetterpedagogicalpractices,improvedcurricula,anddirectimpactonstudents(GIZReport,2016,p.14-15).Hence,weadvisesponsorstotailorthescopeofprizestoprioritizeteachersintheICTinEducationsector.TypesofProjectsThescope,assetoutinthestatedobjectivesandeligibilitycriteriaofaprize,canbedeterminingastothediversityandinnovativenessoftheprojects.Similarly,technicalrequirementscanalsoputrestrictionsonthenatureofinnovationintheprojects.Broaderscopemightencouragegreaterdiversityattheriskoflessrelevancetotheprizesponsor’skeyobjectives.While,anarrowerscopefocusestheeffortstowardsspecificobjectivesalbeitattheriskoflimitingcreativity(Tong&Lakhani,2012).Whilethewinningprojectsareasdiverseastheyaremany,therearesomediscerniblepatternsintermsoftheICT-basedprojects.Intermsofcontent,theytendtofocuson:

15

• Funandengagingmobilelearning(edutainment,play-and-learn)applications,especiallygameswithinteractivefeaturesandreadingmaterial(e.g.GraphoGame2,aliteracygametoimproveteacher-in-servicetrainingandchildren’sbasicreadingskills).

• Audio/visualcontent,forexampletohelpchildrenwithdisabilitiestoread(e.g.Benetech3,Tamana4andVideoBookforDeafChildren5)ortoprovideilliteratepeoplewitheducationalinformation(e.g.theTalkingBookProject6).

• Open-accesseducationalplatformswithfreecontent(e.g.KhanAcademy7andOPENPediatrics8).

• High-qualityandeffectiveeducationmodels(e.g.theeSchool360byImpactNetworkInternational9).

• Interactivevoice-basedandSMSmessagingtoolstoprovideinformationand/orofferQ&Aservicesorcounselling(e.g.Votomobile10topromotehealthbehaviorinlocallanguagesandVidyaHelpline11forcareerservices.)

• Vocationaltrainings,bothhands-on(e.g.Al-Bairaq12)andthroughmobiletechnology(e.g.Skilltrain13).

• AssistivetechnologiessuchasBeeline14,whichusescolorgradientssothatreadingtextattheendofonelineisthesamecolorasthetextatthebeginningofthefollowingsentenceandSimplEyebyKriyate15,whichisacustomdesignedsmartphoneapplicationwithaneasy-to-useinterfaceforthevisuallyimpaired.

CaseStudy1:TheD-Prize

TheD-Prizemakesaninterestingcase.Itisratherbroadinscopebecauseitfocusesonchallengeswithingirls’education,energy,education,governanceandinfrastructure,aswellasglobalhealth.Yet,withineachcategory,therearespecificchallengessuchasthe“FliptheClassroominResource-LimitedSettings”withclearlydefinedrequirements.First,theproposedsolutionsneedtoemployseteducationmodelswithprovenimpactsuchthe“flippedclassroom”modelbyKhanAcademyandthe“de-skilledpapercurriculum.”Secondly,therearesettargetoutputs.Inthepilotphase,thecandidatesneedtolaunchaneworganizationthatreachesatleast250studentsinthreemonths.Moreover,theorganizationshouldreach50,000studentswithintwoyears.Essentially,theinnovationsinthischallengearethedistributionsolutions,whichcanbediverseandcreativeaslongastheysuitthepre-definededucationmodels.Thus,onecansaythattheprizehasabroadscopewithinanarrowlydefinedchallenge.2Winner,ACRGCDGrantCompetitionRound23Winner,ACRGCDGrantCompetitionRound24Winner‘CatalyticGrantsforEarlyStageEnterprises’,2015NASSCOMSocialInnovationForumAwards.5Winner,2015WiseAwards.6Winner,2015WiseAwards.7Winner‘LaureateImpactAward’,2014TechAwards&‘MicrosoftEducationAward’,2009TechAwards.8Winner,2015TechAwards.9Finalist,2015TechAwards.10Winner‘HealthCrisis’category,TechnologytoSupportEducationinCrisis&ConflictSettings.11Winner,2015MobileforGoodAwards.12Winner,2015WiseAwards.13Winner,‘CatalyticGrantsforEarlyStageEnterprises’,2015NASSCOMSocialInnovationForumAwards.14Winner,2015TechAwards.15Winner‘ICT-ledSocialInnovationbyaSocialEnterprise’,2015NASSCOMSocialInnovationForumAwards.

16

AdiscerniblepatternamongtheseICT-basededucationalsolutionsisthatanoverwhelmingmajorityofthemfocusonindependentlearningviamobiles.AcaseinpointaretheproposedsolutionsfortheGlobalLearningXPRIZEwhereanumberofinnovationsbuildonself-directedlearningthroughdigitalgamesandautomatedstorytelling.Self-directedlearningwherechildrenteacheachotherthroughtechnologyisregardedastheoptimisticsolutiontotheenduringproblemofteacherabsenteeismandpoorqualityschooling.Thisideagainedmajormediatractionthroughchild-driveneducationprojectslaunchedbySugataMitra,aTEDprizewinnerin2013.Hewasawardedforhisideaofthe‘SchoolintheCloud,’where“childrencanexploreandlearnfromeachotherusingresourcesandmentoringfromthecloud16”buildingonthepast‘HoleintheWall’initiativewithsimilarintent.Fundamentaltothisapproachisthecircumventionoftheschoolandtheteacher.Sponsorshavebeeninspiredbysuchinitiativesastheyappearasclean,stand-alonesolutions,awayfromthemessinessoftheeducationalsystem.However,comparedtothehypearoundMitra’sprojects,wefindlittleempiricalevidencetobacktheimpactofsuchprojectsonsustainablelearningoutcomes(Arora,2010a).Onthecontrary,itwasfoundthatsuchpracticesoftenperpetuatedgenderandcasteinequalitiesasprivilegedboysservedasmediatorsofsuchtechnologies.Hence,whileself-directedlearningmayseemlikeanappealingalternative,thisisnotasustainablesolution.

ICT-basedsolutionsshouldnotsolelyaimattheend-usersbutalsoteachersincreatinglearningmaterialfortheirstudents.AgoodexampleistheACRGCD’sTrackingandTracingBooksaswellasEnablingWriters,focusedonsoftwarethatensuresthatteachersreceivethelearningmaterialtheyneedtoteachtheirstudentsorthatenableanyonetocreatebookscost-effectively.Ofcourse,incertaincontextssuchastherefugeecrisis,prizessuchasEduApp4Syrianeedtofocusonself-directedlearningsolutionsgiventhelackofaccesstoformaleducationalsystems.

Inreviewingtheliteratureandevidencefromthefieldoftechnologyinnovationforeducation,anumberofrecommendationscometothefore(Beetham&Sharpe,2015;Huang,Kinshuk&Spector,2013):

• Newtechnologysolutionshavetointersectwith‘old’technologiestomaximizeimpact

• PersistenceofgenderdisparitiesinaccessandusageofICTrequireexplicitlytargetedpro-poorgendersensitiveICTinterventionsandstrategies

• Focusingonhigh-speedICTinfrastructuresisjustasimportantastheICTinnovations• SuccessofICT-basedinnovationsshouldkeepinmindtheuser’slevelofliteracy• Voice-basedorimage-basedinterventionscanbemoreeffectivebutcomeatacost

Comparingtheprojectstotheevidencefromthefield,prizesarefailingatstimulatingICT-basedsolutionsthatmixoldandnewtechnologiesaswellasgender-specificsolutions.

16 2013 TED Prize: Build a school in the cloud: https://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_build_a_school_in_the_cloud?language=en

17

Clearly,thereistremendousenthusiasmformobile-basedlearninggiventheomnipresenceofthesetechnologiesinmarginalizedcontexts.However,scholars,whileacknowledgingtheiruniqueaffordancesandpotentialinmaximizingimpact,alsopointtocertainlimitations,compellingustorethinkclaimsonimpactviathesenewtechnologies(Wuet.al.,2012;Traxler&Kukulska,2015):

• Whilem-learningispromisingandhasdemonstratedsomepositiveresults,thereis

noconclusiveevidencethatitdoesimprovelearningoutcomes• Thereisgrowingevidencethatmobile-learningismoreappropriateforout-of-school

contexts• Whilemobilelearninghasvalue,itcannotreplacecomputer-basedlearning• Mobilelearningismostfrequentlyusedbyhighereducationstudents,followedby

elementaryschoolstudentsandadultlearners• Intermsofcontentareas,mobilephoneapplicationsfocusmostonappliedsciences• Teachersupportandteachertraininghavebeentheleastexploredtopicsinmobile

learningresearch• Otherchallengesrelatedtomobiletechnologyintegrationincludelackofsupport,

technicallimitations,insufficientexperience,mobilephonebansinschools,andissuesincurriculumadaptations

Hence,itwouldbeusefulforsponsorstousesuchevidencefromthefieldwhenassessingthemeritsandclaimsoftheprojectsthatcompetefortheirprizes.

Trend#2:LocalizedContent

Anotabletrendacrossprizes,includingtheglobalprizes,istheemphasisonlocalizedratherthan standardized content that is culturally and linguistically relevant to the context inwhichtheinitiativesareimplemented.Therearenumerousexamplesofthistrend:

• One of the focus of the many ACRGCD grant and prize competitions is toprovide mother-tongue instruction and reading materials to early gradelearners.Forexample,theaimofEnablingWritersprizeistoprovidesoftwarethat makes it more cost efficient to translate reading materials to locallanguages.

• TheFunDzaLiteracyTrust17givesyoungSouthAfricansaccesstohighquality,locallywrittenliteratureandnonfictionviatheirmobiledevices.

• CreativeAssociates International18mobilizescommunitymembers inZambiatosubmitlocalstoriesandfolktalesthroughSMS.

• ‘Donkeybook Teaching English’19 uses audiovisual content that focuses onColumbiannature,culture,andmusictohelpColumbianchildrenlearnEnglishinafamiliarandstress-freeway.Similarly,‘MyTeacher’20useslettersthatare“hiding”inthenaturetoteachEnglishtochildreninruralareasofBangladeshwherelearningmaterialsarenotavailable.

17Finalist,2015TechAwards.18Winner,ACRGCDGrantCompetitionRound2.19Winner‘TVProposalDivisionTheBestProposal’,2015JapanPrize:InternationalContestforEducationalMedia.20Winner‘TVProposalDivisionExcellentProposal’,2015JapanPrize:InternationalContestforEducationalMedia.

18

• Eneza21providesengagingandlearner-centerededucationalcontentrelevanttothelocalcontextviabasicmobilephonetechnology.

• ChildFund22 transmits Pashto language stories and messages to families inAfghanistanthroughradioandsolarchargedmobilephones.

LocalizationreflectstheprioritiesofagencieslikeUNESCOandUNICEFthatseektoencouragesocio-culturalandlinguisticdiversityineducationalcontent.However,localizationisnotnecessarilyfriendlytocommercializationandscalability.AccordingtotheCaribouDigitalreport(2016),itischallengingforlocaldeveloperstomonetizetheirproducts.Afterall,muchofthetargetpopulationsarelower-incomewhooftendonothaveaccesstoevenbankcardsorotherformsofdigitalpayment,northeresourcestopayforsuchservices.Hence,localizedcontentcanenhanceengagementandfacilitateadoptionoftheinnovationbutoftencomesatthecostofscalabilityandcommercialviability.

Trend#3:Usingexistingtechnicalinfrastructure

Besidesfocusingonlocalizedcontent,thewinningprojectstendtoprovideinnovationsthatfit with the existing technical infrastructure in the countries at hand. For example, theycommonly employ basic mobile phones; and make use of low-cost mobile services andradio/solar-powereddevices. Someprizes evenmake this a requirement.One example istheTechnology toSupportEducation inCrisis&Conflict SettingsprizebyACRGCD,whichrequires that the innovationsworkwith theexisting telecommunications infrastructure inthebeneficiarycountries.Anotherexample is theEduApp4Syriaprize,whichrequiresthatthe footprint of the proposed applications does not exceed 100MB to ensure that thosewithlimitedmobileInternetaccesscandownloadit.However,theapplicationsshouldalsoincludeoptionalonlinefunctionalitiesthatimprovetheexperienceofthelearningresource,whichtheuserscandownloadondemand.ThelatterrequirementwasdevelopedafterfieldconsultationswithSyrianappdevelopers.Thisshowshowvaluabletheinputfromrelevantstakeholders in the beneficiary countries is in informing the development of sustainableinitiatives.Weneedtokeepinmindthatdesigninginnovationsalongcurrenttechnologicallimitations versusnear futurepossibilities can result in simplified, low-engagementandattimesredundantproducts.

PhasesTrend#4:MultiplePhasesinthePrizeProcess

An increasing trend ineducationprizes is theuseofmultiplephases in theprizeprocess,where the participantsmustmeet certain established criteria in order to proceed to thenext phase. This has several advantages, both as an incentive for the participants and asqualityassurancefortheprizesponsors.Fortheparticipants,itcanbeanincentivebecauseitlowerstheentrybarrierintothecompetition(Tong&Lakhani,2012).Astheparticipantsareoftenexpectedtoinvestthemoney,timeandeffortintodevelopingtheirideasinorderto qualify for the prize, the required investments in one-round competitions can beinhibitive.Instead,bydividingtherequiredinvestmentsfromtheparticipantsintodifferent

21Winner‘Conflictzone’category,TechnologytoSupportEducationinCrisis&ConflictSettings.22Winner,ACRGCDGrantCompetitionRound2.

19

stages,theinvestmentcostsofparticipatingarelessenedattheentrylevel(King&Lakhani,2013). As the winnowed solutions progress to the next phase, the further investmentrequiredfromtheparticipantsarejustifiedbecausetheirchancesofwinningsimultaneouslyincrease.

IncorporatingR&DinthePrizeProcessR&Dphasesareincreasinglybeingintegratedintotheprizeprocess,bringingittothenextstep,fromideationtodevelopment.Thelengthofthesephasesvaries.WhileamarketdialoguebetweentheprizesponsorsofEduApp4Syriaandsuppliersrevealedthatittakessixtotwelvemonthsattheminimumtodevelopafunctioningmobileapplication,theEduApp4SyriaandtheXPRIZEcompetitionsbothintegrateaneighteenmonthsdevelopmentalphaseintotheirprizeprocesses.Interestingly,whatdistinguishesthesecompetitionsisthatintheXPRIZEcompetitions,theparticipantsbearthecostsoftheR&Dphase.WhilethereturnoninvestmentisfarhigherforthewinnersoftheAdultLiteracyXPRIZE($7,000,000)andGlobalLearningXPRIZE($15,000,000)comparedtothewinnersoftheEduApp4Syriaprize($1,700,000),theR&DcostsandtheassociatedrisksarehigherfortheXPRIZEparticipants.Ontheonehand,suchcapital-intensiveinvestmentscanbeparticularlyinhibitiveforprospectiveparticipants,especiallyiftheyhavelow-risktolerance(Adler,2011).Ontheotherhand,theparticipantsmightconsidertherequiredinvestmentstobejustifiedbythesizeoftheprizepurse.

ForsomeoftheinterviewedteamsoftheGlobalLearningXPRIZE,thedeterminationtocommercializetheirsolutionsregardlessoftheoutcomeoftheXPRIZEandthehighvisibilitythatcomesfromparticipatinginthiscompetitionmakesthisaworthwhileinvestment,eveniftheydonotbecomefinalistsafterthe18monthsR&Dphase.Furthermore,philanthropicprizesbenefitfromaltruisticmotivations,meaningthattheteamsareoftenwillingtogotheextramileforthegreatergood.Thus,returnsonmonetaryinvestmentsareinmanycasesofsecondaryimportance.Nevertheless,thereareconcernsfromsomeparticipantsregardingpursuingseedfundingtosurvivethisround.Hence,sponsorsneedtocarefullyconsidertheupfrontcostsofparticipating,thesizeofthepurse,andhowthiscaninfluencethetypeofcontestantstheyattract.

CaseStudy2:EduApp4SyriaIncorporatingFundedR&DPhasesEduApp4SyriaisanincentiveprizecompetitionthataimstodevelopmobilelearningapplicationsforSyrianchildren(aged4-10)toadvancetheirliteracyratesandpsychosocialwell-being.Inordertodeterminethemostappropriatecompetitionmodel,thepricesponsorsreceivedinputfromrelevantstakeholdersattwodialogueconferencesaswellasfeedbackfromthemarket(potentialsuppliersandusers).Basedonthisinput,theprizesponsorsdecidedtoconductamulti-phasedcompetition(pre-commercialprocurementprocess),startingwithaninitialcompetitionwhereparticipantsarerequiredtosubmitashortvideopitchandasimpleprototypeofthemainactivityorthegameintheproposedmobileapplication.Theinitialcompetitionendswithadeclarationoffivewinnerswhowillproceedtoan18-monthresearchanddevelopmentcontractwithNORAD(theNorwegianAgencyforDevelopmentCooperation),whichincludesseveralseparatephases:

20

Ø Phase1:AlphaversionofproductØ Phase2:Betaversionofproduct.Ø Phase3:Comprehensivemarkettesting&feedbackforimprovements.

Ateachphase,thebestsolutionsarewinnowed,withmaximumthreeenteringthesecondR&DphaseandmaximumtwoenteringthethirdR&Dphase.TheentireR&Dprocessincludesclosecollaborationwiththeprizepartners,includingtheDepartmentofComputerandInformationScienceattheNorwegianUniversityofScienceandTechnology,whichhasexpertisewithingametechnology,game-basedlearning,e-learning,m-learning,andsoftwareengineering.Thesupportprovidedbytherelevantknowledgepartnersthroughouttheentireprizeprocessisanimportantincentiveforparticipantswhoneedassistanceindevelopingandimplementingtheirideas.MinimizingtheR&Dinvestmentonbehalfoftheparticipantstoashortvideopitchandasimpleprototypeintheinitialcompetitionisanotherimportantincentiveforprospectiveparticipants.Thisprizecompetitionmodelalsohasadvantagesfortheprizesponsors.Awardingtheprizethroughoutthedevelopment,implementationandevaluationphasesinsteadofawardingtheprizetosolutionsthatareyettobeimplementedisahighqualityassurancefortheprizesponsors.Overall,thedesignofthisprizemodelishighlypromising,anditwillbeinterestingtoseehowthecompetitionunfoldsin2016.NORADhasdeclaredthattheywillconductrigorousimpactstudiesforthisproject.IncorporatingField-TestingintothePrizeProcessAnotheradditiontotheprizeprocessisfield-testing.Withintheeducationsector,themostrigorousfield-testingisconductedwithintheXPRIZEcompetitions(TheAdultLiteracyXPRIZEandtheGlobalLearningXPRIZE),whichhavethelargestprizepursesoutoftheprizesweanalyzed.AccordingtoEdMcNierney,theDirectorofTechnicalOperationsfortheGlobalLearningXPRIZE,itisimportanttoconductrigorousfield-testinginordertoconvincethefuturebuyersofthetechnology,mostnotablyMinistriesofEducationthatitworks;“ourjobistoprovidethatevidence”,headds(2016).Thescopeofthefield-testingintheXPRIZEcompetitionsisinlinewiththeirprizepurses.Otherprizesthatemployfield-testingaremostnotablyfromACRGCD(includingEduApp4Syria,EnablingWriters,andTracking&TracingBooks).Furthermore,someprizes(e.g.theHultPrizeandtheTechAwards)encourageindependentsmall-scaletestingintheprizeprocess.Forexample,theparticipantsintheHultPrizearerequiredtoconducttheirownfield-testingforonemonthtogatherevidencethattheirinnovationsareworththeprize.Astheparticipantsareentirelyresponsibleforthisprocess,therigorofit(albeitlimitedbythegivenperiod)isuptothem.The2015winningteamtookthefield-testingastepfurtherbyraising$58,000onthecrowdfundingplatformIndiegogoandsuccessfullyimplementingtheirideainElSalvadorbeforethefinals,whichmighthavefactoredintothejury’sdecision.

Field-testingcanbetremendouslyusefultoboththeapplicantsandthesponsorsalike.KarenKaun,pastXPRIZEapplicant,emphasizestheimportanceofthisongoingevaluationprocess;

21

“Ialwayshadanexternalevaluator.Weworktogethertodevelopatemplateandinatypicalthree-yeargrantperiod,Ialwayshavethechancetomodifytheprojectbeforethefinalrun.EvenifIfindtheevaluatorsareapainastheymakeyoulookatyourselfcritically,Iwouldstillrecommendthem.”Worthnotinghereisthatinnovatorsandevaluatorsco-designthefieldtestingmeasures,makingthistailoredtotheinnovationinquestion.Fromthefunder’sperspective,field-testingisessentialtocreateafeedbackloop.AsLivMarteNordhaugfromNORAD(2016)explains,“ifwedon’tdothat[field-testing]thenwearenotinsyncwithhowthetechnologyworldactuallyworks.Thisisusuallyratheralientothedevelopmentagencyworld.Wehavetobesensitivetohowthetypicallaunchingofadigitalgameentailscertainstagesthatneedtobeassessedatcertainperiods.”

AsaresultoftheincreasedimplementationofR&Dphasesaswellasfield-testingintotheprizeprocess,thelengthoftheprizeprocessisincreasing.Thistrendwasobservedamongseveralofthenewprizes(i.e.initiatedin2014or2015).Forexample,theprizeprocessfortheEduApp4Syriaspans20months,theAdultLiteracyXPRIZEspans42monthsandtheGlobalLearningXPRIZEspans48months.

IntellectualPropertyRightsOpeninnovation(externalentitieswithvaryingexpertisesubmittingsolutionstoeducationalchallenges)haspotentialforinnovation.However,oneofthemainchallengesisthehandlingofintellectualproperty(IP)rights.AccordingtoDoblin(2014),theprizesponsors’degreeofownershipoversubmissionsisakeydesignconsideration.TheallocationofIPrightscaninfluenceprospectivecandidates’decisionofwhethertoparticipateintheprizecompetition,resultinginthepoolofavailablesolutionstoprizesponsors.

Ontheonehand,ifprizecompetitionsrequiretheparticipantstorenouncetheIPrightstotheirinnovations,extrinsicallymotivatedcandidates(i.e.whoaresolelyinitfortheprizemoneyortoprofitfromtheirinnovationinthemarketplace)canbediscouragedfromparticipating,especiallyiftheybelievethattheirinnovationshavehighmarketvalue.IftheyrefrainfromparticipatingduetoIPrights,theprizesponsorscanlosevaluableinnovations,potentiallyleadingtoaweakerpoolofentries(King&Lakhani,2013).Ontheotherhand,ifinnovatorsaregrantedexclusiverightstotheuseoftheirinnovations,thescalingoftheseinnovationsislimitedtotheIPrightsholders.

Prizestendtotakethemiddleground.Ratherthanrequiringownershiprights,prizesponsorsmostcommonlyrequirethatthefinalistorthewinningsolutions23willbereleasedunderroyalty-freecopyrightlicenses(e.g.CCBYandCC-BY-SA),whichpermitthepublictofreelyshare,use,copy,andbuildderivativeworkuponthemforbothnon-commercialandcommercialuse.24Similarly,whenthesolutionsareICT-based,theprizesponsorscommonlyrequirethatthesoftwarebereleasedunderopensourcelicenses(e.g.BSD,MITandApache2.0).Thus,theprovidersofthefinalistorthewinningprojectsretaintitletoandcanprofitfromtheirinnovations,butwithoutexclusivepatentrights.Thisisinlinewiththecultureof23Towhomtherequirementsofcopyrightandopensourcelicensesappliestodependsontheprize,buttheyarecommonlylimitedtothefinalistorwinningsolutions.24Dependingonthetypeoflicense.

22

sharingthatprizesareincreasinglyadvocating,whichisbasedontherationalethatitmaximizesthegrowthpotentialoftheinnovations.

Hereagain,philanthropicprizesbenefitfromaltruism.Forexample,someoftheteamsparticipatingintheGlobalLearningXPRIZEstatethattheyarewillingtogiveeverythingtheyareworkingonawaytoanyonethroughopen-sourcelicensesforthesakeofthegreatergoaloftheprize.Nesta(theUK’sinnovationfoundation)andtheCentreforChallengePrizes(2014)similarlyarguethatacultureofcollaborationhasbecomeastrongfeatureofprizes.OneexampleistheGlobalLearningXPRIZE,whichencouragescollaborationamongthecompetingpartiesduringtheR&Dphaseofthecompetition.Withoutadoubt,suchcollaborationcanbeeffectiveasintheNetflixchallengewheretheonlytwoteamstoreachthesettargetoutputswereamergerofteams(Lohr,2009).However,thechallengeremainsonhowtoencouragecollaborationinanotherwisecompetitiveenvironmentandhowtodistinguishbetweencollaborationand“theft”ofideasinthissharingenvironment,i.e.whencollaborationleadstocompetitiveadvantageforoneofthetwocollaboratingparties.

Also,thereismountingevidencethatpatentscaninfactdeterinnovationlong-term.BoldrinandLevine(2013)arguethat,“thereisnoempiricalevidencethatthey[patents]servetoincreaseinnovationandproductivity,unlessproductivityisidentifiedwiththenumberofpatentsawarded-which,asevidenceshows,hasnocorrelationwithmeasuredproductivity”(p.2).Moser(2013)drawingfromextensiveevidencefromeconomichistorycategoricallyarguesthatcountriesthatdidnothavepatentlawsproducedjustasmanyinnovations,ifnotmore.Mechanisms,suchassecrecyandlead-time(beingthefirstinnovatortoofferanewproduct)isseenasmoreeffectivethanpatents.Moserrecommendsknowledge-sharing,risktakingattitudesandscientificexperimentationoverlitigioussolutionsifwearetospurinnovation.Sponsorsneedtotakenoteheregiventhatoneofthemainstructuredincentivesforinnovationinprizesisthepromiseofpatentsattheendofthecompetition.Evidencepointstowardthefactthatwhileinnovationinanascentsectorlikeinourcase,ICTsineducation,seldomarebornoutofpatentprotectionarenas,itisonlywhentheindustrymaturesthatthesepatentsbecomeprominentasgrowthshrinksandtheindustrystartstoconsolidate.Whilepromisingamonopolycanserveasamajorincentiveforinnovators,thiscomesatthesocialcostofgrowthanddiversityofinnovationsaswellaslong-termsustainability.

Furthermore,theestablishingandholdingontoIPrightsisdeeplycumbersomeandoftenexpensive.Thisisundoubtedlyadauntingprocess.Severalquestionscameupduringthe2016XPRIZEsummitonIP:Whendoescodelicensingapply?Shouldmergedteamsshareajointcopyrightlicenseordifferentcopyrights?Canyouregisteratrademark?Whataboutthelicensingofsoftwaretoolsusedforcreatingtheinnovation?Canyouuseopenpatentingsystems?Whilegoingin-depthonIPissuesappliedtoprizesinthissectorisoutofthescopeofthisreport,wehighlyrecommendconductingaseparatereporttoguidebothapplicantsandsponsorsinthisprocess,especiallyforthisgivensector.Allpossibilitiesneedtobeexploredonprotectinganideaandyetallowingtheprocesstoencouragethecultureofcollaboration.Mostimportantly,thejuryisstilloutonwhetherIPisakeyincentiveforinnovatorsinthissector.Afterall,unlikeinnovationsinthecommercialsector,technology

23

innovationsintheeducationsectoraremorelikelytonotbecommerciallyviable(seesectorbelowonuser-pay).

MotivatorsMonetaryIncentivesLikewithotherfundingmechanisms,prizesincludemonetaryincentives.AllprizesthatweanalyzedexceptTheSocialEntrepreneuroftheYear–IndiaAwardbytheSchwabFoundation25includemonetaryincentives.Thetotalcashpursesrangefrom$10,000to$15,000,000,thelatterbeinganexception(seeTable3).Thereissubstantiveevidencethatthesizeoftheprizeisnottheprimemotivatingfactorforapplicantstoparticipateinthesecompetitions(McKinsey&Company,2009).Besides,consideringthatparticipantsinincentiveprizesneedtobearthecostandtheriskofdevelopingtheirinnovations,thefinancialgainsofwinningprizesareoftennotrelativelyhigh(althoughthecashpursetendstoincreasewithmoreextensiveR&Drequirements).Forexample,theXPRIZEfoundationhasshownthattheparticipants’collectiveexpenditureoftenexceeds10-16timesthecashvalueoftheprizeitself(DFID,2013).However,theprizeitselfisnottheonlypotentialmonetarygainforparticipants.Thatis,prizesareintendedtobecatalystsforthird-partyinvestmentsinamountsfargreaterinvaluethanthecashpurse(Adler,2011;Tong&Lakhani,2012).Forexample,thecashpurseintheAnsariX-PRIZEwas$10millionbuttheteamsseekingtowintheprizereceivedprivateinvestmentsofover$100million(Adler,2011).Whileincentiveprizescanserveasseedmoneyforthedevelopmentofearly-stageprojectswhilestimulatingfurtherthird-partyinvestmentsingeneral,thisprincipledoesnoteasilytransfertoourgivensector.

ThereismuchoptimismonthecommercialviabilityofinnovationsintheICTsinEducationsectorandtheuser-payaspectthatcangenerateprofitforinnovators.Giventhecurrentstateoftheglobalappeconomy,thisisanaïvesupposition.AccordingtoCaribouDigital’sreport(2016)onthewinnersandlosersintheglobalappeconomy,thecurrentdigitalecosystemisbecomingaclosedsystemandbiasedtowardsthemostprosperouscountriesandusers.Forinstance,95%oftheestimatedindustryvalueisbeingcapturedbyjust10countries.IntheemergingdigitaleconomiesofSouthAsiaandSub-SaharanAfrica,“theappmodelwillbethedefault,ratherthantheopenpublishingmodeloftheWeb”(p.4),creatingfurtherbarriersofentryforlocaldevelopersinmarginalizedcontexts.Assponsorsstrivetosupportopensourceplatforms,thistrendalarminglyheadsinthereversedirection.

Furthermore,aswehavementionedearlier,localizedcontentisoftennotcommerciallyviableasthetargetdemographicoftendonothavetheresourcestopayfortheseinnovations.Thisholdstrueinspiteofthecontinuedpopularityofthe“bottomofthepyramid”(BOP)businessmodelpioneeredbyC.K.Prahalad.Thismodelcompelledboththepublicandtheprivatesector(especiallytheMNEs)toshifttheirperceptionofthepoorfrombeingbeneficiariestoconsumers.Kolk,Rivera-Santos,andRufin(2014)reviewtheevidenceoverthedecadeontheimplementationofthisbusinessmodelonsocialoutcomesandprofit,the“win-win”solution.Theactualeconomicimpactoftheseinitiativesisweak.

25SisterorganizationoftheWorldEconomicForum

24

However,evidencepointstosuccessinmarketinginsights(producttrial,brandbuilding,andBOPconsumerinformation)as“bettersuccessmeasuresthanprofitsattheBOP”(p.357).ThisimpliesthatintheICTsinEducationsector,incentiveprizesthatstructureincommercialviabilityandtheuser-payaspectascentraltotheirstrategycanbeproblematic.

Non-monetaryIncentivesItiswellrecognizedintheprizeliteraturethatprizeincentivesotherthanmoneyareimportanttoattractparticipantsandultimatelystimulateinnovation(Doblin,2014).Inanalyzingtheprizesinthepublicsector(e.g.Challenge.gov),itwasfoundthatwhilerecognitionandmonetaryincentivesremainthemostcommonlyusedincentives,therehasbeensignificantexperimentationwithdifferentprizeincentivesinrecentyearsandespeciallyprizestructuresthatmixmultipleincentives.Otherincentivesincludetravelling,capacitybuilding,networkingopportunities,andcommercialbenefitsthroughinvestmentandadvancemarketcommitments(Doblin,2014).

Academicresearchhassupportedthenotionoftheimportanceofnon-monetaryincentives.Forexample,Kay(2011)surveyedandinterviewedcontestantsintheGoogleLunarXPRIZEontheirmotivationsforparticipating.Thesurveyresultsshowedthatthethreemostimportantreasons(i.e.classifiedas“veryimportant”)weresocietalbenefits(59%oftheteams),commercializationofthetechnologiesdevelopedforthecompetition(53%oftheteams),andtherecognitionfromNASAorothergovernmentagenciesforpotentialfuturecontracts(47%oftheteams).Thiswasfollowedbythemotivationofparticipatinginarealtechnicalandintellectualchallenge(mentionedby41%oftheteamsasveryimportantandby41%oftheteamsasimportant).Interestingly,theprizemoneywasonlyconsidered“veryimportant”by24%oftheteamsandimportantby12%oftheteams.Asonecontestantstated:“…wearenotdrivenbytheprize”(Kay,2011,p.149),asentimentthatechoedthroughmuchoftheinterviewswithGlobalLearningXPRIZEteams.InKay’s(2011)interviewswithteamsfromtheGoogleLunarXPRIZE,acommonreasongivenbytheteamsforparticipatingintheprizeversuspursuingtheprojectontheirown(i.e.withoutenteringthecompetition)wastheincreasedpublicityassociatedwiththecompetition.Similarly,accordingtoTongandLakhani(2012),thepotentialforrecognitionandinvestmentopportunitiesgeneratedthroughtheprize’spublicitycanbejustasvaluableasmonetaryrewards.Basedonthis,Kay(2011)concludedthatmonetaryincentivesmightnotbeasimportanttoparticipantsasnon-monetaryincentivesbutthatthemonetaryprizeisneverthelessimportanttoattractpublicityaroundthecompetition,whichisthefoundationofthenon-monetaryincentives.

Trend#5:IncreasedUseofNon-monetaryPrizeincentives

Within the education sector, there are a couple of notable trends in non-monetaryincentivessuchasopportunitiesfornetworkingandmentoring.

NetworkingThelargefoundationsthathavethenecessaryresourcestendtoofferhighpublicityand/orimportant networkingopportunities. For example, theWiseAwards offers their laureatesglobal visibility through internationally renowned media partners, the opportunity to

25

presentat theirAnnualSummit,and tobepartof theirglobalWiseAwardsnetwork thatfosters collaboration among all of the laureates. Similarly, the Hult Prize offers the sixfinalists a one-yearmembershipwith the ClintonGlobal Initiative, a community of globalleaders including heads of states, Nobel Prize laureates, CEOs, heads of foundations andNGOs,philanthropists,aswellasmediapartners.Throughthismembership,theteamsaresupported with raising capital and identifying strategic partnerships, and media support.While largeprizesponsorsonaglobal scaleoffer these impressivenetworking incentives,smallerprizesponsorsalsousenetworkingopportunitiesasincentives.ThelaureatesoftheNASSCOM Social Innovation Forum become part of their forum,which connects them toimportantindustryexperts,innovators,andentrepreneurs.TheempoweringpeopleAwardbySiemensStiftungandtheMobileforGoodAwardsbytheVodafoneFoundationalsooffersimilarnetworking incentives inadditiontomonetaryrewards. Interestingly,the laureatesofTheSocialEntrepreneuroftheYear–IndiaAward,receivenomonetaryaward.Instead,theprizeconsistsofamembershiptotheSchwabFoundationNetwork,withbenefitssuchasnetworkingopportunities,servicessuchaspro-bonoconsultingandlegaladvice,aswellas waiving of registration-fees to forum meetings. This suggests that non-monetaryincentivescanbeusedasstand-aloneincentivesinprizecompetitions.

MentoringMentoringcanbothbeapost-awardincentive(i.e.whenlaureatesconsultwithnetworkingpartners)oran integralpartoftheprizeprocess. Incentiveprizesponsorsare increasinglyproviding mentoring support during the development phase of the prize process. OneexampleistheHultPrize,whichoffersthesixfinalistteamsasix-weekintensiveprogramofentrepreneurialseminarsattheHultInternationalBusinessSchool.Duringthisprogram,thefinalist teamsdevelop their ideas into investor-readybusinessmodelswith conciseactionplans. Furthermore, they develop the proposals that they present at the finals. Thesementoringopportunitiesare in linewith theoverallobjectiveof theHultPrize,namely toacceleratethedevelopmentofyoungsocialentrepreneurs.

CommunicationsWithinprizes,communicationsserveseveralstrategicpurposesatallphasesofthecompetition.First,inthepre-prizephase,marketingplansneedtobeinplacetoattractpublicattentionandreachprospectiveparticipantsandpotentialsponsors/partnershiporganizations.Furthermore,fromthisphaseonwards,tenderdocumentsstatingallrules,eligibilityandevaluationcriteriaandotherdecisionsandrequirementsintheprizeprocessneedtobemadepubliclyavailabletoensuretransparencyandfairness.Secondly,duringandaftertheprizeprocess,effectivecommunicationchannelsareneededtomanagerelationswithparticipantsandrelevantstakeholders,includingimplementingpartners.Thisincludesusingnewslettersforupdates,conductingreviewmeetingstodiscussissuesthatariseandgivingfeedback,andrequiringreportsthatdocumenttheprogress.Inthepost-awardphase,besidesensuringcommunicationcoordinationbetweenallrelevantstakeholdersintheimplementingphaseforexamplethroughmeetings,webinars,reunionconferences,andcollaborativespaces,itisimportanttoensureexternalcommunicationoftheprizeoutputsandoutcomes(i.e.impact),aswellasguideswithlessonslearnedtoinformfutureprizes.

26

MarketingofthePrizeOnecanarguethatmarketingisthefoundationofeveryprizebecausewithoutit,theprizewouldnotattractparticipants,sponsorsandotherpartners.Evidentlythen,marketingandpublicrelationsconstitutelargepartsofeveryprizewebsite,oftenwithspecialmediasectionsthatincludenews,blogs,presskits,andfeaturedpressarticles.ThereisanincreasedfocusonsocialmediamarketingsuchasestablishinghashtagsforTwitterandfeaturingthelatesttweetsonthewebsite.AnotabletrendacrosstheprizesisalsothepostingofpromotionalvideosonthewebsiteandonYouTubeandothervideoplatforms.Duringthe2016Paristeamsummit,ShannonSmith,theDirectorofMarketingfortheGlobalLearningXPRIZE,guidedtheapplicantswithanumberofmarketingtipsincludingbrandingtheirmessagingthroughtheprizeprocess,capturingmotivationthroughdigitalstorytelling,leveragingonsocialmediatospreadthemessageandsynchronizingdiversemediaattentionreceivedbytheapplicantswiththeXPRIZEportal.Professionalpromotionalvideosofeachteamwerecreatedforpublicitypurposesaswellastoattractthirdpartyfunding.Whiletheuseofsocialmediahasexponentiallygrowntoenhancevisibility,therearefewreportsouttherethatcapturebestpracticesforbothsponsorsandapplicantsonleveragingthismodeofcommunication.PartnershipsforPublicityManyprizesarepartoflarge,internationalfoundationssuchasUNESCOandtheWiseInitiative,governmentalagencies,orbigcorporationssuchasVodafoneandSiemensthatallhaveestablishedmedianetworksthatcanbeleveragedforthemarketingofprizes.Forlessvisibleprizesponsors,partnershipswithsuchorganizationsarevitalforincreasedpublicity.ACRGCDandXPRIZEaregoodexamplesoforganizationsthathostarangeofprizesbyotherprizesponsors,amongotherreasons,fortheirmedianetworks.Endorsementsbyhighlyvisibleandinfluentialpeopleareusedforsimilarpurposes.PerhapsthebestexampleistheHultPrizepartnershipwiththeClintonGlobalInitiative,whichmadeBillClintonthefaceoftheprize.TheGlobalTeacherPrizealsoleveragesendorsementsbyhigh-profilepeoplesuchasTonyBlair,KevinSpaceyandStephenHawking.

EvaluationMeasuringImpactWhileitisgenerallyacknowledgedintheprizeliteraturethatprizesponsorsshouldinvestsignificantresourcesintofollow-upandevaluationofthelong-termimpactoftheirprizes(Doblin,2014;McKinsey&Company,2009;Zients,2010),researchshowsitisseldomthecaseinpractice.AsurveyconductedbyMcKinsey&Company(2009)showedthatover40%ofprizesponsorsneverorveryrarelyevaluatetheimpactoftheirprizesandfurther17%onlydoiteveryfewyears.Lessthanaquarter(23%)ofprizesponsorsevaluatetheimpactoftheirprizeseachyear.Thiscontinuestobeanongoingconcern.

Withintheeducationsector,evidenceonthepost-awardmonitoringandevaluation(M&E)ofprizesandtheirwinninginitiativesislimited.Mostifnotallprizes,whetherrecognitionorincentiveprizes,includeparameterssuchasscalability,replicability,andsocialimpactinthejudgingcriteria.However,inincentiveprizestheseparameterscanonlybeestimatedintermsofpotential,makingitcrucialforprizesponsorstofollow-uponthewinninginitiatives

27

toevaluatetheirshortandlong-termimpact.However,ouranalysisofprizesindicatesthatmanyincentiveprizesponsorsintheeducationsectorarenotpubliclyreportingM&Ereportsoftheimpactoftheirprizesandthewinninginitiatives,whetherornottheyhaveM&Esystemseffectivelyinplace.

Incontrast,thereseemstobeamorerigorousmonitoringandevaluationsysteminplacefortheGrantCompetitionbyACRGCD.Duringtheapplicationphase,theapplicantsarerequiredtosubmitadraftmonitoringandevaluationplanwheretheyoutlinestrategiesfordemonstratingtheimpactoftheirprojects,includingindicatorsandtargets.Afterthegranthasbeenawarded,thegrantrecipientsarerequiredtoallocateaminimumoffivepercentoftheirbudgettoconductabaselineassessmentandendlineassessmentusingtheproposedindicatorsaswellasstandardizedindicatorsasbenchmarks.Thegrantrecipientsarealsosubjecttomidtermmonitoringvisitsandanexternalperformanceevaluation.Lastly,theymustsubmitafinalreportdemonstratingtheresultstoACRGCDandmakeitavailabletothepublic.ThisrigorousM&Esystemcomparedtothatofprizesisexplained,atleastpartially,bythefactthatasopposedtoprizes,grantsareawardedbeforetheR&Dphase.Hence,grantsponsorsrelymoreonM&Easaqualityassuranceoftheirinvestments.ThisdoesnothoweverjustifythelackofM&Einprizes.

Itisacknowledgedthatpost-awardM&Ecanbechallengingforprizesponsorsforvariousreasons.Forone,theprizerecipientsaremostofthetimeresponsiblefortheirownevaluation,makingithardforprizesponsorstocontrolthequalityofassessmentsandtocomeupwithstandardizedmeasurestogaugeimpact.Secondly,withICTinitiatives,itcanbehardtoisolatetheimpactofthetechnologyfromotherfactors.AsJenson(2013,p.43)argues,“partofthereasonfortheclaimsversusevidencegapwithregardstoICTandlearningisbecausetechnologiesareutilizedasjustoneofthemanytoolsforteachingandlearning,andtheireffectsonstudentachievementaretherebydifficulttoisolateandmeasure.”Thirdly,withlimitedfunding,externalevaluationisoftenunfeasible,especiallyforearly-stagepilots.AsJuan-PabloGiraldofromUNICEF(2016)stated,“externalevaluationfor$100,000whenthewholeprojectitselfcosts$200,000isnotcost-effective.”

AnotherreasonforthelackofM&EisthatprizesponsorsdonotallocatemoneytoM&Especifically.Oneplausiblereasonisthattheytendtofocusontheinitialstages,startingwiththeideationphaseandoftenendingafterthepilotphaseifnotearlier,whichisnormallythestagetoinitiateexternalM&E.FundingmechanismsthatfocusonscalingpilotedprojectsaremorelikelytodevotefundingspecificallytoM&E.Forexample,throughtheHumanitarianEducationAccelerator,UNICEF,DFID,andUNHCRareallocating£300,000toeachoftheteamstostrengtheninternalevaluationprocesses,andcommissioningexternalevaluationoftheteamsaswellastheacceleratorapproachtoscaling.InabreakoutsessionaboutM&Eatthe2016UNESCOMobileLearningWeek,ledbyAnthonyBloomefromUSAID,oneoftheidentifiedchallengeswastoincreasefundingforM&Eofeducationinitiatives.AnotheridentifiedchallengefromthissessionwastheoverallfocusonquantitativedataoverqualitativedatainM&E.Thatis,focusonnumbersintermsofaccessandcoverage,especiallyinICT-basededucationinitiatives,overlearningprocessesandoutcomesasametricofimpact;“mostofthemetricsyouseeinICTdefineascaleinterms

28

ofaccess.Whileaneducationalappwith10millionusersisimpressive,itisnotinitselftransformational”(Juan-PabloGiraldo,UNICEF,2016).

Casestudy3:EffectiveEvaluationoftheLearningaboutLivingNigeriaProjectTheLearningaboutLiving(LaL)Nigeriaproject,whichinvolvesthedevelopmentandimplementationofane-learningsystemaboutsexualandreproductivehealthinformation,isanexcellentcasestudyofarigorousmonitoringandevaluationmechanismandcommunicationofit.First,anexternalevaluationwasundertakenafterthepilotphasetoevaluateinitialsuccessandrecommendscalingoftheproject.Thiswasfollowedbyanotherindependentevaluationofthescaleupphaseinordertoassesstheoveralleffectiveness.Thekeyquestionsoftheevaluationincluded:

• Whatarethekeyachievementstodateandhowdothesecontributetowardstheprojectobjectives?

• Whatprogresshasbeenmadeindesigningandimplementingasuitablemonitoringandevaluationsystemfortheproject?

• Istheprojectmethodicallylearninglessons,identifyinggoodpracticeandadaptingprojectapproachesinlightofemergingissuesandtrends?

• Whatimpacthasbeenmadeatthestatelevelincontributingtoimprovedpolicythatcansustaintheproject’sactivities?

• Towhatextenthastheprojectfacilitatedwideranddeeperpartnershipsinvolvingcivilsocietyandgovernmentinstitutions?

• Whatactivitiesand/orstrategieshavebeenmostcost-effectiveinincreasingaccesstoeducation?

• Whatwerethekeyriskstoprojectimplementationandhowwerethesemitigated?

• How,andtowhatextenthastheprojectcontributedtopositivechangesinyoung�people’sattitudesandbehaviors?

Toensurethattheevaluationwasevidence-based,participatoryandbalanced,theevaluationteamemployedamixofmethodsincludingquestionnairestocomparebaselineandendlinedata,focusgroupdiscussions,andin-depthinterviewswithvarioussourcesandstakeholderssuchasimplementingpartners,thebeneficiariesoftheprojectandkeyinformants.Moreover,theyreviewedsecondaryorganizationaldocuments.Theyusedlogicalframeworkoutputs,keyprojectmilestonesandthepurposeandgoalsasthebasicbenchmarksfortheevaluation.Basedonthegathereddata,theyscoredeachoftheprojectoutputsonascalefromone(developingprocess)tofive(completelyachieved).Inthefinalreport,theycombinedtheaforementioneddatawiththeirreflectionsontheproject’sstrengthsandachievements,challengesandrecommendations.TheLaLevaluationteamcommunicatestheirfindingsinthereportclearlyandeffectivelybyusingtablesforeachoutputthatoutlinetheperformanceindicatorsandtheprogressagainsttheindicators.Thetablesarecombinedwithnarrativesontheevidenceofchangeandthechallengesassociatedwitheachoutput.Lastly,theonlinepublicationoftheevaluationreportensurestransparencyamongallstakeholdersincludingthepublic,andcontributestothesharingofgoodpracticesandlessonslearnedthatcanbe

29

usefultootherprizesponsors.Thispracticeofsharingamongprizesponsorsisincreasinglyencouragedintheprizeliteraturewithanumberofpracticalguidesemerginginrecentyears.

Long-termSustainabilityTheLaLNigeriaprojectisalsoanexcellentexampleofaprojectthathasensuredthatlocalpartnershipstructuresareinplacetoensurelong-termsustainability.Sincethepilotphase,theprojecthasinvolvedseverallocalcivilsocietyorganizationsintheproject’simplementation.Interestingly,theevaluationreportshowedpositiveimpactoftheprojectontheseorganizationsincludinga)enhancedprogrammingcapacities,b)improvedrelationshipswithotherCSOsandgovernmentagencies,andc)increasedexperienceinusingICTsfordevelopment.Thishighlightstheimportanceofevaluatingbothintendedandunintendedimpactoftheprojectsonthevariousstakeholdersbeyondtheimmediatebeneficiaries.Besidescivilsocietyorganizations,theprojecthasalsobuiltimportantpartnershipstructuresatthegovernmentlevel,includingwiththeNigerianMinistriesofEducationandHealth,theNigerianEducationResearchandDevelopmentCouncil,andtheNationalAgencyfortheControlofAIDS.Thesegovernmentagenciesareinvolvedintheprojectatvariouslevels.Forexample,theyarepartoftheprojectsteeringcommittee.Theysupporttrainingofteachersandprovideanenablingschoolenvironmentandadministrativesupportforimplementationinadditiontootherresources.Inshort,thispartnershipstructureensuresthelong-termsustainabilityoftheLaLproject.

Analysisoftheprizesintheeducationsectorshowsthattheprizesponsorsconsiderpost-awardpartnershipsvitalforsustainability.Aspreviouslymentioned,theprizesponsorsfocusonconnectingthewinningprojectswithpotentialsponsorsandpartnersthrougharangeofnetworkingopportunities,forexamplethroughforums,conferences,andmediapublicity.Itisthentheresponsibilityofthewinnerstoestablishandsustaintheserelationships.Additionally,localpartnershipsshouldbeembeddedintheentireprizeprocess,andnotjustpost-awardforlong-termsustainability.Juan-PabloGiraldofromUNICEFelaboratesonthismatter(2016),“Iamskepticalaboutincentiveprizesbecausetheyarenotabottom-upprocess,butthisismypersonalopinion[notUNICEF’sofficialposition].Youneedtostartwiththechildren,notthetechnologyandthenwhenyouunderstandtheirneeds-thatis,afterdoingsomeethnographicresearch-youstartdesigningforthem.Also,ideallyfromthestartyoushouldhavethegovernmentinterestedandgetanagreementfromthemthatyourprogramorsoftwareiseffective.Itneedstobeanalternativepathtogetcertificationandcurriculumsothatitactuallybecomesanalternativeinthesystemandnotjustaninformallearningsystem.Soyouneedtohavethegovernmentandthecommunityonyoursidebecausethereisthiswholepoliticalcommunityengagementstrategywherethecommunityeitheragreesorrejectsaprogram–sothesuccessofyourprojectiseventuallyuptothem.”Thechallengeforincentiveprizesthattargetyoungentrepreneursisthattheseapplicantsoftencomewithlittleexperienceandfewfieldcontacts.Hence,sponsorsneedtosupportthesenewplayersthroughfacilitatinggrassrootspartnershipssotheyhaveabetterchanceofsuccessinlong-termsustainabilityoftheirsolutionsinthefield.

30

CaseStudy4:TheLaureateImpactAwardsTheLaureateImpactAwardbyTheTechMuseumofInnovationisanawardpresentedtoformerTechAwardslaureateswhohavedemonstratedsignificantimpactsincewinningtheTechAwards.Thisprize,sponsoredin2015byPayPal,wasinitiatedin2014andhasthusawardedtwoprizessofar.In2014,thelaureatewasKhanAcademy(2009TechAwardslaureate),arepositoryofover6,500freeeducationalvideosthataretranslatedintomultiplelanguagesandwatchedbymillionsofpeople.In2015,thelaureatewasEmbrace(2012TechAwardslaureate),whichhasimplementeditsinnovativeinfantwarmertechnologyin11countries(e.g.India,UgandaandAfghanistan)andrecentlymergedwiththeinternationaldevelopmentnon-profitThriveNetworks.TheTechMuseumofInnovationistheonlyorganization,toourknowledge,thatrewardsanimpactawardtopastlaureates.

Toendonadisconcertingnote,itiswellworthquestioningiflong-termsustainabilityiscompatiblewithtechnologicalinnovation.MichaelHollaenderfromGIZframesthisdilemma,“innovationandlong-termsustainabilityiscontradictoryinitspureessence.IfyoulookatSiliconValley,17%oftheirinnovationswillbecomesuccessful–sowhentheytalkaboutinnovation,theyhavealreadycalculatedthatmostofthemwillfail.Ifweofferprizesandalsoclaimsustainability,thenweareofferingtheimpossible”(2016).

Clearly,wedonotknowwhatarethemosteffectivetechnologyinnovationsintheeducationsector.Hence,prizesserveasawayofclosingthegaponmarketinformationinthiscontext.Whiletherearenumerousagenciesinthisfieldthathavethecapacitytoscaletheseinnovationsthroughlongstandingbilateralcooperation,onwhatgroundsdotheycommittochoosingcertaininnovationsoverothers?“Wedonotknowandwewillnotknowwhichoftheseprizeswillbesuccessfulintheendandprovetobeascalableandsustainablesolution.Unlesstheprizeistoscaleup”(Hollaender,2016).

PARTII

Whatseemstobeworking?Howdowedefinesuccesshere?Intermsofgeneratingavastnumberofeducationalsolutionswithrelativelylowinvestments,incentiveprizescanbeconsideredasuccess.TakeXPRIZEasanexample.Theminimumoutputofthecompetitionis137solutionsfromteamsoriginatingin40countrieswithvaluewellbeyondthatoftheprizepurse.Thiskindofhighprizepurseishoweveranexceptionamongtheprizes.Theproliferationofincentiveprizeswithlowprizepursesshowthatwelldesignednon-monetaryincentivescanalsoleadtosuccessingeneratingalargenumberofsolutions.Prizesponsorswithstrongreputationcapitalareatanadvantagewhenitcomestoofferingnon-monetaryincentives.Besidesprovidingresourcesandassistance,theycanofferanendorsement,aqualitystampthatcomesfrombeingaffiliatedwiththeorganization,whichisveryvaluablefortheparticipantsingeneratingattentiontotheirinnovations,andattractingpotentialpartnersandsponsorships.However,theabilitytouseendorsementsasanincentiveislimitedtofew

31

organizations(examplesincludeUNESCO,UNICEF),thatconsequentlyareabletogenerateinterestfrommanyprospectiveparticipantsdespiteofferingsmallprizepurses.

Juan-PabloGiraldofromUNICEF(2016)notesthatthemorereputationcapitalanorganizationhas,thelessimportantthemonetaryprizebecomes,“atsomepoint,theXPRIZEbrandisgoingtobesowellpositionedthattheycandecreasetheprizepursebecausebeinganXPRIZEawardeewillbetheprizeitself.”Insum,onecansaythatincentiveprizeswithlowprizepursesbutstrongnon-monetaryincentivesaresuccessfulingeneratingavastnumberofeducationalsolutions,especiallyiftheprizesponsorshavestrongreputationalcapital.Further,giventhatmanyparticipantssetuporganizationstofocusontheirinnovation,thereisahigherlikelihoodthattheywillpursuetheirsolutionsregardlessoftheoutcomeofthecompetition.Sincethesolutionsarereleasedunderopen-sourceandCreativeCommonslicenses,thisallowsforbuildingonthecurrentinnovationbyotherinnovators.Hence,prizesareastimulusforsocialentrepreneurshipinthissector.

Ofcourse,thegenerationofavastnumberofsolutionstoeducationalproblemsandincreasedsocialentrepreneurshipinthissectorthroughtheseprizesarenotsufficientgroundstodeclaresuccess.Learningandteachingoutcomes,sustainableschoolingandpolicyreformandnewwaysofaddressingchroniceducationalchallengesareimportantmeasuresthatneedconsideration.Inthefollowingsections,weaddresssomeofthekeyquestions,assumptionsandchallengestoshapeourunderstandingontheroleofprizesineducation.

Howdoprizescomparetootherfundingmechanisms?TheusageofprizesintheICTinEducationsectorhasexponentiallygrowninthelastdecadeattheexpenseofmoretraditionalfundingmechanisms.Thereisadominantbiasinthinkingthatprizesaremoreefficientindeliveringinnovationascomparedtomoreconventionalformsoffundingsuchasgovernmentgrants,patentsandR&Dtaxcredits.Inotherwords,competitionisseenaskeytoresearchexcellence.Strongfaithinthemarketsystemneedstoconfrontevidencetovalidatetheseclaims.Upfront,wefindnostudiestodatethatcanconclusivelysupportthisassertion.Infact,HemelandOuellette(2013)intheiranalysisofthesevariedfundsconcludethat,“undervarious(stylized)assumptions,eachmechanismleadstothesamesetofresearchprojectsbeingpursuedatthesamesocialcost”(p.307).

Yet,agenciesfundingdecisionscontinuetobebiasedtowardsmarket-orientedsolutionstoincentivizeknowledgeproduction.Thisprocessisinfluencedbythreeoverarchingquestions:First,whodecidesthesizeoftherewardthatinnovatorswillreceive?Second,whenistherewardprovidedtothem?Third,whowillpayforthiscost?Athumbruleforsponsorsisthatwhenitisdifficulttogaugethevalueofaninnovationattheonsetduetoincompletemarketinformation,theywillchoosepatentsandprizesexpostovergrants.AnthonyBloomefromUSAIDechoesthissentiment,“Westartedwithgrantsbutthat’sabouttwoyearsago.Nothavingaspecificsolution,weknewtherearegapsthatweneededtofillsoweofferedprizestocatertothis[e.g.EnablingwritersandTrackingandTracingBookscompetition].”Theperceivedadvantagetothisapproachistheincreasedmotivationanddriveamonginnovatorstoproducenewknowledgeandafairmarketvaluefortheir

32

innovation.Thedownsidehoweveristhat“duetocapitalconstraintsandriskaversion,innovatorsmaybelesswillingtopursuenewprojectswhenrewardsareallocatedexpostthanwhensocietyprovidesearly,certainfunding”(Hemel&Ouellette,p.309).Hence,themostlikelyoutcomeisforinnovatorstosellpartoftheirequityearlyontoaffordtoembarkontheirinnovation,introducingamoral-hazardproblemoftradingownershipandcontrolforinnovation.

Intoday’sfinancialaidclimate,grantsandprizesoftenresembleoneanother,asitisgettingmorecommontoembedpatentsanduser-payelementsingrantswhileprizesareextendingtheircompetitionlengthtoabout3-4yearsduetotheirphasedapproachandfield-testing.Severalsponsorsfindithelpfultomarkettheirprojectsasaprize.LivMarteNordhaugfromNORADmakesthecasethatitisbettertocallsomeoftheirprojectsinnovationcompetitions,“becauseitismorerecognizableforcertaingroupsbutitisapre-commercialprocurementwhichmeansthatweareaskingthemarkettodevelopsomethingforuswhichwebelievedoesnotexistinthemarketalready.”However,thiscomesataprice.Counterintuitively,severalfundingagenciesfindtheimplementationofprizesfarmorebureaucraticthantendersandgrants.RebeccaChandler-LeegefromWorldVisionnotesthat,“runningaprizeisfarmoretimeconsumingandit’sbecomeamajorcommitment.”Afterall,prizesarenotallowedtocircumventregulationsandallthelegalrequirementsthatgrantsaresubjectto.Ontopofthis,unlikegrantsandtenders,prizesdemandnewlayersintheprogrammaticmanagement.Forinstance,MichaelHollaenderfromGIZcomparestenderstoprizes,“thetendersaremorebackdoorwherewecomeupwiththewinner.Withtheprizes,wedohavetogopublicandweneedtomakethisopen,transparentandthisaddstotheusualregulationsthataredemandedfromtenders.”

Besides,thisincreasedmarketizationofpublicfundingimpactsthenatureofinnovation.InmostOECDcountries,therehasbeenasignificantshiftintheefforttofinancepublicR&D:from1981to2013,theshareofpublic-financedR&DtoGDPreducedfrom0.82percentto0.67percent.Bycontrast,theindustry-financedR&Dincreasedfrom0.96percentofGDPin1981to1.44percentin2013(Archibugi&Filippetti,2016,p.4).Thewaythefinancingisstructuredcanaffectthekindofknowledgeproducedandthedirectionofinnovationinsociety.Forinstance,ifincentiveprizesintheeducationsectorhavepatentsanduser-paybuiltinasprimeincentives,innovationwouldbeorientedtowardsareasofeducationthataremoreprofitableratherthanthoseofgreatestsocietalandscientificinterest.

Whiletraditionalgrantsaimforthelargestsocialimpactoftheresearchthroughthepublicdisclosureofknowledgeandthediffusionofinnovation,incentiveprizesmaynotsharethesamesocietalpriorities,especiallywhenpartneredwiththeprivatesector.Forinstance,Lemmens(2015)criticizes‘responsibleinnovation,’whichnecessitatesthatpublic-privatepartnershipsfindcommongroundasameanstosustainableinnovationasnaïve.Takeinformationasymmetriesforinstance:fromtheperspectiveofthestateornon-profit,closingthisgapthroughtransparencyandthecultureofcollaborationisdesirableasitprovidesalternativesolutionstoexistingoranticipatedproblems.However,fromtheperspectiveofacompany,“informationasymmetrieshavetobeseenasasourceofcompetitiveadvantage”(p.26).Hence,weneedtoreconsiderthenotionofmutual

33

responsivenessamongstakeholders,inthiscaseinformationasymmetriesasanaturaloutcomegivendivergentagendas,interestsandapproachesbetweentheseactors.Inotherwords,publicprivatepartnershipsaregoodintheorybutchallenginginexecution.Whilethereare,ofcoursesomeoverlapintheinterestsandgoalsofthestakeholders,the‘commonground’shouldnotbeviewedasequivalenttothecontemporaryneedsofsociety,inthiscase,theeducationalsectorindevelopingcountries.Hence,itisworthasking:Howdoyoupreventprivatesectorprioritiesfromtakingoverpublicsectorresearchforsocietalbenefit?Howcaninnovatorsbefreeofprivateinterestsandyetsustainthemselveswhilebuildingontheirinnovationthroughtheseprizes?

MichaelHollaenderfromGIZsuccinctlysummarizestheseconcerns;“Ijustwanttochallengethehypearoundtheseprizes.Theyconsumealotofenergy,theyabsorbalotofresourcessoweneedtocarefullythinkofwhyweusetheseprizesandwhyincomparisontoconventionalfundingapproaches.Onemajorconcernisthatinnovationononehand,whichopensuptheriskforfailure,doesnotnecessarilyfitwellwithlong-termsolutionsforsustainability.Justtoaddtothisparadigmandthisismorespecifictothetechsector,thedevelopmentcooperationbecamemorepoliticalandeconomicalandmanydonorsarenotjustconcernedwithdevelopmentgoalsbutalsoprivatesectordevelopment.Theseprizescancombinethissotheycanclaimtheyhaveanoverarchingdevelopmentgoalbutalsowithoutputtingitontheagenda,theyalsodoprivate-sectorsupport.”Hence,sponsorsneedtobemindfulofhavingtheirprizestransformintomechanismsthatsubsidizeandservetheprivatesectorindustryoverthepublicgood.

Whataretheassumptionshere?Thisreportmovesawayfromthehypesurroundingtheseprizesandexaminescloselytheunderlyingassumptionsandevidencethatsupportcommonlyheldpropositionsonprizes,pavingthewayforkeyrecommendationsforpolicy-makers,academicsandpractitioners.

Assumption#1Technologicalinnovationiscentral,urgentandpositiveforeducationreform

Thereisanimplicitbeliefstructuredintoprizesthattechnologicalinnovationisapositivesocialforce.Firstly,theseinnovationsareinherentlyunpredictableanddisruptive.Truetothenatureofallinnovation,theyguaranteemorefailurethansuccess.Ifwelookattheimplementationoftechnologysolutionsinthelastdecadesintheeducationsector,wefindplentyofevidencewheretheseprojectshavefailed,stalledorhavenotprecipitatedintendedchanges.AspertheclassicCollingridgedilemma,“thesocialconsequencesofatechnologycannotbepredictedearlyinthelifeofthetechnology.Bythetimeundesirableconsequencesarediscovered,however,thetechnologyisoftensomuchpartofthewholeeconomicandsocialfabricthatitscontrolisextremelydifficult.”(Collingridge1981,p.11).

Secondly,thisisonlyonetypeofinnovationforeducation,theothersbeingsystemsandattitudinalinnovationwhichissidelinedasitisnotaseasilymonetized.Thirdly,insomecontexts,especiallyindevelopingcountries,theremaynotbeanurgentneedforinnovationasmuchasthereisanurgentneedforotherinterventions.Someexamplesincludeincreasededucationalspending,politicalreformswithinthissector,teachertraining,andsocio-culturalshiftsinattitudestowardseducation.Fourthly,fortechnologicalinnovations

34

tobeadopted,adaptedandintegratedtoenhancelearningandteachingoutcomes,theyareoftenincrementalimprovementstoproveneducationalinterventionsandnotradicaltransformations.Fifthly,suchinnovationscanactuallyaccelerateeducationalinequalities;forinstance,bybeingpilotedamongselectgroupsoverothers.Lastly,wearguethatitisimpossibletodisassociatetechnologicalinnovationfromthelargereducationalstructureitaimstoreform.Fortheseinnovationstotakeroot,thereneedstobeanacknowledgementinthedesignoftheseprizesthattheyarenotself-containedsolutions(e.g.self-directedlearningsystems).Severalfactorsinfluenceinnovationincludingtheschoolingprocess,teachers,learner’sabilities,andculturalattitudes,alloftenneglectedwhenassessingimpactoftheseprizesontechnologicalinnovation.

Assumption#2Prizesstimulateinnovation

Historicalandempiricaldatapointtowardsthepositiveimpactincentiveprizeshaveoninnovationingeneral.However,mostofthisevidenceusespatentsasproxiesforinnovation.Inwhichcase,thereismountingevidencethatthereislittlecorrelationbetweenpatentsandinnovationandinfact,thereisacompellingcaseonpatent’snegativeimpactoninnovation.Hence,prizesthatusepatentsascentraltoitsdesignarelesslikelytoattractinnovation.Thereisnooneproxyforinnovation,especiallyintheeducationsector.Themessyrealitiesofthefieldofeducationmakemeasuringtechnologicalinnovationatremendouschallenge.Whatwehaveinsteadaredesignincentivestobestguidefundingagenciestomaximizetheuseofprizestofulfiltheirobjectivesandgoals.

Assumption#3Prizesaremostefficientcomparedtootherfundingmechanisms

Contrarytopopularbelief,prizesarefarfromefficient.Competitionisinherentlywastefulandfailureisthenorm.The“commonpool”problemofredundancythroughduplicateresearchamonginnovatorsneedtoberecognized.Whilethisisnormativeinthetechnologyindustry,thedevelopmentsectorisaccountabletotaxpayersandisoftencashstrapped.Furthermore,fundingagenciesfacemorebureaucracyandinvestfarmoretimeandresourcesinthisprocess,morethantraditionalgrants.However,thistrade-offcanbeworthitifsponsorsuseprizesstrategicallytogarnerpublicattentiontoasocialcause,sendamarketsignaltochannelresearchinatargeteddirection,closethegaponmarketinformationregardinganascentareaofeducationalinnovation,andopenupthisprocesstoapplicantsbeyondtheusualsuspects.

Assumption#4Scalabilityisagoodproxyforsustainability

Thisreportrevealsthatmostprizesinthisareaarestructuredwithsustainabilityinmind.Sustainabilityisembeddedintheselectioncriteriaanddesignoftheimpacttesting.Scalabilityoftheinnovationisoftenexplicitlyhighlightedintheprizedesignprocessasameasureofsustainability.Inmanyways,thisisagoodproxy.Diffusionofinnovationisjustascriticalastheinnovationitself.Prizesthatenforceopensource,creativecommonslicensingandopenpatentsystemsareinalignmentwithsustainabilityofthetechnologicalinnovation.Theseincentivesenableotherinnovatorstobuildonprototypestocreatealternativeproductsor/andimprovetheexistingproduct.Inotherwords,sustainabilityinthiscontextistheongoingbuildingofthetechnologicalinnovation(forinstance,byadding

35

multiplelanguages,tailoringcontenttosuitdifferentculturalcontexts,cateringtodiverselearnersandsubjects,andmodifyingtheproducttoincreaseengagementandtherebyexpandtheuserbase).

Thereismuchevidencethatprizesaresuccessfulatpilotingprogramsandproductsbutfewstudiesdemonstratehowtheseprojectsachievepublicoutreach.Thisispartlyduetothestructuralconstraintsofprizeshavingshort-termfundingcycles.Fewprizesofferanypost-structuralsupporttoextendthelifeofthewinninginnovationsafterthecompetitionisover.Thisreportrecommendsthatprizesshouldcombinewithtraditionalgrantsortheprivatesectorviaseedinvestmentstofosterthecontinuationofthiseffort,witheligibilitycriteriabeingthatapplicantsneedtobefinalistsofthecompetition.AgoodexampleistheCarbonTrust’sAcceleratorprogramme,whichbeginswithaprizeandendswithseedinvestmentintothewinningenterprisefromCarbonTrust,matchedbyotherprivateinvestors.Alternatively,theprizecanbestructuredasapre-commercialprocurementtobringtheproducttomarketsuchasNorad’sinnovationcompetition.Generally,however,technologicalinnovationsinthissectorrarelyreachmarketsuccessduetoitstargetdemographic,emphasisonlocalization,andthecurrentclosedstateoftheglobalappeconomywithabiastowardstheEnglishlanguage.Hence,successinthisarenacannotbedictatedsolelybycommercialindicatorsbutratheronlong-termpolicygoalsanduserimpactandoutreach.

Wecanincreasetheoddsofsuccessoftheseprizesthroughpartnershipswiththetechnologyindustry,whosecoreexpertiseistodevelopandscaleinnovation.Itisimportanttomaketransparentthenatureofpublic-privatepartnershipslesttheseprizesstarttoservetheinterestsoftheprivatesectoroverthewelfareofthesociety.However,todate,wedonothaveaclearsetofincentivestostimulatetheongoinginvolvementofthetechnologyindustrywithinthissectorforsustainability.Weareawarethattheircollaboratingwithestablishedfundingagenciesisdrivenbypublicrelations,reputationmanagementandbrandingandtoalesserdegree,insightintoapotentiallyvastandlargelyuntappedconsumerbaseatthebottomofthepyramid.However,user-payasastrategytoscaletheinnovationislesslikelytoworkgiventhedearthofevidenceonBOPmodelsgeneratingmajorprofit.Thereby,sponsorsneedtobevaryofuser-payasascalablefactortoensuresustainability.

Anotherwayofincreasingthechanceofsuccessinscalabilityoftheinnovationisthroughmeaningfullocalpartnershipsthatwillembedtheseinnovationsinthecurrenteducationalsystem.However,fewprizesstructureinlocalpartnershipsaspartoftheirsustainabilitycriteria.Partly,thisisduetothedesignofprizesthatimplicitlypositionthelocalsystemastheproblemforwhichtheinnovationneedstocircumvent.Partly,thisisduetolowornon-existingincentivesforthelocalactorstoembedtheseinnovationsintheirsystemor/andbeinnovatorsthemselves.Partly,thisisduetopressureoninnovatorstodemonstratehighimpact,leadingthemtosupplantratherthansupporttheexistingeducationalsystem.Hence,itisnotsurprisingthatmanyinnovationsaredesignedfortheinformaleducationalcontext.However,sponsorsneedtonotethatnon-formalprogramsandproductsundergo

36

tremendouschallengesingainingaccreditationandcertificationinthelocalcontext,deterringsustainability.

Asweseeabove,attimes,scalabilityandsustainabilityiscomplementary.However,giventhatdevelopmentagenciesfocusonthemostmarginalizeddemographics(leastdevelopingcountries,womenandchildren,refugees,personsofdisabilityetc.),valuingsustainabilityofaninnovationbasedonscalabilitymaybeproblematic.Forexample,awell-developedinnovationtopreserveadyingtriballanguageisnotscalablebutcanhavelong-termsustainableimpact.Thereby,inthedesigningoftheprizes,sponsorsneedtoaskthemselveswhattheircriteriaareformeasuringsustainabilityandifscalabilityfitsasameasureoftheircoregoals.Werecommendengagementasabetterproxyforsustainabilityasitsignalsabottom-updemandandputsthelearnerandthelocalcontextatthecenterofthisprocess.

Whataresomekeyrecommendationsinthedesignofprizes?Wesuggestaseriesofrecommendationsfollowingtheframeworkwehavedeployedinthisreport,namely:

ResourcesSponsorshipsandpartnershipsInthismarketizationclimate,itisnotsurprisingthatthebulkoftheprizecapitalcomesfromcorporationsandphilanthropyorganizations,drivenbytheircommercialinterests,individualpassions,andoftenshort-termpoliticalgain.Thissituationisexacerbatedbyseriousbudgetcutsinpublicfinancinginthissector.Therearegainsintheprivatizationoffundingsuchasprovidingexpertiseinbringinginnovationstothemarket.However,long-termsustainabilityremainsaconcern.Hence,thisreportrecommendsongoingandtransparentevaluationofcorrelatingprizecapitaltolong-termeducationdevelopmentgoalstoidentifygapsinfundingforprojectsanddemographicsthatdonotfitthecommercialagenda.UsingnewintermediariessuchasInnoCentivehaveproventobeeffectiveincost-savingandingeneratingnovelideas.However,forpublicsectoractors,whoseoverarchingmissionissocietalbenefit,theyneedtoscrutinizedigitallaborrightsandcopyrightagreementspriortotheformalizingofthesepartnerships.Lastly,thisreportrecommendsbuildingpartnershipswithbeneficiarycountriesandtheirgovernmentsintheprizeprocessforlong-termsustainability.

StructureTypeofprizesandeligibilitycriteriaClearly,incentiveprizesdominatethissectorandappeartobegrowingexponentially.Tosomedegree,thisisunderstandablegiventhetechnologyinnovationfocus,compellingsponsorstostimulatediversityininnovatorsandinnovationsattheonsetthroughsuchprizes.However,thisreporthaspointedoutthe“goldilocks”dilemmaondiversity,recommendingsponsorstotailorthebarriersofentrybasedonhowtargetedtheirinterventionneedstobe.Whilethepotofgoldattheendofthetunnelmaybeagoodmotivatorforinnovatorsseekingtheseprizes,itstillleavesthemcash-strappedintheprocessofbringingtheirinnovationtothemarket.Themosteffectiveincentiveprizesarethosethatprovidestagedfinancialsupporttothepre-screenedcandidates.Thisallowsthem

37

tofocusontheirideasinsteadofchannelingenergiestoattractsponsorshipsandgrantsduringthisprocess.

Thequestionforsponsorshoweverisifrecognitionprizesarestillrelevantintoday’s“impact”orientedandresult-drivenfundingmarket.Theanswerisyes.Whileincentiveprizesarebiasedtowardssupportingyoungentrepreneurs,thereisstillacasetobemadeforexpertiseandexperience.Recognitionprizesshouldbetargetedtowardsinnovativeprojectsandproductsexistinginthebeneficiarycountriesandcontexts.Localmunicipalities’exemplifyingbestpracticesintheirusageofnewtechnologyintheeducationalsectorandbeingrecognizedfortheseeffortscansendastrongmarketsignaltootherlocalentitiestoperformbetter.Thiswillcontributetothelong-termsustainabilityoftheinnovation.Lastly,devicespecificationshaveadisproportionateinfluenceonthenatureofinnovation,therebyneedingspecialattention.Sponsorsneedtopushfordevicesthatarecost-effective,contextuallyrelevantandcommonplaceandhavethepotentialtoscaleinthenearfuture.Giventheglobalcommitmentstomitigatingthedigitaldividethroughnewbroadbandpoliciesforinstance,sponsorsneedtopushforinnovationstailoredfornearfutureaccessratherthanthecurrentstateofaccessamongbeneficiaries.

Scope&TypeofprojectsInreviewingtheprizesinthissector,certainprioritieshaveemerged,namelythefocusonearlyeducation,basicliteracy,childrenandadults,andtechnology-centricsolutions.Whilesponsorsaregenerallyinagreementwithglobalpoliciesandtheiremphasisontheleastdevelopedcountriesandmostvulnerablepopulations,inreality,fewprizesreflectthisconcern.BudgetconstraintsandcurrentICTinfrastructuresinleastdevelopedcontextsarecitedaskeyreasonsforthesechoices.Werecommendthatsponsorsofferprizestargetedtothemostmarginalizedgroupsbyexpandingthescopetoproject-basedinnovations,wheretechnologyisacomponentbutnotcentraltotheseinnovations.

Regardingbasicliteracy,itisunderstandablewhythisisappealingasitallowstheseinnovationstoscaleintheglobalSouth.Forinstance,math-centricappsarepopularforscaling,astheydonotrequireculturalandlinguisticadaptationandcanbedeployedonnon-smartmobilephonesaccessibletomostofthetargetusers.However,ifsponsorswanttobridgethedividebetweenthewayICTsineducationareemployedintheglobalNorthtofoster21stcenturyskillsofcriticalandcreativethinkingversustheglobalSouthwithanemphasisonbasicliteracy,theyneedtoinvolvetheteachersontheground.Recognitionprizesshouldbetargetedatpromisingteachersinthelocalcontext.Thiswillalsoaddressthecurrentneglectofteachersinthescopeofmostprizes.ICT-basededucationalinnovationsthataredesignedtoreplaceteachersandfosterself-directedlearningarecommonamongthewinningprojectsanalyzed.Whilethisisunderstandable,aswedonotwantalostgenerationduetosystemicfailures,sponsorsshouldrecognizethatself-directedlearninginnovationsarenotsustainable,astheydonottargettherootsofthesystem’sfailure.

Interestingly,thereviewofprizesdemonstratestrongsuccessinproducinglocalizedinnovationsthatareculturallyandlinguisticallyappropriatetothebeneficiaries.Thejuryisstilloutonhowtheselocalizedsuccessesscale,ifatall.However,aswehavepointedout

38

earlier,scalabilityshouldnotbeviewedasasacrosanctmeasureofsustainability.Anotherclearpatternhasemergedfromtheanalysis,namely,thattheseinnovationsarebasedonexistingtechnicalinfrastructures.Aswehaveremarkedearlier,incentiveprizesinvolveaprocessthatcantakeafewyearsfortheproducttoreachthemarket.Werecommendthatinnovationsshouldtargetnearfuturetechnicalinfrastructuralaspirationsversusthecurrentstatetoavoidcreatingproductsthatbecomequicklyredundant,resultinginlow-engagementandtherebylowimpact.Thisdemandsfosteringkeypartnershipswiththetechnologyindustryandprovidingstrongincentivesfortheprivatesectortogetinvolvedtotackleformidablechallengesindigitalaccess,especiallyamongmarginalizedgroups.Forinstance,whileFacebook’sinternet.orginitiativehascausedmuchcontroversyinIndiaandEgyptduetoitsnetneutralityviolations,thisinitiativehaspressuredlocalgovernmentstoaccelerateinternetaccessamongtheirpoor.

Phases,R&DprocessandField-testingItisevidentthataphasedapproachisbeneficialtoboththeparticipantsandthesponsorsinthedesignofincentiveprizes.Participantscaninvestincrementallyinthisprocessbasedontheirprogress,andastheyadvance,theywillbemorelikelytogainadditionalsponsorshipfromexternalsourcesaswellasbemotivatedtocompletetheirproject.Simultaneously,sponsorscanweedoutapplicantsandtargettheirfundingandenergiesonafewkeyapplicantsthroughtheapplicationofmultiplebarriersofentrytoreachthefinals.FeworganizationssuchasXPRIZEhavesuchgenerousprizepurses,whichallowthemtonotofferfinancialsupportthroughtheprocessandyetattractapplicants.Hence,giventhisisananomalyinprizes,werecommendthatsponsorslookatincentiveprizesasanR&Dprocessofphasedfundinginstead.Itisalsoclearthatfield-testingwithintheprizeprocessisbeneficialtobothsponsorsandapplicantsasitprovidesaninvaluablefeedback-loopfortheongoingimprovementoftheinnovationoverthecourseoftheprizeperiod.However,werecommendthatfield-testingtemplatesshouldnotbeindiscriminatelyappliedtoallinnovation,asthatcouldcompelapplicantstofittheirinnovationtothefield-testingmodel,compromisingthenoveltycomponent.Thebesttemplatesareco-designedwiththeinnovatorandtheevaluatorwiththeendgoalsinmind.

IntellectualPropertyRightsMostprizeshaveadoptedthemid-wayapproach,wherethewinningsolutionsneedtobereleasedunderroyaltyfreecopyrightlicensesandthesoftwarereleasedunderopensourcelicenseswhileinnovatorsarefreetopursuethecommercializingoftheirproductsbybuildingontheseprototypestofitdemand.However,especiallyinthissector,therealityofmostoftheseinnovationsreachingcommercialviabilityislowforanumberofreasons(userscan’torwon’tpay,scalingisproblematic,marketingexpertiseismissingetc.).Moreimportantly,thereismuchevidencethatpatentscanhaveanegativeimpactoninnovation.Whilethecultureofcollaborationisembeddedinmostprizes,itisdifficulttobalancethiswithprotectionagainstidea-theft.Hence,werecommendthatprizesshouldnotstructurecommercialviabilitythroughpatentingasthekeystrategyforinnovators.Moreimportantly,werecommendaspecialreporttoassesstheIPchoicesthatsponsorsandapplicantshavethatcanbestmaximizetheseinnovationsforsocialgoodandpersonalgain,includingtrademarks,copyleft,andopenpatentingsystems.

39

MotivatorsMonetaryvs.Non-monetaryIncentivesMostevidencepointstoapplicantsmoremotivatedbynon-monetaryincentivessuchaspublicityfortheirinnovation,networkingwithkeyagenciesandmentorshipthanmonetaryincentivessuchasthesizeofthepurse.Whilecommercialviabilityasanincentiveappliestoprizesingeneral,intheICTinEducationsector,thereislittleevidencetovalidatethisproposition.User-payisunlikelytobeakeystrategygiventheevidenceonBOPmodelsthatattempttoconvertlow-incomebeneficiariesintopayingcustomerswithlittleprovenimpact.Hence,werecommendthatsponsorsneedtofocusmoreonthenetworking,mentoringandpublicityaspectoverthecommercializationoftheinnovation.

CommunicationsMarketingGiventhatmajorityofapplicantsaremotivatedbythepublicitythattheseprizesgeneratefortheirinnovation,itiscriticalforsponsorstosolidifyandleverageonallformsofcommunicationtogetthemessageout.Whileitisclearthatsocialmediaisthenewandimportantfrontier,therearenostudiestoourknowledge,whichsynthesizessponsorsandapplicantspracticeswiththesenewtools.Further,thereislittleresearchonhowcrowdfundingandcrowdsourcingcanbemaximizedforexternalinvestmentsandfield-testingrespectivelywhilegeneratingpublicattention.Lastly,thereislittleguidanceonhowdataminingtoolscanbeusedeffectivelytogaininsightintouserbehaviorwiththeseprototypesduringandaftertheprizeprocess.Hence,werecommendthatabestpracticesreportbeundertakentocapturethespectrumofsocialmediaandbigdatatoolsouttheretoserveprizesintheICTinEducationsector.

Lastly,sponsorsneedtotakenotethatmostpublicityisgearedtowardsotherfundingagenciesandinnovators.However,whatisneglectedissocialmarketingtargetedattheuseritself,mostofwhomresideinmarginalizedcontextsintheglobalSouth.Wecannotfollowthemantraof“ifyoubuildittheywillcome”inthishighlycompetitivedigitalenvironment.Thereby,werecommendthatgiventhatuserengagementandadoptionoftheinnovationisakeyingredienttosuccess,prizesneedtostructureinuser-targetedmarketingatthecoreoftheircommunicationstrategy,usingbotholdandnewmasscommunicationtechnologiesattheirdisposal.Facebookcanserveasanimportantpartnerinsocialmarketingtotheendusergiventheirenormouspopularityamongthisvastlow-incomegroup.

EvaluationMeasuringImpact

Ouranalysisshowsthatmostsponsorsdonotconductoratleastdonotdisclosemonitoringandevaluation(M&E)ofthelong-termimpactoftheirprizes.Anumberofreasonsinfluencethisdecision–itiscost-intensive,itishardtostandardizegiventhatoftenevaluationisself-reportedandexecutedbytheapplicantsthemselves,anditishardtoisolatetheimpactoftechnologyfromotherfactors(suchasinstitutionalsupport,qualityofteachersetc.).Inspiteofthesereasons,thisisstillanimportantefforttoimprovetheprizeprocess.Future

40

prizescanthoughtfullyincorporatelessonslearntandtherebyheightentheirefficacy,astheywillbearmedwithbettermarketinformationtoselectinnovationsthataremorelikelytogeneratethebestresults.Further,thereisclearlyasignificantbiastowardsquantifiedoverqualifiedmeasuresingaugingimpact,whichcanleadtomisleadingandincompleteassessmentsoftheseinnovations.Hence,werecommendthatsponsorsseriouslyconsiderexpandingandtargetingtheirbudgettowardspostM&Eoftheirprizesaswellasadoptamixedmethodsapproachtotheseimpactstudies.

Long-termSustainabilityItisevidentthatwithoutlocalpartnershipsintheimplementingprocessoftheprizes,innovationscannotreachfruition,howeverpromisingtheymayappeartobe.Sustainabilityhereshouldbeframedalonga)technologicallines(forinstance,areprototypesbeingbuiltupon,supportedandupdatedtoremainrelevant?),b)institutionallines(forinstance,willlocalinstitutionsembedtheseinnovationsintheirsystems?IstherebothlocalandglobalpoliticalcommitmenttosupportingICTandeducationalinfrastructures?)andc)financiallines(forinstance,alongwithprizes,whatkindofpostprizefundingisavailableforinnovationstobescaledorimproved?).

Weshouldalsonotunderestimatetheimpactofvolunteerismasameanstosustainability(e.g.theWikipediamodel)andstudiesshouldbeconductedonhowbesttodesignincentivestoattract,sustainandsupportvolunteersinthisprocess.Lastly,giventhatinnovationcomesatthecostofahighfailurerate,werecommendthatsponsorsneedtoembedfailureasanessentialandnotnecessarilynegativeingredientintheirframingoflong-termsustainability.Thiswouldindeedbecostintensiveforsponsorsasthefundingcycleneedstosupportongoingexperimentationuntilfailureturnstosuccess.Alternatively,sponsorsneedtodisassociateinnovationfromsustainabilityintheircriteriaforprizes.

ConcludingthoughtsPrizeshavecapturedtheimaginationofthesponsorsandthepublicalike.Itiscommonknowledgethatnewtechnologystimulatesnewhopetoaddresschronicsocialinequalities,inthiscase,inaccessandqualityeducationtomostoftheworld’spopulationwhoresideindevelopingcountries.Themarketizationoffundingisseenasanecessaryresponsetotechnologicalinnovationinthissector.ThereportaddressesamajorgapinresearchonprizesusedtospurinnovationintheICTinEducationsector,particularlyintheglobalSouth.Thereportisthefirstofitskindtoprovideacriticalsynthesisofprizesinthisarena.Bynomeansisthisacomprehensivereviewofalltheprizesinthissector.However,thisshouldserveasalaunchingpadtothinkdeeplyabouttheassumptionsandtherangeofcriteriathatcontributestounderstanding“impact”whendesigningtheprize.Thisreportguidessponsorsintheweighingoftheissuesathand,includingcomparingprizestomoretraditionalformsoffunding.

Despitethepromisethatincentiveprizesholdintermsoftheincreasednumberofgeneratedsolutionsandsocialentrepreneurship,thereisnoproofofimpactonlearningoutcomes.Incentiveprizesfocusprimarilyonpilotingaspartoftheprizeprocess,andthisislimitedtothefinalists.Thereislittleempiricalevidenceonthebuildingoftheseinnovations

41

intosustainablesolutionsforintractableproblemsintheeducationsector.Oneparticularcauseofconcernisthatnewplayersmighthavelimitedknowledgeorexperienceinimplementingtheirsolutionsinthefield.TheymightbeabletocreatetherightICTsolutiontoatargetedproblembutlacktheexperienceinimplementation,knowledgeofworkingwithlocalgovernmentsanddon’tcomewithessentiallocalandglobalnetworkstoensuresupportandadoptionoftheirsolutions.Clearly,incentiveprizesalonearenotenoughtogeneratesustainablesolutions.Weneedtherightcocktailoffundingmechanismsandpartnershipstocreategenuineeducationalreform.Thisrequiresgoingbeyondthepilotphaseandviewingtheroleoftechnologyinnovationineducationassupplementalbutnotintegraltothesuccessofthereform.

Innovationineducationisnotnecessarilyaboutcomingupwiththenextbigthing.Rather,itisaboutbuildingoneffortsthathaveproventoworkbefore,replicatingthemandinmostcontexts,scalinguptheirimpact.Itseems,however,thatprizesponsorsaremovingawayfromlimitinginnovationineducationassupplementaltosomethingunprecedentedandrevolutionary.Whilethismakesforgoodmedia,itcomesatthepriceofgenuinereform.Afterall,asJuan-PabloGiraldofromUNICEFargues(2016),“thegoalofprizes,competitionsorchallengesisnottospurinnovationineducationperse.Thegoalofprizes,fromourperspectiveassponsors,istosourcewhatisalreadyhappeningoutthere.”

AcknowledgementsIwouldliketothankthefollowingpeopleinassistingonthisreport:MarkWestfromUNESCOforhisongoingsupportandconstructivefeedback;AndreasEberhardBühlerforhispolicyinput;MattKellerfromXPRIZEforgenerouslyprovidingaccesstotheXPRIZEstaffandapplicantsatthe2016UNESCOMobileLearningWeek.Mostimportantly,IwouldliketothankAndreaGudmundsdóttir,apromisingyoungPhDscholarforworkingcloselywithmeonthisreportandprovidingexcellentcontributionsthroughouttheprocess.

ReferencesAdler,J.H.(2011).Eyesonaclimateprize:Rewardingenergyinnovationtoachieveclimate

stabilization.HarvardEnvironmentalLawReview,35(1),1-45.Archibugi,D.,&Filippetti,A.(2016).Theretreatofpublicresearchanditsadverse

consequencesoninnovation.CenterforInnovationManagementResearch(CIMR)WorkingPaperSeries(31),1-27.

Arora,P.(2016).Bottomofthedatapyramid:Bigdataandtheglobalsouth.InternationalJournalofCommunication,10,1681–1699.

Arora,P.(2010a).Hope-in-the-Wall?Adigitalpromiseforfreelearning.BritishJournalofEducationalTechnology,41(5),689-702.

Arora,P.(2010b).Dotcommantra:SocialcomputingintheCentralHimalayas.Surrey,UK.:AshgatePublishing.

Beetham,H.,&Sharpe,R.(2015).Rethinkingpedagogyforadigitalage.Heidelberg:Springer.

Blok,V.,&Lemmens,P.(2015).Theemergingconceptofresponsibleinnovation.Threereasonswhyitisquestionableandcallsforaradicaltransformationoftheconceptof

42

innovation.InB.Koops,I.Oosterlaken,H.Romijn,T.Swierstra,&J.VandenHovenpp(Eds.)ResponsibleInnovation2,pp.19-35.Springer.

Brunt,L.,Lerner,J.,&Nicholas,T.(2012).Inducementprizesandinnovation.TheJournalofIndustrialEconomics,60(4),657-696.

Boldrin,M.,&Levine,D.K.(2013).Thecaseagainstpatents.TheJournalofEconomicPerspectives,27(1),3-22.

Publishedby:AmericanEconomicAssociationBugg-Levine,A.,B.,Kogut,&N.,Kulatilaka.(2012).Anewapproachtofundingsocial

enterprises.HarvardBusinessReview.Retrievedfromhttps://hbr.org/2012/01/a-new-approach-to-funding-social-enterprises

CaribouDigital(2016).Winners&losersintheglobalappeconomy.Farnham,Surrey,UnitedKingdom:CaribouDigitalPublishing.

DeutscheGesellscha!fürInternationaleZusammenarbeit(GIZ).(2016).Educationinconflictandcrisis:Howcantechnologymakeadifference?Alandscapereview.Retrievedfrom:http://www.ineesite.org/en/resources/landscape-review-education-in-conflict-and-crisis-how-can-technology-make-a

DFID(2013).Innovationprizesforenvironmentanddevelopment(IP4ED):Businesscaseandinterventionsummary.Retrievedfromhttp://iati.dfid.gov.uk/iati_documents/3954668.docx

Doblin,theinnovationpracticeofDeloitteConsultingLLP(2014).Thecraftofincentiveprizedesign:Lessonsfromthepublicsector.Retrievedfromhttp://casefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/TheCraftofIncentivePrizeDesign.pdf

EducationForAll(2015).Educationglobalmonitoringreport.Retrievedfrom:http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002322/232205e.pdf

Everett,B.(2011).Evidencereview:Environmentalinnovationprizesfordevelopment.CommissionedReportbyDFIDResourceCentreforEnvironment,WaterandSanitation,DEWPointEnquiryNo.A0405.Retrievedfrom:http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/pdf/outputs/misc_env/61061-A0405EvidenceReviewEnvironmentalInnovationPrizesforDevelopmentFINAL.pdf

EuropeanCommission(2016).HorizonPrizes–Research&Innovation.Retrievedfromhttps://ec.europa.eu/research/horizonprize/index.cfm?pg=home

Jenson,J.(2013).Technologygoestocamp:Anargumentforscalability,mobilityandhybridity.InD.Dippo,A.Orgocka,&W.Giles(Eds.),ReachingHigher:Theprovisionofhighereducationforlong-termrefugeesintheDadaabCamps,Kenya(pp.42-50).Toronto,Canada:YorkUniversity.Retrievedfromhttp://refugeeresearch.net/ms/bher/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2013/10/BHER_Feasibility_Study_Report_February_20_2013_v4_new_org_chart_9-3-13.pdf

Johnson,L.,AdamsBecker,S.,Estrada,V.,andFreeman,A.(2015).NMCHorizonReport:2015HigherEducationEdition.Austin,Texas:TheNewMediaConsortium.

Hemel,D.J.,&Ouellette,L.L.(2013).Beyondthepatents–prizesdebate.TexasLawReview,92,303-382.

Huang,R.,Kinshuk,&Spector,J.M.(2013).Reshapinglearning:Frontiersoflearningtechnologyinaglobalcontext.Heidelberg:Springer.

Kay,L.(2011).Howdoprizesinduceinnovation?LearningfromtheGoogleLunarX-Prize.(Doctoraldissertation).Retrievedfrom

43

https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/41193/Kay_Luciano_201108_phd.pdf

King,A.,&Lakhani,K.R.(2013).Usingopeninnovationtoidentifythebestideas.MITSloanManagementReview,55(1),41-48.

Kolk,A.,Rivera-Santos,M.,&Rufín,R.(2014).Reviewingadecadeofresearchonthe‘base/bottomofthepyramid’(BOP)concept.Business&Society,53(3),338–377.

Lepore,J.(June23,2014).TheDisruptionMachine:Whatthegospelofinnovationgetswrong.TheNewYorker.Retrievedfromhttp://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/06/23/the-disruption-machine

Lohr,S.(2009,Sept.21).Netflixawards$1millionprizeandstartsanewcontest.TheNewYorkTimes.Retrievedfromhttp://www.nytimes.com/column/bits

McKinsey&Company(2009).“Andthewinneris…”:Capturingthepromiseofphilanthropicprizes.Retrievedfromhttp://mckinseyonsociety.com/capturing-the-promise-of-philanthropic-prizes/

Moran,M.(2014).PrivateFoundationsandDevelopmentPartnerships.NewYork:RoutledgeGlobalInstitutionsSeries.

Moser,P.(2013).Patentsandinnovation:Evidencefromeconomichistory.JournalofEconomicPerspectives,27(1),23-44.

Nesta,&theCentreforChallengePrizes(2014).Challengeprizes:Apracticalguide.Retrievedfromhttp://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/challenge-prizes-practice-guide

OECD(2014),Measuringinnovationineducation:Anewperspective.OECDPublishing,Paris,http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264215696-en

Reckhow,S.,&Snyder,J.W.(2014).Theexpandingroleofphilanthropyineducationpolitics.EducationalResearcher,43(4),186-195.

Rourke,B.(2010).Promotinginnovation:Prizes,challengesandopengrantmaking.AreportfromtheconferencehostedbytheCaseFoundation,theWhiteHouseOfficeofScienceandTechnologyPolicy,andtheWhiteHouseDomesticPolicyCouncil.Retrievedfromhttp://casefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/PromotingInnovation.pdf

TheEconomist(Aug10,2010).Innovationprizes:Andthewinneris…Retrievedfromhttp://www.economist.com/node/16740639

Tong,R.,&Lakhani,K.R.(2012).Public-privatepartnershipsfororganizingandexecutingprize-basedcompetitions.TheBerkmanCenterforInternet&SocietyatHarvardUniversity,2012-13,1-25.

Traxler,J.,&Kukulska,A.(eds.).(2016).Mobilelearning:Thenextgeneration.NewYork:Routledge.

UnitedNationsSustainableDevelopmentGoals(2016).SustainableDevelopmentGoalsFramework.Retrievedfrom:http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

UNESCO(2011).Transformingeducation:ThepowerofICTpolicies.Retrievedfrom:http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002118/211842e.pdf

VonSchomberg,R.(2013).Avisionofresponsibleresearchandinnovation.InR.Owen,M.Heintz,andJ.Bessant(eds),ResponsibleInnovation.London:Wiley.

Reviewoftrendsfrommobilelearningstudies:Ameta-analysisWu,W.,Wu,J.,Chen,C.,Kao,H.,Lin,C.,&Huang,S.(2012).Reviewoftrendsfrommobilelearning

studies:Ameta-analysis.Computers&Education,59(2),817–827.

44

Zients,J.D.(2010).Guidanceontheuseofchallengesandprizestopromoteopengovernment.Memorandumfortheheadsofexecutivedepartmentsandagencies[M-10-11].RetrievedfromtheWhiteHousewebsite:https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_2010/m10-11.pdf

Appendix

Table2:FocusofPrizes

Explanationofsymbols:�=YesX=No−=Possiblebutnotsolefocus−*=Oneofthemainfocusareas

Prize FocusonICT-basedinnovations

Focusoneducation

Focusondevelopingcountries

TargetBeneficiaries

ACRGCDGrantCompetition � � � Children(grade1-3)

BarbaraBushFoundationAdultLiteracyXPRIZE

� � X Adults

CamelbackVentures–LuminaFoundationChallenge

− � − Post-secondarylevel

D-Prize � − � Children&adults

EnablingWriters � � � Children(grade1-3)

EduApp4Syria � � � Children(Syrian4-10)

Empoweringpeople.Award � −* � Children&adults

GlobalLearningXPRIZE � � � ChildrenGlobalTeacherPrize − � − Children(5-

18)HultPrize − − − Children&

adultsJapanPrize:InternationalContestforEducationalMedia

� � − Children&adults

LibraryofCongressLiteracyAwards − � − Children&adults

45

Milken-EducatorAwards − � X Children(K-12)

Milken-PennGSEEducationBusinessPlanCompetition

− � − Children&adults

MobileforGoodAwards � � � Children(uptohighereducation)

MobilesforReading � � � Children(grade1-3)

NASSCOMSocialInnovationForum � −* � Children(uptosecondaryeducation)

SocialEntrepreneuroftheYear–IndiaAward

− −* � Children&adults

TEDPrize − −* − Children&adults

TechAwardsandtheLaureateImpactAward

� −* − Children&adults

TechnologytoSupportEducationinCrisis&ConflictSettings

� � � Children

Tracking&TracingBooks � � � Children(grade1-3)

UNESCO-HamdanbinRashidAl-MaktoumPrizeforOutstandingPracticeandPerformanceinEnhancingtheEffectivenessofTeachers

− � � Children

UNESCO-JapanPrizeonEducationforSustainableDevelopment(ESD)

− � � Children

UNESCO-KingHamadBinIsaAlKhalifaPrize

� � � Children&adults

WiseAwards − � � Children&adults

WisePrizeforEducation − � � Children&adults

Table3:CashPurses

Prize CashPurse(USD)

TypeofPrize

GlobalLearningXPRIZE $15,000,000 IncentiveTheBarbaraBushFoundationAdultLiteracyXPRIZE $7,000,000 IncentiveACRGCDGrantcompetition $2,700,000 GrantEduApp4Syria $1,700,000 IncentiveTheGlobalTeacherPrize $1,000,000 Recognition

46

TheHultPrize $1,000,000 IncentiveTEDPrize $1,000,000 IncentiveMilkenEducatorAwards $900,000 RecognitionTechAwards $500,000 RecognitionWISEPrizeforEducation $500,000 RecognitionD-Prize $300,000 IncentiveUNESCO-HamdanbinRashidAl-MaktoumPrize $300,000 RecognitionLibraryofCongressLiteracyAwards $250,000 Recognitionempoweringpeople.Award $225,000 IncentiveUNESCO-JapanPrizeonEducationforSustainableDevelopment

$150,000 Recognition

TheMilken-PennGSEEducationBusinessPlanCompetition

$138,000 Incentive

EnablingWriters $136,000 IncentiveTracking&TracingBooks $120,000 IncentiveWiseAwards $120,000 RecognitionMobileforGoodAwards $88,000 IncentiveNASSCOMSocialInnovationForum $88,000 IncentiveTechnologytoSupportEducationinCrisis&ConflictSettings

$50,000 Incentive

KingHamadBinIsaAlKhalifaPrize $50,000 RecognitionMobilesforReading $28,000 IncentiveTheJapanPrize:InternationalContestforEducationalMedia

$19,000 Recognition

CamelbackVentures–LuminaFoundationChallenge:ShapingtheNextFrontierinPostsecondaryEducation

$10,000 Incentive

TheSocialEntrepreneuroftheYear–IndiaAward $0 RecognitionTheLaureateImpactAward(TechAwards) Notspecified Recognition

Table4:Interviewees,Positions,andtheirOrganizations

Interviewee Position OrganizationLivMarteNordhaug

SeniorAdvisor NorwegianAgencyforDevelopmentCooperation

RebeccaChandler-Leege

ProjectDirector WorldVision

MichaelHollaender

Director DeutscheGesellschaftfuerInternationaleZusammenarbeit(GIZ)

AnthonyBloome SeniorEducationTechnologySpecialist

USAID

MattKeller SeniorDirector GlobalLearningXPRIZEKarenKaun Founder&Executive

Director&XPRIZEpastapplicant

Makeosity

47

EdMcNierney DirectorofTechnicalOperations

GlobalLearningXPRIZE

Juan-PabloGiraldo EducationSpecialist UNICEFShannonSmithfor Directorof

MarketingGlobalLearningXPRIZE

The InternationalCommissionon Financing GlobalEducation Opportunity

educationcommission.org