Cut the red tape, not the ideas: a manifesto for humanitarian innovation

This blog is authored by Suyog Raj Chalise, Chief Programs and Innovation Officer, Impact447

In this blog the guest author shares insights drawn from tech innovation, laying out how real breakthroughs come from bold thinkers willing to take risks, not from endless red tape.

‍More meetings, more oversight, and more reports—none of these guarantee more innovation. Real breakthroughs come from bold thinkers willing to take risks, not from endless red tape. When risk-taking is stifled, we don’t get innovation—we get innovation theatre. If we want genuine progress, we must make space for fearless experimentation, not drown it in paperwork.

In a world dominated by bureaucracy and risk aversion, true innovation demands bold vision and the freedom to experiment. Take the iPhone: at a time when Nokia and BlackBerry dominated, Apple disrupted the market by prioritising design and user experience. It took bold investment, experimentation and iteration to deliver a game-changing product. The App Store ensured long-term sustainability, while rigorous testing mitigated risk.

Humanitarian agencies can take valuable lessons from this approach. Like Apple, we must embed innovation and not treat it as an add-on. That means bold ideas, calculated risks, user-centred design, and partnerships that enable experimentation needs. From digital cash transfers to decentralised disaster response networks and predictive analytics transformative solutions already exist. But rigid s ystems often block them.

Bureaucracy kills innovation

Too often, administrative red tape, like exhaustive due diligence, inflexible contracting, rigid donor rules — creates barriers to scaling innovation. While accountability is essential, frameworks designed to prevent misuse can unintentionally punish risk-taking and experimentation.

True innovation does not mean reckless spending or blind experimentation. It’s about piloting new ideas, leveraging data for continuous refinement, and scaling only when solutions prove effective. The ethical dilemma is this: If bureaucratic constraints prevent agencies from adapting to evolving crises, are we truly serving those who are in need?

Humanitarian organisations must have the flexibility to pivot, to discard what doesn’t work, and to double down on what does without being paralysed by excessive oversight. Donors, too, must shift from funding only what is safe to supporting what is necessary.

The risk paradox

Having spent the past decade facilitating innovation in the humanitarian sector, I have seen one factor consistently determine success or failure: risk tolerance. The ability or inability to take risks, experiment, and iterate can mean the difference between groundbreaking solutions and wasted potential. Two contrasting examples illustrate this. In 2017, a blockchain-based digital assets transfer platform was piloted in Nepal, the cost of the pilot was just $5,000, very small in the grand scheme of things. The innovation ecosystem around it was built over two years, fueled by small but flexible private funding that allowed for experimentation. Crucially, they had the support of an enabling administrative structure and leadership that embraced uncertainty. The result? The platform became the go-to digital cash transfer system within its agency and later inspired the private sector to develop RAHAT—now a globally recognised innovation backed by UNICEF and GSMA.

Contrast that with another project, in the same innovation lab, a local team of innovators was developing a potentially game-changing solution: a low-cost, heavy-lift airbag system designed to help first responders rapidly clear debris and rescue people in crisis-affected regions. This solution had the potential to be game-changing in the Global South specially in crisis affected regions. But instead of support, they faced suffocating bureaucratic barriers. Rigid procurement rules and restrictions on fund mobilisation delayed material acquisition, making it nearly impossible to iterate and refine their prototype. Under pressure to meet donor deadlines, the team had to accelerate production, leading to ‘innovation fatigue.’ One exhausted team member told me, "I will never work on a donor-funded project again."  Ultimately, the innovation was stifled before it had the chance to prove its impact.

We must embrace ‘good failure’

If humanitarian organisations, donors, and host institutions are serious about fostering innovation, they must abandon their fear of failure.  We need a radical shift—one that rewrites contracts and funding models to embrace ‘good failures’: failure that produces insights and drives change.

Risk management should be embedded early in the innovation cycle, providing innovators with the time, resources, and structural support needed to navigate the messy and unpredictable challenges of scaling solutions. This means proactively engaging regulators, networks, and authorities from the start before they become insurmountable barriers. Internally, organisations must break through the silos and ensure that operations and programme teams are aligned around shared objectives to prevent conflicting priorities and responsibilities from hindering progress.

As I often emphasise,“Innovation shouldn’t be driven by just the innovation team, it must be woven into the DNA of the entire organisation.”Cultivating a culture that embraces change and informed risk-taking is crucial. Without it, we are merely sustaining systems, not transforming them.

Shifting power and the gatekeepers

Fostering innovation isn’t just about internal reform, it also requires shifting the power dynamics that dictate who gets to innovate and on what terms. The way innovation is funded, supported, and scaled is deeply intertwined with larger questions of power, control, and accountability. If we are serious about transforming the sector, we must go beyond individual organisational change and challenge the structures that determine whose ideas thrive and whose are left behind.

To shift power, we must move beyond donor-led incubators and IGOs that act as  intermediaries. These actors often control access to funding, legitimacy and scale. True power shifts require prioritising locally led innovation hubs and reducing reliance on international actors that perpetuate extractive relationships. Direct funding and decision-making must be placed in the hands of those with lived experience of the challenges being addressed, ensuring that innovation is rooted in local realities rather than external assumptions.

Too often, donors dictate these standards, devaluing local-led solutions until they gain Western recognition. This must end. We need to amplify locally driven successes and dismantle the myth that expertise exists only at the global level.

Follow the money

Accountability must also be a central demand. The humanitarian innovation community must actively track where funding truly goes, challenging the persistent pattern of Northern institutions receiving the majority of resources meant for "local innovation." Donors claiming to support localisation must be held accountable not just for outcomes but for who controls the purse strings. Transparency is essential to dismantling structures that keep local innovators dependent on global validation.

Collective action is the only way forward

Finally, collective action is essential. No single organisation can disrupt these deeply embedded systems alone. The humanitarian innovation community must unite to push for decolonized funding and governance structures, refuse to participate in performative localisation efforts, and build peer-to-peer networks within the local ecosystem that reduces reliance on global institutions for credibility and scale.

Innovation is not neutral, it is deeply political. As long as the global actors continue to set the rules of the game, true transformation will remain out of reach. The question is no longer whether the humanitarian sector should innovate, but whether it has the courage to dismantle and rebuild the systems that determine who gets to innovate and on whose terms.

‍

‍Failure to Scale

This paper explores the challenges humanitarian innovations face in achieving scale. Our research highlights why this issue matters, its implications, and its underlying causes.

Read more about this paper‍

Humanitarian procurement: challenges and opportunities in the adoption of WASH production innovations

This paper focuses on the demand side for product innovations and the connection between supply and demand, namely procurement. ‍

Read more about this paper‍

Impact evidence and beyond: Using evidence to drive adoption of humanitarian innovations

This learning paper provides guidance to humanitarian innovators on how to use evidence to enable and drive adoption of innovation.

Read more about this paper

‍