Debunking scale in humanitarian innovation - rethinking the climb

Type

Elrha insights

Area of funding

Humanitarian Innovation

Focus areas

Scale

Scaling innovation

Year

This blog is co-authored by Ana Santos and Sathy Rajasekharan

This is a two part blog. The first blog examines the flawed assumptions that define how humanitarian innovation is expected to scale. We question the burdens placed on innovators, the oversimplified models of replication, and the ambiguity of “sustainability” as an end goal. In part 2, we’ll explore what a more realistic and equitable approach to scale might look like.

In Greek mythology, Sisyphus was condemned to roll a boulder uphill for eternity, only to have it roll back down each time he reached the top. Are humanitarian innovators like Sisyphus, endlessly pushing their solutions uphill, only to see them roll back down again and again? What if our understanding of scale in humanitarian innovation is fundamentally flawed and sets innovators up to fail?

Elrha’s innovation journey of 4Ds prompted us to question whether scale is, and ought to be, the ultimate goal of humanitarian innovation.

There is a generalised expectation that innovators not only develop and test solutions to pressing challenges but also imagine, describe, plan, and commit to their scalability and economic, social, and environmental sustainability. Yet, these expectations of what we call “scale ownership” may place an unfair burden on innovators, who often lack the resources, networks, or institutional support necessary to navigate the complex pathways to scale.

Whether through commercial adoption or public implementation, scaling depends on countless external factors and actors, making the task inherently uncertain.

Like Sisyphus, the innovator’s relentless climb toward an elusive and sometimes ill-defined goal risks becoming a punishment rather than a path to progress.

Let's reimagine their journey...

^{The climb - challenges of driving humanitarian innovation to scale}

^‍Most innovators in the humanitarian space have encountered versions of the ‘innovation journey’: neatly delineated phases such as ‘proof of concept,’ ‘evidence of impact,’ and ‘widespread adoption,’ often depicted as a smooth hockey-stick curve of increasing reach and impact. They are then confronted with the question: “Where are you on this journey to scale? ”

This language of the innovation journey is borrowed from Silicon Valley’s startup culture, with little interrogation of the differences between innovating for a commercial market and innovating for impact in a fragile context. Furthermore, in our field, phases of the journey rely on insights from widely scaled public health interventions (e.g., polio vaccines or ARVs), with limited evidence from truly scaled innovations that are “sustainable.

”The “climb” towards scale is perhaps less well described or agreed upon than the phases preceding it. For example, while the necessity of experimentation in early stages is accepted as part of the innovation process, it is rarely planned for in later stages. Yet, we know that innovation at scale is even messier.

How do you scale a successful immunisation strategy in conflict regions or a refugee integration programme to accommodate different governments’ regulations on what a community health worker can do, or different NGOs’ operational regulations?

Let's look at some frequently heard statements about scaling:

‍
"Prove a concept, then replicate the process.” What works in a small setting often does not work in a larger one. Scaling may require more than ‘adapting’ a product or service; it could mean a wholesale pivot. A successfully scaled innovation may bear little resemblance to its origins. This does not indicate failure. On the contrary, it reflects a positive acceptance and interest of a variety of actors, and a healthy process of R&D(research and development), adaptation, and adjustment to maintain impact.

“As you scale, you can take advantage of economies of scale.” While marginal direct costs may decrease at scale, additional costs—such as hiring experienced staff or setting up multi-country offices—are often overlooked.

“Once you share evidence, you’ll get buy-in for scale.” Rigorous evidence is crucial to demonstrate impact, but the relationship between evidence and adoption is often tenuous – driven by relationships, trust, politics, timing, not just data. While government partners may demand more evidence, the use of evidence may not suffice to secure resources for deploying innovations and ensuring impact.

The point of it all - is scale an achievable goal?

Another aspect of the concept of scale is its treatment as the endline of the humanitarian innovation pathway. There is a widespread notion that humanitarian innovations ought to become sustainable—that every solution must eventually ‘stand on its own.’

When we ask for a sustainability plan, we are implicitly asking innovators to create and ensure the conditions required to scale and achieve the ambiguous goal of “sustainability.” Yet, the orientation towards effectiveness and autonomy of solutions overlooks systemic challenges and the transitions required among distinct domains: humanitarian aid, public policy, and commercial revenue.

Public policy domain: In public health or education systems, sustainability is framed differently, because the public investment they require is often guaranteed rather than conditional. Humanitarian innovators do not have the financial autonomy, nor is it their role, to sustain efforts and continuously improve such systems.

Humanitarian domain: Implementing partners are expected to ensure the sustainability of solutions, even in the absence of operational systems that facilitate and base systems that guarantee continuity. Humanitarian innovators face significant limitations in transferring innovations to beneficiary governments due to these gaps, and often struggle with misalignment of priorities.

Commercial domain: A commercial pathway for innovation often limits its social benefit, as the needs of the innovation’s end users shift. Humanitarian innovators grapple with whether their solutions’ objectives align with this model and may face obstacles within the context of their principled, non-for-profit, organisations.

The struggle for innovators lies in the fact that success cannot be measured through a single pathway but rather through multiple pathways and the interplay of multiple stakeholders. Humanitarian solutions thrive when governments, civil society, and private actors adopt them collectively, counterbalancing each other’s roles through negotiation and improved coordination. Yet, we seldom ask governments, industries, or partners close to affected populations what they can contribute to scaling.

‍

[To be continued in Part 2: Reimaging scale – collective ownership and adaptive learning]

‍

Read more about our Scaling Series

‍

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.

Stay updated

Sign up for our newsletter to receive regular updates on resources, news, and insights like this. Don’t miss out on important information that can help you stay informed and engaged.