Building Resilience and
Social Cohesion through
Local Innovation
Ecosystems in South
Sudan
Local innovation ecosystem evaluation in
South Sudan
Linda Ahimbisibwe, Laura Baracaldo, Gemma Pearson and Lydia Tanner
September 2022
Executive Summary 3
1 Introduction 5
2 Methodology 6
Overview 6
Limitations 8
Outline of the document 9
3 Learning and behaviour change 10
Summary of the chapter 10
Overview 10
Box 1: The CCB process 10
Technical skills and using tools 11
Design knowledge and skills 11
Mindsets 11
CCB-Business training 13
Participant perspectives 14
4 Technology development & use 17
Summary 17
The technologies 17
Saving labour 18
Earning an income 18
Box 2: Wheel Cart case study 20
5 Community dynamics 23
Summary 23
CCB participant demographics 23
Relationships developed among different groups 24
Impact of the project on women 25
6 Co-Creation Event 27
Summary 27
Background 27
Learning and skills development 28
Refining the technologies 29
Fostering community cohesion 29
7 A Local Innovation Ecosystem 31
Summary 31
Project set-up 31
Internal and external relationships 33
1
Participant selection 33
Delivering training 34
Materials 35
Flooding and security 36
Recommendations 37
Annexes 40
Annex 1: Evaluation framework 40
Annex 2: Outcome harvesting 43
Annex 3: Data collection 44
2
Executive Summary
The Creative Capacity Building (CCB) project was a pilot project to build a local innovation
ecosystem in two sites, Duk and Pibor in South Sudan, during 2022. The project aimed to train
people in the design process and to apply it to developing technologies, products and services
that would improve their quality of life, increase income generation, improve their agency and
problem solving skills and enhance social cohesion.
This report summarises the findings of an evaluation of the project conducted during January -
September 2022. It is based on primary data collected in Duk and Pibor including interviews,
focus groups, observations and outcome harvesting workshops. It also draws on a document
review, interviews with project staff, and survey data. The key findings included:
Knowledge and learning
1. Participants valued the hands-on nature of the training and learning to do things on
their own. They gained knowledge and skills in using tools, designing technologies, and
in basic business skills. They felt more confident about using tools to make things if
provided with materials. A small number said they could use the skills to solve
problems outside the CCB setting.
2. Participants felt proud of their ability to conceptualise and make technologies that
solved problems. They reported positive feelings about how the training promoted
agency, self reliance and confidence. There were some specific examples of how this
has manifested in their lives, including in starting new businesses and improving their
existing livelihoods.
Technology development
3. A total of 18 technologies were built over the course of 10 CCBs. Many of the
technologies were improved after the training, through informal mentoring and
during a Co-Creation Event. CCB participants from both locations continued work on
their prototypes, although it was most common in Pibor. Lack of materials was the
biggest constraint to refining technologies.
4. 44% of the technologies were being used to reduce labour by participants, their
households or their communities. Participants said the technologies enabled them to
simplify and speed-up common manual tasks such as carrying heavy loads (wheel cart),
cooking (oven) and maize shelling.
5. The technologies had a transformative effect on some people’s earnings. 44% of the
technologies were being used to generate an income; participants sold or rented the
technology, or used it to produce a product or provide a service. Participants used the
income to meet their basic needs, pay for school fees and/or reinvest in their small
businesses. In many instances the income was seasonal. Several groups had launched
new businesses.
Social cohesion
3
6. Chiefs and Local Authorities were responsible for participant selection. There were
efforts to promote inclusion by delivering the training in multiple languages and
providing spaces for childcare. However recruiting women was challenging (women
made up 35% of participants) and there was only reference to one person with a
disability attending the workshop. It was not clear how Village Chiefs and Local
Authorities chose participants and if the criteria were well-aligned with the social
cohesion objectives of the project.
7. Women and girls reported making technologies which improved their ability to earn
money, and boosted their feelings of self-reliance. Some valued contributing to their
household’s financial wellbeing. Several women in Pibor also expressed more
confidence in running their businesses after learning new business skills, such as in
customer service.
8. Participants valued that the training brought unlikely groups of people together. In
Pibor, for example, people of different age-sets were able to work in the same group.
Teamwork was valued as a way to generate ideas and build friendships. The majority of
groups we interviewed had stayed connected to work together on their technologies (or
run their businesses).
Co-creation event
9. Four technologies were refined at the Co-Creation event. The event had a significant
impact on CCB participants’ confidence to earn an income and use the design process
to build technologies and solve problems in their lives. By the end of the Event, all but
one participant said they felt ‘somewhat’ or ‘very confident’ building things out of wood
and metal.
10. The majority of the participants valued working with people from different
communities. All participants reported working with someone who was different to
them by age, gender, ethnic group or occupation and several expressed a transformation
in how they thought about rival groups. Participants described the Event as an
opportunity to exchange ideas, including about other cultures.
The CCB model
11. Strong relationships were built between MIT D-Lab and YSAT (based in Juba), and with
the Centre Managers and Facilitators in Pibor and Duk. These relationships were key to
the good performance of the project.
12. Overall, people said they felt comfortable in the centre, despite most travelling long
distances and working long hours on their prototypes. Several commented that they
enjoyed sitting and eating together or mentioned that it was a nice shady environment.
13. However, there were significant implementation challenges including facilitator
turnover in Pibor, difficulties moving in the rainy season, difficulties transporting
supplies, and a tight project timeline. These affected the set-up of the innovation
centres, ongoing mentoring, and business training. Participants noted delays in
accessing materials and difficulty fixing technologies that broke.
4
1 Introduction
This report is an independent evaluation of a project implemented by MIT D-Lab and the Youth
Social Advocacy Team (YSAT) in Jonglei State, South Sudan, in 2022, funded by USAID’s
Bureau of Humanitarian Assistance. The project aimed to pilot a local innovation ecosystem in
two sites, Pibor and Duk. The purpose of the innovation ecosystem was to support community
members in creating solutions to challenges they face in their daily lives by teaching the design
process. The technologies developed and skills learned through the training were intended to
improve participants’ quality of life and increase their income generation, sense of agency and
problem-solving abilities.
The project was established in two sites that experience frequent conflict and cattle-raiding
between rival ethnic groups
1
. The project sought to use the design training, and joint work on
common projects, to create a neutral space for groups in conflict to meet and build relationships.
The team hoped that these new relationships could be used to de-escalate moments of tension
and conflict between rival communities.
For D-Lab, a local innovation ecosystem is made up of the following:
● An Innovation Centre that supplies materials and tools to participants
● Regular Creative Capacity Building (CCB) design trainings that are run out of the centre
● On-going mentoring for participants after the CCB training to refine their prototypes
● Business training to enable people to use their technology to earn income if desired
● Co-Creation Summit to take some CCB prototypes to a higher level of development and
involve other actors in the design process
All elements of the innovation ecosystem were established in Pibor and Duk to some extent.
The Co-Creation Summit in Juba changed focus from bringing together different humanitarian
actors to engage with CCB-graduated participants, to bringing together CCB-graduated
participants from different ethnic groups across the two project sites. It is referred to from here
on as the ‘Co-Creation Event’ to reflect this change in scope.
The local Innovation Ecosystem aimed to enable participants to:
● develop tools and technologies to solve immediate needs
● develop technologies for livelihood opportunities
● develop problem-solving and technical skills
● develop creativity and increase sense of agency
● impact how aid is practised
The evaluation assessed whether and how the pilot of the local innovation ecosystem met the
project objectives and delivered on the anticipated outcomes. It also explored the underlying
assumptions in the project design and what adaptations or changes would be needed for future
iterations of the project.
The evaluation gathered evidence to assess all the project aims (above) apart from the last one,
“impact how aid is practised.” This was in part due to the change in scope of the Co-Creation
Event and also due to the short time-frame in which the project was delivered.
1UNMISS (2021) Situation in South Sudan: Report of the Secretary-General, S/2021/566
5
2 Methodology
Overview
The evaluation used a mixed-methods approach to explore the project’s processes and
achievements. The research was conducted in two phases, which allowed us to adapt the
methodology to emerging findings and to the realities of implementing the project in each
context. Both phases were carried out by South Susdanese Research Associates.
Inception and research framework
A series of inception meetings were held with MIT D-Lab and YSAT. The meetings provided an
opportunity to discuss the context and parameters of the evaluation, and finalise the objectives,
evaluation questions, and methodology.
A research framework (see Annex 1) was developed in discussion with MIT D-Lab. Research
questions (RQ) 1-3 were foundational questions, exploring the outcomes of the project for
individual participants based on their own perspectives and the perspectives of their
households, Trainers, and others in the community. RQ 4-5 built on these findings to explore
whether the project and the innovation ecosystem supported any other social outcomes - for
women, for peaceful coexistence, or for more effective delivery of aid.
Document review
We reviewed project documents from MIT D-Lab and YSAT in order to gain a better
understanding of the CCB method, what they were trying to achieve, and the results of CCBs in
other contexts. The documents included: the Training of Trainers manual, research papers and
previous MIT D-Lab evaluation reports.
Data collection
Two Research Associates collected data in two phases in Pibor and Duk, in June and August -
September 2022.
The Research Associate in Duk was fluent in both Nuer and Dinka and conducted the data
collection activities in both languages. In Pibor, the Research Associate conducted the data
collection activities in Arabic, with the assistance of a Murle translator.
The Research Associates were trained in ethical data collection practices (including COVID-19
safety) as well as the CCB design process. Both were experienced qualitative researchers.
Additional mentoring was provided around the participatory methodologies. The data collection
was implemented in accordance with The Research People’s (TRP) Research Code of Conduct,
as well as our policies on safeguarding, data privacy, health and safety, and COVID-19.
We relied heavily on the Facilitators and Centre Managers who supported the Research
Associates to mobilise interview participants. All research activities were conducted at the
Innovation Centres in the two locations.
6
Figure 1. Map of Jonglei State. Source: Small Arms Survey, 2012
2
We consulted multiple sources in order to triangulate findings and compare the different
perspectives of those involved in the project. In total we consulted with 151 people
3
(see Annex
2), through:
● CCB pre-/post- surveys - to learn who was participating in the training and their levels
of knowledge, skills and confidence before and after the training.
4
● Co-Creation pre-/post- surveys - to understand the value that the Co-Creation Event
within the local innovation ecosystem.
● Outcome harvesting workshops - to capture participants’ views on the changes they
had experienced and why those changes mattered. Outcome harvesting is useful in
cases where change takes place in complex, multi-stakeholder environments. The
approach identifies changes (or outcomes) that have taken place and works backwards
to identify (a) how significant the change is (i.e. its level and breadth of impact or
4 This tool was only deployed during one CCB training in Pibor. Centre Managers and Facilitators had many
demands on their time and although training was provided, they lacked the confidence and internet connectivity
to consistently use the KoboCollect app. They were unable to use paper surveys due to logistical challenges
involved in printing, filling out, returning and inputting data This should be explored for future CCB trainings.
3 Throughout the report we use "participants" to mean those consulted for the research. When we are talking
about those who completed the training we use "CCB participants"
2 Small Arms Survey. 2012. ‘My neighbour, my enemy: inter-tribal violence in Jonglei.’ Sudan Human Security
Baseline Assessment Issue Brief no. 21. Geneva: Small Arms Survey.
7
potential impact) and (b) what contributed to the change. A table of definitions is
available in Annex 2.
● Key informant interviews with MIT D-Lab staff, YSAT staff, Local Authorities, CCB
participants and members of their households - to explore people’s experience of
implementing and participating in the project and their views on its impact.
● Focus group discussions with CCB participants - to focus on issues around community
cohesion.
● Questionnaire on the technologies developed - to capture data on the number of
people trained, the technologies in use and those still under development.
● Observations - to observe the Co-Creation Event and to see participant’s at work in the
innovation centres.
● Researcher journals - to capture the Research Associate’s reflections and impressions
of the project.
● Validation workshops with participants - to present initial findings back to participants
to ensure that we accurately captured people’s experiences and to gain feedback and
address any gaps. These were facilitated on the last day of each field visit.
Analysis
We used MaxQDA qualitative data analysis software to code all qualitative data. A coding
framework was developed collaboratively by the research team based on the research
questions. Codes were updated and amended to reflect new themes that arose in the data.
Initial findings were collated using an analysis table. These findings were presented to MIT
D-Lab for reflection and feedback and as a basis to develop recommendations.
Recommendations were generated together with MIT D-Lab.
Returning findings
Findings will be disseminated to participants at the end of the study, in collaboration with the
Facilitators in each location. At the time of publishing this report, we are exploring the following
mechanisms:
● A visual summary of key findings translated into the local languages and shared as
posters at the innovation centres for former and future CCB participants;
● Discussions of main findings with CCB participants, facilitated by the Research
Associates;
● Community radio announcements or interview with a CCB participant in Pibor and Duk;
● Publishing the final report on the TRP, YSAT and MIT D-Lab website and YSAT social
media platforms.
Limitations
The evaluation was constrained by five main limitations.
● Limited time between the training and evaluation to assess medium or long-term
impacts. The project had a short time frame of 12 months, and due to logisitcal and
8
capacity challenges, the first CCBs were conducted later than planned. Phase 1 of the
evaluation was conducted in June 2022, a few weeks after the CCBs were completed at
either site. Phase 2 data collection was conducted immediately after the training in
August 2022, which did not allow enough time for the participants to apply any learning
from the training, or to fully utilise their technologies.
● Limited quantitative data. The centre managers, facilitators and field coordinators were
constrained by delayed timelines and their responsibilities delivering the CCB training.
They were unable to collect some of the planned data, including the prototype diaries
and pre/post surveys.
● Logistical challenges. The researchers in both sites experienced significant logistical
challenges including flight delays due to heavy rainfall, communication black-outs due
to limited network and internet coverage, and difficulty in accessing the participants,
who often moved long distances to attend the interviews and workshops. We adapted
the methodology and data collection tools to the changing circumstances, however, the
challenges did affect the quality and quantity of data. For example, in Duk, we were not
able to review the transcripts to provide feedback during data collection. In Pibor, flight
delays meant we could only collect phase 2 data at the very end of the project timeline.
● Language barriers (in Pibor). Unfortunately, it was not possible to recruit a researcher
based in Pibor and we relied on translation by a participant with good command of
Murle, Arabic and English. This may have affected how some participants understood
the questions, and how we understood their responses. The language barrier also
affected some participants’ ability to express themselves in the outcome harvesting and
validation workshops.
● Sample bias. It was difficult to mobilise participants due to limited phone use, people’s
movements and seasonal flooding. We conducted interviews with those able to travel
to the innovation centres and with people attending the Co-Creation Event. We expect
that this has resulted in a sampling bias towards people who were most highly involved
in the project. In particular, we were not able to adequately explore issues around
attendance.
Outline of the document
The rest of this report outlines the findings of the evaluation. In Chapter 3, we explore the
extent to which the project improved people’s problem solving and technical skills, and if it
allowed them to develop their creativity and sense of agency. Chapter 4 assesses how the Local
Innovation Ecosystem helped participants and their communities improve their lives by applying
the design process to develop a technology of their choosing. In Chapter 5, we assess the
potential of the Local Innovation Ecosystem to improve social cohesion and provide neutral
spaces for building relationships. Chapter 5 outlines the contribution of the Co-Creation Event
and 6 explores the CCB model and how well it was delivered. The report ends with
recommendations that were co-developed by MIT D-Lab and the research team.
9
3 Learning and behaviour change
Summary of the chapter
● Participants increased their knowledge and skills to design and create technologies
using the tools and techniques provided by the innovation centre.
● Participants felt a sense of pride in their achievements and some changed their
approach to work and income generation.
● Participants felt a greater sense of confidence and self-reliance following CCB training,
in large part due to their ability to earn an income with the technology they had created.
Overview
The CCB trainings in Pibor and Duk (see Box 1) were well received by participants and
members of the community. Many interview respondents mentioned the high level of
commitment that participants and staff gave to the training. A couple of respondents said
that too many participants arrived at the start of a workshop, but that those who remained, after
realising there was no seating allowance or stipend, were most committed. This commitment
was demonstrated by participants’ willingness to work long hours, remain with the project
during intermittent conflict (in Duk) and sometimes travel long distances to reach the training
centre. One participant in Duk gave birth during the training, and returned with her baby to
finish the course. Many of the participants believed that the CCB training was a significant
opportunity for them, in their locality, and something that they were excited to be a part of.
Box 1: The CCB process
CCB is an intensive five-day
design training based on the
process pictured in Figure 2. It
starts with an overview of the
design process, which includes
a case study and a hands-on
activity, and then participants
learn some basic sheet metal
and woodworking skills by
making a corn sheller. At the
end of the day, they generate a
list of problems they would
like to address over the course
of the rest of the training. On
the second day, participants select their project and are assigned to a team. They do some
team-building activities and then start gathering information and defining the problem they
will work on. For the rest of the training, they learn and apply the steps of the design process
to their own projects as they build an initial prototype of their solution. They return for a
second week to refine their technology so that they have a more fully functioning prototype.
Figure 2 (above): The CCB Design Process.
10
Technical skills and using tools
The CCB training aimed to teach participants how to design and build a technology as well as
how to use basic construction tools (such as a saw, hammer and chisel) and more complex skills
(such as welding). The training emphasised an iterative approach to design and construction,
and the learning opportunities that arise when things do not work as expected.
Many of the participants interviewed said the CCB training gave them the knowledge and
skills to make something if provided with the necessary materials and tools. The knowledge
and skills gained during the training was additional to their previous experience, as
demonstrated by the surprise some participants experienced at what they were able to create.
This was restated in the researcher diary observations and the validation workshops in Duk and
Pibor.
“In Pibor, people could not believe that they can make technology of making a shoe, the
new technology has expanded their knowledge in creating new ideas.” - YSAT Staff,
Pibor.
Many of the participants gained knowledge and confidence using tools. A few participants
said that they knew nothing about using tools before the workshops and were initially
intimidated by the tools and techniques, such as welding and sawing. There were reports that
some participants incurred injuries while learning, but that these were minor. They expressed
pride that they were able to learn these skills, but it was not clear how valuable they would be
going forward without access to tools and equipment at the innovation centre.
Almost a third
5 of CCB participants interviewed said they have, can or will teach what they
learned at the CCB training to others in their families and communities. The content of what
they taught to others, and to what extent, is less certain. A couple of participants taught others
how to use the technology. Others explained to others how they made the technology. A
smaller number stated they trained others in how to make a technology.
"Yes, it helped me gain a lot of experience, I was trained and now I am training people
which is a good achievement for me." - Male CCB Participant, Pibor.
Design knowledge and skills
Fewer than half of CCB participants interviewed could articulate the design process and
how this led to the creation of their technology. Although, this does not account for those who
understood the design process but were less skilled at expressing themselves. Only a few
participants explained how they used the knowledge, skills and understanding of the design
process and problem solving outside of the workshop. It may be that simplification of the design
process in training materials would help it to be applied more generally outside of the
workshops. It may also be that the interviews were too soon after the workshops to capture
participants' experiences of applying their problem-solving skills in other areas of life.
Mindsets
The CCB training aimed to enhance participants’ confidence and sense of agency.
5 16/52 participants: 12 have taught, 2 can teach and 2 will teach.
11
Many participants described an increased sense of confidence in their abilities after the
training. Some described how they had surprised themselves with their ability to build
something out of nothing and reported feeling “happy”, “proud” and “accomplished.”
“I enjoyed drawing the design on a piece of paper and imagined how the shoes would
look when I put it on. I had never imagined that someone can actually develop a shoe,
but here I am doing it. A great achievement.” Male CCB Participant, Pibor.
Some received praise from community members at what they achieved:
"I used to think that because I did not go to school then I am a failure in life, but with this
I believe I have succeeded in life, having to design a handbag that people use is a great
achievement on my side. When I first did the handbag, I went and showed everyone in
my area what I made, they did not believe it when I told them that I am the one that did
it." - Female CCB Participant, Pibor.
"I felt happy and proud of myself for having developed a wheel cart, some of my friends
asked me where I got it from, I told them that my team and I developed it and they were
shocked and proud of the great work." - Female CCB Participant, Pibor.
The majority of participants said that the training gave them a willingness to try new things.
A smaller number referred to being more open-minded and to being taught how to think
positively when faced with challenges, while others explained that the training helped them be
better at solving problems. These comments mostly referred to challenges earning an income
and improving their livelihoods.
A significant minority of participants said that the training gave them the motivation to
work hard to make money for themselves and their families. Around a third of participants
experienced a shift in mindset on approaching business ventures; they were more driven and
willing to explore new income generating avenues. The participants referred to the value of the
business training for changing their mindset around product pricing and how to interact with
customers (see CCB-B training).
Many participants had new livelihoods opportunities (see Chapter 4) and just under half felt
they were more self-reliant as a result of the skills and confidence they gained. A few
explained that they had been able to better themselves and understand the importance of
life-long learning. For some participants who had little or no education, the training changed
their perception of themselves and made them feel more confident. For others, the CCB training
provided them with the inspiration to change their livelihoods.
"My life has really changed, I came from the village and now I am a town boy, my
perception about everything has changed." -Male CCB Participant, Pibor.
“I was expecting the training to change me from being bad to good. Like I said before,
that I was a raider, but now, I am a scientist with technologies that have not been there
before." - Male CCB Participant, Duk.
Many participants expressed increased levels of confidence after participating in the training.
12
For some, this meant greater ease talking to people individually, in groups and across age-sets
6
and status, both in and outside of the training. Others felt confident to attempt new business
ideas and their confidence increased as they put their new business skills into practice and saw
the rewards this brought. Many gained a sense of confidence in their abilities to use tools and
create a technology that they could use outside of the training. A small number felt they had the
confidence to share what they had learned with others.
"Sometimes, I thought the white people will not understand me and I was afraid of
them, but the Trainers were from South Sudan, I gained courage to interact and even ask
questions." - Female CCB Participant, Pibor.
Finally, CCB participants spoke positively about their interactions with others at the
training. The researcher diaries from Pibor and Duk both corroborate that the relationships at
the centre seemed relaxed, cooperative and productive:
The participants were very friendly to one another; they laugh and make fun, [and] work
together to accomplish their mission. I noticed that the wheel cart was broken, the
group came together and looked for [a] solution. They came up with a plan to fix it; they
brought a rod and weld[ed it] using the generator. It was something great to see them
working together. - Researcher diary, Pibor.
I have noticed that participants at the centre [have] some sense of love, care and [are]
civilised in [the] way that they look at each other as relatives or friends. - Researcher
diary, Duk.
A significant minority explained that they had made friends with people from different areas,
status or age-set. This is discussed further in Chapter 5.
CCB-Business training
The CCB-B training was received well and many participants reflected that it helped them to
earn an income from their technology. Participants who attended the CCB-B training reported
learning skills on interacting with customers, reinvesting profit, and setting prices for their
technology. Although, one YSAT staff member believed that participants needed more guidance
on price-setting.
"When you look at the technologies, they are actually good. Bringing them new to the
market is good. But, sometimes, the person needs business skills. I recommend, CCB-B
is done frequently for participants [...]. The CCB-B training should follow [the CCB
training] and they will be able to know how to market their products and calculate
prices." - Field Coordinator, YSAT.
According to one Facilitator, the content of the CCB-B training seemed new to the participants,
but it also needed further adapting to the local context. One MIT D-Lab representative
observed that prices and distribution of profits between vendors at local markets operated on a
more cooperative than competitive model. More research is needed to understand local markets
and adapt the training content accordingly. Additionally, those delivering the training explained
6
“Murle society does not have a formal hierarchical leadership structure, but is broken up into generational
age-sets. Males join an age-set in their late teens when they are single, and stay within that age-set for life.”
Human Security Baseline Assessment (2012) "Small Arms Survey", Sudan Issue Brief (21), pg. 5.
13
there were initial challenges with some participants’ expectations, since the CCB-B training was
more ‘theoretical’ than the CCB training. Therefore, it took more time for participants to
understand the value of the training.
Participant perspectives
Research Associates conducted outcome harvesting workshops in Pibor and Duk explore and
record the outcomes of the CCB project that were most significant to participants. The table
below details some of the outcomes relating to learning and behaviour change in Pibor, in
people’s own words.
Table 1. Outcome harvesting results from Pibor (22nd June 2022).
Participant’s change
statement
Significance ranking Contribution ranking
1. Gaining new skills
that are beneficial to
participants and the
community.
Major: Participants mentioned participating
in other trainings where they’ve been
taught how to use sewing machines, but
they wanted to learn how to come up with
that machine. With this training they learnt
how to come up with technologies using
their hands and creative thinking, which is a
major achievement
High: The training provided
them with knowledge and
skills of coming up with
technologies.
2. Gaining confidence to
speak in public. For
example, some are
community leaders, and
others are leaders in
choir groups.
Major: Some participants said they were
previously shy and lacked the confidence to
speak in public but now they are key
community leaders who make decisions on
behalf of the community.
High: the training sessions
prompted participants to
speak in public and explain
how they came up with the
technologies, which boosted
their confidence.
3. Most of the
participants were able to
interact and work with
other people from
different areas.
Major: Before the training, it was hard to
bring people from different age groups
together, they had their differences, making
them not interact with one another.
Working together has created some
positive relationships among people of
different age groups.
High: Participants in the
CCBs worked in diverse
groups, involving people
from different age-sets
giving them the room to
interact.
In Pibor, gaining new skills, becoming more confident and having the opportunity to work with
different types of people were all outcomes that participants attributed to the CCB project with
a ‘high’ ranking. These three outcomes were also perceived as ‘major’ by the participants. The
first outcome emphasises the importance of creating a tangible technology and having the
autonomy to create this themselves from raw materials.
“This training provides us with a lot of things we did not have before like ovens, maize
shellers and others which improve how we live as a society.” - Female CCB participant,
Pibor.
The second outcome demonstrates that confidence can be built through practice, and that the
CCB training was an enabling environment for public speaking. The third outcome emphasises
14
the unique opportunity that the CCB project offered to participants to interact with people from
different groups, in this case, specifically age groups.
The outcome harvesting workshop in Duk (see table 2) provided similar results to the workshop
in Pibor with regards to gaining beneficial skills and learning how to work with different groups
of people. However, the participants in Duk emphasised the mindset changes they had
observed.
Participants in Duk perceived positive changes in their living standards which they categorised
as ‘major’ and highly attributable to the CCB training and the technology they were able to
develop. Participants also emphasised the sense of agency and ‘can do’ mindset which they
considered to be a ‘major’ change and highly attributable to the CCB training.
"Before creativity and flexibility were not in our veins but now we can think of good
ideas, like [the] business idea of preserving fish for sale, using salt - I thought of this
after [the] training." - Participant, outcome harvesting workshop, Pibor.
Lastly, participants discussed a change in attitudes to peace and harmony which they had
observed in CCB participants. They explained this change as ‘major’ but attributed some of this
shift in attitude to different groups mixing at church. This resonates with details in Chapter 5,
when different members of the community come together to attend church and cultural events
during times of peace.
Table 2. Outcome harvesting results from Duk, 19 August, 2022.
Participant’s change
statement
Significance ranking Contribution ranking
1. Increasing living
standards through income
generation and labour
saving technologies.
Major: The CCB training provided
participants with a technology with
which to earn an income, meaning
their lives were now ‘comfortable’
and they were able to sustain
themselves and their families.
High: The training provided
them with knowledge, skills and
a technology they could use in
the market or at home.
2. Changing mindset to be
more creative and flexible
and a sense that “I can
manage”.
Major: Participants describe that
they had acquired “discipline”, and
had started to come up with new
ideas for the market, like salting fish
or setting up a beauty salon.
High: Participants directly
attribute their change in mindset,
and shift from “waiting for
employment” to generating their
own income, to the CCB training.
3. Realising the importance
of peace and harmony with
more respect for others.
Major: Participants state that they
realised people were all “equal
before God” and that the training
introduced them to new
relationships and highlighted the
importance of peace and harmony.
Medium/High: Participants
attribute some of this change in
mentality to the different
churches they visited due to
moving to be closer to the
innovation centre.
As an example of the transformative change offered by the CCB workshops for members of the
community, the participants from Duk offered the following example:
“In November, before the CCB started in Duk, we had a guy who impregnated a girl.
Because he has no dowry, his in-laws refused him [to marry her] and almost planned to
15
kill the guy. Then, eventually, the training started and he was a participant of CCB. He
finished CCB and went on with CCB-B. He graduated with his oven and brick layer. He
laid around 300 bricks a day and sold them. Oven was also booming. CRS cash for
assets started, he got some capital and started business alongside two operational
technologies. Later he paid his dowries and now [is] operating business in town centre."
- Participant, outcome harvesting workshop, Duk.
-
This chapter summarised the CCB process and CCB participant’s learning of the design process.
It explored the impact of the trainings on participants’ mindsets and agency, highlighting
specific changes they experienced as a result of the training. The next chapter will outline how
participant’s learning was applied to developing specific technologies that could reduce labour
and support livelihoods.
16
4 Technology development & use
Summary
● Most participants continued to work on their technologies after the training.
● Fewer than half (44%) of the technologies were in active use. Some technologies were
being refined and others were broken. Most of the participants interviewed who were
not using their technology (particularly those in Duk) were awaiting materials to fix
them or complete the refinement.
● When their technologies were in use, most participants used them to both reduce
labour and to earn an income to provide basic needs for their households.
The technologies
A total of 18 technologies were developed through the CCB trainings. The groups developed
technologies that addressed needs in both communities. Both Duk and Pibor are remote, rural
communities with limited trade routes or social amenities. The technologies responded to
common problems such as poor transport and a need to preserve seasonal foods.
Table 3: Snapshot of CCB data on 19 September 2022
Pibor Duk
Number of CCBs 4 6
Number of CCB-Bs 1 1
Graduated participants 95 (29 female) 150 (57 female)
Technologies developed 8 10
7
Technologies used to earn
income and save labour
Wheel cart
Oven
Shoes
Fish dryer
Oven
Wheel cart
Paste maker
Tools sharpener
Technologies in
storage/under refinement
Fish cooler
Brick mould
Rat trap
handbags
Cooking stove
Winnowing tool
Brick mould
Water irrigation tool
Bee hive
Rat trap
Many CCB participants continued to refine their technologies after the initial five-day training. In
Pibor, the groups that made the oven, wheel cart, and shoes all told us that they had changed
at least two things about their technologies (see case study in Box 2). The group that made the
oven, for example, replaced the original materials in order to make them lighter, more
marketable and user-friendly. In Duk, group members said they were willing and confident
7 Staff in Duk reported that each team was approximately 15 people. However, members of the group were
sometimes absent, making group sizes 7-12 on any given day.
17
about making changes, but that a lack of materials kept them from improving their prototypes.
Lack of, or insufficient, materials and tools was also observed in the researcher diaries at both
sites.
At the time of the evaluation, eight technologies (44%) were being used to save labour and the
same eight technologies (44%) were being used to earn an income across the two sites. Those
not in use included technologies that had broken and technologies with seasonal use, such as
the winnowing machines and brick moulds.
Saving labour
Many of the technologies arose from a desire to find a way to do difficult and repetitive tasks
more easily. Four technologies in Pibor, and four in Duk have resulted in labour savings.
The majority of the participants interviewed in Duk and Pibor, their household members and
other Local Authorities noted the value of the technologies developed to save labour. For
example, before the wheel cart, people “fetched water on their heads”, before developing the
maize sheller, they “spent a long time shelling maize”.
Participants reported that the technologies improved their quality of life. In Pibor, the wheel
cart was instrumental in transporting luggage from the airstrip to people’s homes, NGO offices
and the humanitarian hub, transporting goods from the market to people’s homes, and most
importantly in food distribution. One of the Local Authorities interviewed said;
"As I was moving towards the airstrip, I found 2 women pushing the wheel cart and they
were carrying drums of water inside the wheel cart, I reacted and asked, “how did they
make the wheel cart?” They both responded that during the training, they were taught
how to make the technology. At a time when I was in Bor, I saw people using it [a wheel
cart] and I hoped that my people in Pibor will also come up with this technology finally I
witnessed it with my eyes, though it was smaller than the one I saw in Bor. I was happy
for their achievement." - Local Authority, Pibor.
Similarly, the fish dryer enabled people to preserve fish, which becomes scarce during the dry
season, and the shoes also filled an obvious gap in the market. In Duk, the oven was mostly
used commercially to make bread or cakes and offered a unique product in the market
8
.
“Before, people used to take plain tea, but now people are taking tea with my cake as
accompaniment. This has made me popular because people send tea sellers to go and
buy my cake.” - Female CCB Participant, Duk.
“The design process helped me solve the problems in my life, I used to carry heavy
Jericans of water causing back pain, but when we designed the wheel cart, I have been
able to carry the Jericans of water using the wheel cart.” -Male CCB Participant, Pibor.
Some participants reported that this was the first time they had seen such technologies in their
communities.
Earning an income
CCB participants and their household members emphasised that the CCB training gave
8 One participant referred to these as ‘modern cakes’.
18
participants an opportunity to engage in economic activity and contribute to their
household’s sustenance. For example, one female household member in Pibor said;
“...Yes [the training helped], to a great extent. [My brother] did not have a job, he used to
stay idle at home, eat, sleep and go out with friends, but with the training, you can see
he has changed. He gives us money to buy food in the house and this has helped sustain
our lives here at home.”
Of the 49 CCB participants interviewed for the evaluation, 25 reported using their technology to
earn an income, nine said that they did earn an income from their technology but they had sold
it or it was broken at the time. Three said that they will earn an income from their technology in
the future
9
. Participants used the technologies to make money by:
● charging people for the services rendered using the technologies,
● earning rental income from the technologies,
● selling their technology,
● using the technologies to make products for sale.
Figure 3. Shoes made by the participants and refined at the Co-Creation Event.
Some participants earned money by using the technologies to provide services. In Pibor, the
group that made the wheel cart charged SSP 1000 - SSP 1500 to transport a sack of goods,
and made up to SSP 10,000 per day. The group that made the oven used it to dry fish and game
9 This relates to it being the correct season to make bricks, harvest grain and, for one participant, when their
baby is old enough.
19
(bush meat) that they sold to customers, charging SSP 1500 per fish, and making up to SSP
10,000
10 weekly. The oven was used to make bread which was sold at SSP 150-200 per piece
11
making up to SSP 60,000 monthly.
The groups that made an oven, maize shellers, and wheel cart earned rental income from their
technologies. For example, in Pibor, the group that made the oven rented it out at SSP
3,000-5,000 per day to restaurant owners. Similarly, the group that made the wheel cart group
rented it out for a daily rate.
Several groups used the technologies to make products that they sold. For example, one
group made shoes that they sold for SSP 1,500 – 2,000. In Duk, another group made groundnut
paste
12
for sale.
A small number of participants used their technologies to start new businesses. For
example, one group that made an oven started a business selling bread. They used some of the
profits to buy more raw materials and divided the rest amongst themselves. Another group in
Duk, used money generated from their technology as capital to start a salon. Several
participants said CCB training gave them the confidence to start a business.
Others used their technologies to enhance existing income-generating activities. One of the
main business activities for women in Pibor is making tea at the market, the Kabarithe women’s
centre, or in other public places. Some women engaged in tea making participated in the CCB;
they made an oven which they now use to make bread, complementing their tea business. They
reported making SSP 50,000 in one month. Similarly, the fish dryer provided a way for a group
of casual labourers to preserve fish and sell it during the dry season when the river dried up.
Those that earned an income from their technology used it to meet basic needs, pay for school
fees and/or reinvest in their small businesses. There were some examples of the participants
having more regular access to food after developing the technologies and using them to earn
money. A 29-year-old male participant in Pibor said,
"I felt proud when I made the technology, since I made the technology I have not slept
hungry for days now." - Male CCB Participant, Pibor.
Some of the technologies can only be used to earn an income in the dry season. For example,
flooding during the rainy season will make it difficult to use the wheel cart in Pibor.
Box 2: Wheel Cart case study
One group in Pibor came up with the idea for the wheel cart as a way of generating income.
They planned to build a cart that could be used to transport items, generate an income and
help provide food for their families.
The team developed a prototype of the wheel cart during the CCB training. They described
the process of gathering together their materials, measuring out the wheels, cutting the
wood, using wire cutters to cut wires, welding metals together using a generator, inserting
12 Also known as peanut butter.
11 Or SSP 3000 for buying in bulk
10 KIIs with participants
20
nails using a hammer, and then adding in the tires and axle. The building process was new for
everyone and the whole team was involved.
I have learnt that each one plays an important role, just like the wheel cart, [...] all the
tools required to make a wheel cart are all important, if one is missing then the tool
cannot function, that is why it is important to appreciate everything - Male, CCB
Participant, Pibor.
The initial prototype was built of low-quality wood. Carrying heavy loads meant that the
wires sometimes tore and the tires burst due to low pressure and the weight of the cargos.
The team refined the original design using stronger wood, better quality tires and to add a
second metal rod. They also inserted longer handles to make the wheel cart easier to push.
Several months after its initial development, the group took the wheel cart to the Co-Creation
summit for further refinement, including adding a roof made of plastic sheets. They would like
to use metal sheets but can’t currently access the materials.
Figure 4. The Wheel Cart in Pibor.
How is it being used
The group began using the wheel cart immediately. At home, women used it to carry water or
to transport goods to the market, making their work easier.
“I had the challenge of bringing items to my shop, sometimes I would use some
women who would carry these items on their head and they would walk for some
distance to reach the destination, with the wheel cart it has solved my problem, I no
longer need to disturb them, I put my goods on the wheel cart and push in on my own
to the destination, hence save money and time.” Male, CCB Participant, Pibor.
21
They were also paid to transport items between distribution sites and the market. For
example, people recently visiting from Ethiopia paid the group to transport goods from the
airport to the market. The group reported that they can charge 1,000-1,500 SSP for
transporting a bag of sorghum or similar. On a good day, they can earn 5,000 SSP per trip
taking items from the airstrip to the market and other locations.
“There was a time, my wife called me that there was no food at home, so she needed
money for buying food, she called me and because that day, we used the wheel cart
to distribute items in the market, I was able to get some money and give it to her and
she was happy. - Male, CCB Participant, Pibor.
“we organize to meet at the market, we sit down and discuss on what we have gained
in a day, then share the money equally among ourselves so that we don’t leave
anyone behind” Male, Co-Creation Event Participant.
-
This chapter highlighted the CCB participant’s perspectives on the technologies they developed
and their impact on saving labour and earning income. In the next chapter we focus on gender
dynamics and the impact of the project on building relationships.
22
5 Community dynamics
Summary
● CCB and Co-Creation Event participants worked with new types of people and created
new relationships that they hoped would continue.
● Several participants changed their perceptions towards those who were different to
them (gender, age or ethnic group) and valued working in groups with different types of
people.
● Almost all the female participants felt more independent; the CCBs helped them create
an income source and to contribute to their family livelihood.
CCB participant demographics
In total, 245 participants
13 attended the CCB training in Pibor and Duk between March and
September 2022. 35% were female. Most were relatively young (20 to 40 years old
14
) but were
part of different age-sets. The vast majority said they did not go to school. Only a few
completed primary or secondary education.
Most participants worked in agriculture or ran small businesses (such as tea shops among
females). Other occupations included fishing, teaching, vice-chief, female leader, sand carrier,
welder and breeder. More than one-quarter did not work or did only unpaid work, such as
volunteering, hunting animals or household chores.
Few people explicitly mentioned their ethnicity but the project intentionally included
participants from Murle, Nuer and Dinka ethnic groups. Many reported a Christian faith. A
handful discussed their family situations; most had dependent children, many were married, and
some were single. One participant was widowed and another lived with his parents and sister.
Non-work activities varied between Duk and Pibor. In Duk, participants organised folk dances,
football games, wrestling events, beer parties, prayer meetings and community work during
times of peace. In Pibor, participants engaged in community meetings, youth meetings, group
agriculture, sharing meals, and organising traditional dances and festivals. Participants from
both groups emphasised the importance of organising and participating in traditional dances
and songs to strengthen relationships between community members.
“In Pibor, [we engage in] cultural dance festival [...]; it brings everyone together, we
dance and celebrate our culture and identity as the Murle community” - Male CCB
Participant, Pibor.
CCB Participants said they were skilled in cooking, farming and business. Several engaged in
hairdressing, construction, sewing and keeping livestock (including cattle). Others were hunters,
fishermen, made charcoal or taught. Generally, the participants’ skills and knowledge before the
CCB workshop were based on practical activities, with some using their skills to earn an income
through business.
14 We have age data for 18% of participants.
13 Data from the YSAT field coordinator on 18th September 2022
23
Relationships developed among different groups
The CCBs in Duk and Pibor brought together people of different ages, genders and ethnic
backgrounds. They aimed to promote social cohesion by fostering new relationships among
community members. CCB participants worked with people who were not part of their regular
social group, including those from other age-sets, status, genders and clans.
A significant minority of participants said they made friends with people they would not
have met otherwise. They spoke positively about how the training had built an atmosphere of
cooperation and cohesion between different groups. The common objective of developing a new
technology helped some to see past differences, encouraging new relationships, even with
those that might be seen as "rivals."
“Yes, I am very confident in working with different groups. Working together makes
people come together. I always had a challenge working with other age-set groups, but
[...] I realised the training brought all people together without any discrimination, so I
have learnt to work with anyone regardless of their status or age.” -Male CCB
participant, Pibor.
“In fact, I met a lot of friends from here where we have sat and eaten together. Some of
them I used to see them as enemies, but now we are tight friends, and [it] is the CCB
that did that.” - Male CCB Participant, Duk.
Almost half of the participants worked with their CCB counterparts after the end of the
training, mostly on the technologies they had developed together and sometimes on different
projects. Some explained that the friends they made at the CCB were qualitatively different to
their friends outside of the CCB training, since they had a shared purpose. As one participant
explained:
"They [the CCB participants] are different because we are people who share the same
skills. So any discussion must be in line with our technology or skills. We also work
together regardless of clan unlike in community [where] we work as clan. We chill
together discussing developmental ideas, unlike outside friends where we spend the
whole day gossiping." - Male CCB participant, Duk.
Several participants expressed that working together is better than working alone as it
allows you to encourage one another, share ideas or ease each other’s stresses. One participant
explained that he had learned that people are equal and that everyone has something to
contribute. Some also expressed ease of working between groups in the CCB training, asking
others to teach them about the other technologies.
"Because of CCB training, I get exposed to my people and new friends who keep me
busy talking about positive ideas. This relieved me from my stress due to [the recent]
death of my husband." - Female CCB Participant, Duk.
Impact of the project on women
35% of all CCB participants were female. The Chiefs responsible for mobilising participants
highlighted several challenges recruiting women, including their high workloads at home,
childcare responsibilities, language, and cultural barriers. As one participant stated “women are
24
neglected in the village, and they are believed that they cannot do anything”
15
. Nevertheless,
the Facilitators reported high levels of attendance among female participants and made efforts
to adapt activities around the schedules of breastfeeding mothers
16
.
Overall, female participants were very positive about the CCB training. Many said that they
felt more comfortable and motivated to work outside of home. Several added that working in a
team allowed them to feel more secure in expressing their opinions without feeling intimidated
or belittled. For example:
“Women learned how to speak in public. Women learned how to speak for themselves
without intimidation from their husbands” - Female CCB Participant, Pibor.
Female participants also said that the training gave them technical and financial skills to
support their families. Most female participants had little education and many depended on
their husband for the household income. One explained that thanks to the technology she had
developed, she could generate an income for her family while at the same time staying at home
and breastfeeding her baby
17
. Several who owned businesses also said that their relationships
with customers had improved as a result of what they learned.
“Women are often regarded as vulnerable people, who cannot do anything, their work is
just staying home, but with the CCB training, women learn and become experts, they
acquire more skills that they use at home for the advantage of the family” - Female CCB
Participant, Pibor.
“In the training, they taught us business skills, how to talk to customers, I used the skill
in my business, and as we are talking, I have so many customers who come to my place.
Everyone wants to know where I learnt these skills from, and they want to join” -
Female CCB Participant, Pibor.
Deeply held cultural beliefs are difficult to shift and patriarchal views of women’s roles are
reflected in the interviews with many male participants. Nevertheless, male participants were
largely positive about working alongside women in the training. Some believed, as do many
women, that the CCB would enable women to be more self-sufficient.
“Most times, we believe that women are meant to be at home do house chores but
through the training, they really did their best to learn a lot” - Male Co-Creation Event
participant, Murle from Pibor.
“Women play an important role and I believe that they experienced the co- creation
Event differently. Mostly in Duk, women are not allowed to do such work but we have
seen that they are actually doing great, this work is helping them a lot, they are learning
on business techniques, how to be self-reliant. They have the morale to keep working
hard for their families” - Male Co-Creation Event Participant, Dinka from Duk.
17 Previous to this training, the participant used to collect wood for making charcoal and therefore not be able to
breastfeed her baby. CCB participant, Female, from Duk.
16 New mothers were also given a room for breastfeeding.
15 Co-creation participant, Female, Dinka, from Duk.
25
“Most people believe that women cannot make blocks but I am here and I was able to
make blocks, some men were looking at me, and laughing at me saying that work is for
men, I asked them; who told them? What men can do, women can do even better” -
Female CCB Participant, Pibor.
-
This chapter explored how the project supported people to build relationships and influenced
community dynamics. It outlined how CCB participants, Local Authorities and project staff all
reported that new ties were created between different groups. The next chapter will provide an
overview of the Co-Creation Event and its impact on technology development and social
cohesion.
26
6 Co-Creation Event
Summary
● Participants were eager to improve their design and construction skills at the
Co-Creation Event, and by the end of the Event, all but one participant said they were
very or somewhat confident building things out of wood and metal.
● By the end of the Co-Creation Event, participants felt more confident in their ability to
provide for their families by creating or launching a business, with or without their
technologies.
● All participants reported working with someone who was different to them by age,
gender, ethnic group or occupation and several expressed a transformation in how they
thought about rival groups.
● Participants described the Event as an opportunity to exchange ideas, including about
other cultures.
Background
The Co-Creation Event took place in Juba over the period of five days. There were 24
participants in total, consisting of 12 CCB graduates who attended from Pibor and Duk, staff
from YSAT and one representative from a Juba-based NGO. It aimed to help CCB participants
refine the technologies and develop viable business models, and to promote social cohesion by
building relationships between participants from different ethinc and age groups. The Event
involved team building exercises, training on the design process, practical design lessons, a
showcase of technologies developed and a reflection session. Four technologies were refined at
the event: oven, wheel cart, paste maker and shoes made from recycled tyres
18
.
Figure 5. CCB participants and Facilitators test a water transfer prototype at the Co-Creation Event.
18 Co-Creation Event report
27
In the months leading up to the Co-Creation activity, people in Pibor and Duk experienced
incidents of insecurity, mostly associated with cattle raiding. In Duk, participants and Facilitators
reported gunfire near the centre and resulting loss of lives. This incident was part of wider
ongoing conflict in the region between ethnic groups consisting of road ambushes, cattle raids
and child abductions which lead to deadly revenge attacks
19
. This Event was seen by the
organisers as an opportunity to bring different groups of people together to build social
cohesion through building relationships.
Learning and skills development
The majority of Co-Creation Event participants were keen to improve their design and
construction skills
20
. Ninety-five percent of participants surveyed before the Co-Creation
workshop said they hoped to "develop or improve their design skills" and 74% said they hoped
to "come up with an innovative idea to solve a problem." Other soft skills they hoped to learn
included building their creativity, more confidence designing prototypes and business skills. One
participant wanted to learn how to calculate the quantities of materials needed following the
design and sketch stage. By the end of the workshop, all but one participant felt very or
somewhat confident making things with wood and metal
21 and all but one felt confident making
things from found or recycled materials
22
.
After the Co-Creation Event, participants felt more confident in their ability to support their
families. Eighteen participants claimed to have developed viable business that would improve
their livelihoods and 19
23 participants said they felt confident about designing and launching a
new business. After the Co-Creation Event, participants reported increased confidence to try
new things
24
.
The pre- and post- survey data from the Co-Creation Event found that participants gained in
confidence when asked if they could apply the design process to challenges in their
community
25
. In the post-survey, all but one participant replied that they felt very confident
using the design process to solve problems in the community
26
. The Co-creation Event also
increased participants’ confidence to teach the skills they learned to others outside of the
training
27
. However, only 16% of the participants said that teaching others what they had
learned was one of their goals after the Event.
27 Before the Co-Creation Event 8 felt very confident, 10 somewhat confident, 1 neutral about teaching CCB
skills to others. After the Event 20 felt very confident and 3 somewhat confident teaching skills to others.
26 One participant felt “somewhat confident.”
25 Pre Co-Creation Event (n. 19), 14 felt very confident, 4 somewhat confident and 1 neutral about ‘using the
design process to solve community challenges.’ After the Event (n.24) 23 felt very confident and 1 somewhat
confident.
24 Pre-survey, 10 felt very confident, 7 somewhat confident, 2 neutral to try new things. Post-survey, 20 felt
very confident and 4 felt somewhat confident to try new things.
23 24 total participants.
22 17 Very confident, 6 Somewhat confident, 1 Not very confident, Source: Co-Creation Event post-survey, Juba,
2022.
21 20 very confident, 3 somewhat confident and 1 neutral, Source: Co-Creation Event post-survey, Juba, 2022.
20 Co-creation pre-survey. The pre- survey had 19 responses, the post survey had 24 responses.
19 Pax (2022) Human Security Survey, Q2-Q4 2021, Jonglei State
28
Refining the technologies
The technologies were refined by teams of CCB participants from different project sites, a CCB
Facilitator and a Facilitator. The teams reviewed the current state of the technologies, built a
sketch model using cardboard and other materials, and received feedback from the team, other
teams and Facilitators. For example, to increase the mobility of the oven, wheels and a longer
handle were added to make it easier to move. To improve its functionality, a provision was
added for firewood at the top and bottom, and a lock was added to keep the heat inside.
Figure 6: Photograph of the oven after refinement
Fostering community cohesion
Fostering community cohesion was a large element of the Co-Creation Event, so it is not
surprising that this was a key learning point for participants. At the start of the Event, nine out
of 15 participants expressed that working with others and building peaceful relationships
between communities was what they were most excited about
28
. This implies that
peacebuilding and community cohesion is something that was important to participants before
the Event.
The Event gave participants an opportunity to work as a team with people from different
backgrounds, ethnic groups and clans. In the post-event survey
29 96% of the participants
worked with someone from another tribe/ethnic group, 88% worked with someone of the other
gender, 83% worked with someone from another country, and 92% worked with someone with
a different type of occupation.
29 Co-Creation Event, post-survey, 2022 (n10 – 11)
28 Co-Creation Event, pre-survey, 2022.
29
In interviews, several participants said they worked with people from "rival" communities that
they had never imagined being in a team with. They talked about the value of teamwork and of
fostering cohesion.
“My experience working with different groups from different areas like Duk was
amazing, it never hit my mind that we can actually work together with people from Duk,
we always had conflict with them but through the training, it was brought us together
we decided to leave all our differences and come together and work for the benefit of
the community to grow and become peaceful” - Male Co-Creation Event Participant,
Murle from Pibor.
Participants described the Event as an opportunity to exchange ideas, including about other
cultures. Many felt they had established friendships and expressed their wish to visit "friends"
after the Co-Creation Event. Some also indicated that their perceptions of certain groups
changed as a result of the interaction they had at the Co-Creation Event.
“The most important [thing] is that I met new people from different areas; people from
Murle [clan], they are believed to be very hostile, but in a real sense, they are very
hospitable people. I have no friends from Murle, but through the Co-Creation, we have
seen that we can actually work together. I have a new friend, I hope one day I will visit
their land and enjoy” - Female Co-Creation Event Participant, Dinka from Duk.
This was also reflected in an interview with the NGO representative who attended the
Co-Creation Event
30
, who stated :
“I was happy when I saw the conflicting regions coming together; through this, they will
see each other as brothers and sisters The interaction I saw happening during the
Co-Creation Event will have a great impact to their lives; these people will go back to
their communities and encourage them to stay peacefully” - Male NGO stakeholder,
Nuer from Juba.
-
The Co-Creation Event was valued by project staff and CCB participants from different groups
as a good opportunity to collaborate and solve problems together. Four technologies were
refined and new relationships were built between CCB participants from different geographical
areas, ethnicities and age sets. The final chapter explores the Local Innovation Ecosystem
model.
30 Co-Creation Event, post-survey, 2022. (n9)
30
7 A Local Innovation Ecosystem
Summary
● Strong relationships were built between MIT D-Lab and YSAT (based in Juba), and with
the Centre Managers and Facilitators in Pibor and Duk. These relationships were key to
the good performance of the project.
● There were challenges staffing the Innovation Centres and some considered that the
Innovation Centres were still understaffed for the work they are expected to deliver.
● Participants were selected to ensure that CCB trainings contained a mixed group.
However, women were still under-represented and it was not clear how Village Chiefs
and Local Authorities chose participants and if the criteria were aligned with the social
cohesion objectives of the project.
● The logistical challenges and the expense of bringing in materials from Juba were a
significant challenge for the effective running and sustainability of the project.
● Developing a Local Innovation Ecosystem takes time and the project’s timeline combined
with the onset of the rainy season
31 meant not all elements were achievable.
Project set-up
The project was designed to foster a Local Innovation Ecosystem that included an innovation
centre, CCB training, on-going mentoring, CCB-B training and a Co-Creation Event to involve
other actors in the process. The innovation centre was intended to provide an equipped
workshop where current and graduated participants would continue to refine their technologies
and make repairs. The design assumptions and intentions for each element are listed in Table 4.
In practice, the timeline of the project and the challenging operating environment
32 meant
that it was not possible to establish all elements of the Innovation Ecosystem. Training
centres were established in both sites, although until June 2022, the centre in Pibor was rented
space from another organisation. Only one CBB-B was held in each location and the curriculum
had to be thoroughly adapted to fit the available time. In Duk for example, the 5 day training
was condensed into 1.5 days. However, Facilitators and some participants believed that more
and regular business training would be of value to participants. The mentoring aspect of the
Local Innovation Ecosystem was delivered organically rather than systematically. Some CCB
participants referred to, and appreciated ongoing encouragement, direction and support from
the Facilitators at the Innovation Centre after they had finished the CCB training.
At the time of the data collection
33
the Innovation Centres were staffed by one Centre
Manager and one Facilitator in Pibor, and three Facilitators in Duk. Centre Managers were
responsible for running the Innovation Centres with regards to logistics and sourcing materials
for the workshops. They helped to deliver the training, offered administrative support to
Trainers and helped to identify participants for the workshop alongside local Relief and
33
June - September 2022
32As well as logistical challenges, the project faced staff turnover among Trainers and insecurity (one incident of
shooting near the training centre was reported in Duk).
31All materials and tools had to be brought in by air. Over half of the trainings took place during the rainy
season which had a significant impact on travel. Trainers and researchers were often stranded, and tools and
materials were frequently delayed.
31
Rehabilitation Commissioners and other community leaders. CCB Facilitators were responsible
for setting up the workshops, with the correct tools and resources, and delivering the CCB
training based on what they had learned in the Training of Trainers workshop. They were given
a training manual to refer to, but were encouraged to be responsive to participants' needs rather
than following a strict syllabus. They also liaised between the participants and the Centre
Managers to source materials for building technologies, either from local markets or flown in
from Juba. Facilitators and Technicians supported participants during the refining period as the
participants continue to work on their technologies after the initial one week training was
completed.
Table 4: Innovation Ecosystem design assumptions and intentions
34
.
Element Design assumptions and intentions Evidence
Innovation
centre
● The centre would be situated in
an accessible location
● Participants would like being in
the innovation centre and chose
to go there outside of trainings
● Supply chains would allow the
centre to supply materials and
tools to participants
● People spoke positively about the
innovation centre’s environment
● Tools and materials were available
during the CCB trainings but there have
been challenges accessing materials for
repairs
CCB
trainings
● Chiefs and Local Authorities
would be best suited to selecting
and mobilising participants, and
that that this would be seen as
fair
● Participants would attend the
full duration of training
● Training would impart new
technical skills and enable
participants to develop useful
technologies
● Overall the project successfully
mobilised participants. However,
mobilising women was a challenge;
35% of participants were female.
● It was not clear how Village Chiefs and
Local Authorities chose participants and
if the criteria were aligned with the
social cohesion objectives of the project.
● The centres reported relatively low
attendance rates (7-10 attendees per
team of 15 each day) due to travel and
competing demands.
● Participants learned new technical skills;
44% of technologies are being used.
On-going
refinement
and
mentoring
● Participants would visit the
centre to access ongoing
mentoring and Trainers would be
available there to provide
ongoing mentoring
● Tools and materials would be
available to allow people to
refine their prototypes
● Few examples of participants attending
for ongoing mentoring, due to the
informal nature of the ongoing
mentoring.
● The main barriers were access to
supplies.
● Travel around Pibor and Duk during the
rainy season was also a significant
challenge
34 These design assumptions and intentions were identified from the proposal documents and by looking at the
implicit theory of change described through the project inputs and objectives. Key themes from this table are
explored in the remainder of the chapter.
32
Business
training
● CCB facilitators would be best
placed to mobilise participants
and that selection processes
would be seen as fair
● Participants would attend the
full duration of training
● Training would impart business
skills that would help people run
profitable businesses
● The centre was successful in mobilising
participants.
● There was demand for more business
training and some people who turned up
to the training had to be turned away.
● Participants said they learned useful
skills including basic book-keeping.
Co-creation
Event
● Co-creation Events would take
CCB prototypes to next level of
development
● Co-creation Events would
involve other actors in the
creation process
● Improvements were made to all the
technologies taken to the Co-Creation
Event
● The Co-creation Event was re-designed
to focus on bringing together
participants (rather than promoting
engagement with other actors).
Internal and external relationships
The project benefited from positive and productive working relationships between MIT D-Lab
and YSAT, with the Local Authorities, and with several other NGOs in Pibor and Duk. In Pibor,
Interchurch Medical Assistance (IMA) provided access to its site as a base for the Innovation
Centre, including shared use of their training hall and an office for centre staff. In Duk, YSAT
shared a compound and resources such as the internet with MedAir. These relationships
provide a base for the innovation centre to develop should the project continue.
Facilitators travelled between sites, increasing connections and building relationships
between the two communities from Pibor and Duk. In both field sites, the Local Authorities
welcomed the Innovation Centres and helped to provide security for the CCB participants. More
generally, staff reported good relationships between the Centre Managers across CCB sites,
despite them coming from different communities.
Participant selection
The project aimed to bring together participants of different genders, ethnic groups and
age-sets in order to improve social cohesion among groups in Pibor and Duk. Participant
selection was, in many cases, outsourced to Village Chiefs. Therefore, YSAT only had so much
control over who took part in the CCBs. Ingrained social factors, such as responsibility for
childcare and housework, as well as cultural practices that prohibit women from participating in
some public settings, meant that just 35% of participants were women. More background data
is needed to understand if the numbers of women who participated would be regarded as an
achievement considering the context.
25 participants were selected for each CCB. The selection criteria used by the Chiefs and
Local Authorities were unclear however, they said that they chose the participants on a ‘fair’
basis and in a way that would avoid conflict. Interviews with Local Authorities and YSAT staff
describe participants being chosen for their age, unemployment status and level of perceived
vulnerability. Participants mentioned that ‘youth’ were targeted, since they are generally
understood to be involved in fighting and conflict. Others reported being chosen to overcome
33
their ‘idleness’. Some of the participants were widows, and displaced populations were also
targeted. Generally, training groups were selected to have a range of ages, genders and clan
affiliations. One training included a deaf participant.
Although we did not receive regular pre- and post- surveys for the CCB training workshops, the
one we did receive from Pibor detailed 20 participants who attended workshops delivered in
July and August. Of these 20 participants, all but two were Murle. Although this survey is a
small snapshot of the participants who attended the training in Pibor, it implies that workshops
may not always have had the mix of ethnic groups that they intended. This could be because
the population in Pibor are more homogenous, making it difficult to recruit participants from
diverse ethnic groups at this site.
Centre staff explained that they had to turn away people who arrived for the training
opportunistically. In some instances they were asked to return for the following training
session. Centre staff said that it was challenging having to turn away extra interested
participants and added strain to their roles. Trainers tried to ensure they had the right
participants by meeting those selected the day before the training started. During this meeting
Trainers and participants introduced themselves and explained the purpose of the training, this
allowed participants the opportunity to drop out of the training if they decided it was not
suitable for them.
Communities were also alerted to the training by radio announcements or advertisements at
the Centre, and some took an interest in the training after seeing graduated CCB participants
using their technologies at the market or at home.
Delivering training
The Facilitators were trained in the CCB methodology in Arua, Uganda, over six weeks
35
. This
training was facilitated by CCB seasoned Trainers from Kulika and three staff from MIT D-Labs.
The training was designed to build the facilitators’ capacity to run the first CCBs in South
Sudan. The CCB project in South Sudan experienced a noticeable turnover in Facilitators for
health and other reasons which affected the delivery of the projects in its early stages,
especially in Pibor
36
. MIT D-Lab were pleased with how well the remaining Facilitators
committed to the role and progressed in their expertise and confidence. Trainers from Uganda
were called upon to provide ongoing mentorship and to help facilitate workshops in Pibor and
Duk to make up for staffing shortages.
Before being trained, the South Sudanese Facilitators had no prior experience in delivering
workshops of this kind. The South Sudanese Trainers expressed that they would like future
Trainers to be trained by South Sudanese nationals to continue building the skills of people in
their own country.
36
In October 2021, six staff were trained in Uganda, three for each centre. One trainer from Duk went on
maternity leave between January-June 2022. In Pibor, the centre manager resigned from the role at the
beginning of the project and one trainer was let go because he was not able to do the work. This left one trainer
in Pibor until she left for maternity leave in July 2022. Another trainer was hired in June and supported by staff
from Uganda.
35 The six weeks training in Arua included; 2 weeks with YSAT (since they were all new to YSAT) and four
weeks being trained in the CCB methodology and how to be a facilitator. This included a week that each team
spent doing a CCB training in Rhino and Imvepi, under the mentorship of the CCB trainers there.
34
Some YSAT staff expressed that more Facilitators and Assistants were needed to deliver the
workshops due to the short timeframe of the training (delivered over 5 days) and the
challenging operational environment. One Field Coordinator explained that it was challenging
to extend the workshops when they experienced delays, since budgets were fixed to cover staff
time and participant catering for 5 days. Sourcing translation services was also a challenge, as it
was not always clear if there was an approved budget for it.
"It is a bit not flexible because the training is supposed to strictly last [5] days, unless
we call the management for an allowance to push to the next week. Because, if the
participants are in the workshop one week and then the next week as well that means
we need another budget. Their catering also matters because the initial budget is
usually set to 5 days. The extension of the training only goes ahead when we are told to
do it. If the go ahead is not given, we do not decide on our own." - Centre
Manager/Facilitator, Pibor.
Participants appreciated the translation services they received and the expertise of the
Facilitators. They enjoyed having meals on site, which allowed them to socialise with other
CCB participants and saved them spending time searching for food and refreshments. The
translation services and food constituted an important part of creating an inclusive and
comfortable environment, enhancing the project’s social cohesion objectives. Ensuring these
aspects of the training are funded was integral to the success of the project.
Materials
Representatives from YSAT, MIT D-Lab and CCB participants all mentioned that there were
challenges supplying materials to the field site in adequate quantities and on time for at
least some of the CCB trainings. Although supply chains were set up between Juba and the
two project sites, prolonged rainfall made flights unable to land for long stretches of time, in
some cases delaying training or meaning that some participants were unable to finish their
technologies
37
. Centres had a store on site for materials and tools, but it seems that these stores
were insufficiently stocked to mitigate longer gaps in transport of goods.
Both YSAT and MIT representatives reflected on the high cost of flights to Pibor and Duk,
and this often exceeded the monetary value of the resources being flown. Additionally, the cost
of fuel for generators in Pibor and Duk during the project period was reported as high; $150 -
$200 monthly
38
, and there were occasional delays due to shortage of fuel at the innovation
centres.
Materials were transported by air due to poor road infrastructure, insecurity and seasonal
flooding. An inexpensive alternative would be to source materials locally, but this was said to
be difficult as materials were unavailable in the local markets. Until local markets are able to
provide materials for the CCB project, it will continue to rely on external funding to source
materials from Juba.
38 Estimates provided by YSAT
37 CCB participant, Female, Dinka, Duk.
35
Flooding and security
Floods caused by heavy rains also caused issues for participants travelling to the innovation
centres and, in some cases, disrupted participants’ attendance due to displacement. A
significant minority of CCB participants also explained that travelling to the innovation centre
was challenging due to the distances they had to cover, particularly those from ‘Canal Site’ in
Duk.
Some CCB participants and innovation centre staff reported risks associated with the timings of
the workshops and the distance that participants had to travel to the Innovation Centre.
While YSAT provided travel costs to participants, some mentioned that this caused conflict
among participants who were paid less for travel due to their shorter travel distances.
“Some were happy and others were not because of [the] difference in payment due to
[the] distance. Those in Padiet were paid less than those at Canal site." - Female CCB
Participant, Duk.
Many participants cited security as a key external factor that impacted their experience of
training. One participant was killed during a cattle raid in Duk
39
, and some trainings were
cancelled or delayed due to insecurity
40
. One staff member expressed concerns transporting
materials on the roads in Duk, citing safety concerns around theft.
-
This chapter provided a description of the Innovation Ecosystem Model, and its design
assumptions and intentions. It explored the perspectives of Centre Managers and Facilitators,
Local Authorities, CCB participants and YSAT and MIT D-lab staff, and highlighted the
challenges that the project has faced including Facilitator turnover, transporting materials, and
insecurity. The final section of the report outlines recommendations arising from the evaluation
findings.
40 Male CCB participant, Murle, Pibor
39
Interview with YSAT staff
36
Recommendations
In response to these findings, a set of recommendations were co-developed by the evaluation
team, MIT D-Lab and YSAT. Together we recommend the following future adjustments:
Recommendation 1 | Address supply chain problems to support participants to fix broken
technologies and create new ones
The evaluation illustrates that technologies can be genuinely transformative for people’s
incomes. However, six of the 17 technologies (35%) are currently out of use. Many people
report their innovation has broken and say they are waiting for it to be fixed, or to fix it
themselves. The supply chain to Pibor and Duk is particularly unreliable during the rainy season
which creates challenging delays. However, being unable to fix the technologies may
undermine the positive changes that people have described in their feelings of agency.
Recommendation 2 | Adjust project design and timelines to account for implementation
challenges in Pibor and Duk, especially during the rainy season
Pibor and Duk were challenging places to implement the CCB project. Supply chains for tools
and materials are slow and unreliable. Access by road or plane is very challenging during the
rainy season. The evaluation results illustrate the value of implementing the CCB project in this
type of environment. However, the funding mechanism for the project had no flexibility for
extending time frames to account for the significant challenges it faced.
Recommendation 3 | Clarify community cohesion objectives and groups
The community cohesion activities focussed on bringing together people of different locations,
ethnicities, genders and age sets. The evaluation provides evidence that people formed
friendships and working relationships with people across these different backgrounds. In some
cases, people said they felt surprised at the new relationships they had formed and that there
had not been tension between them. Clarifying the community cohesion objectives of the
project (for example, to focus on age sets, ethnicities etc) and doing some simple research
activities to monitor participant’s perceptions of each other would allow Y-SAT to document its
achievements in this area over time.
Recommendation 4 | Develop an advanced CCB project
MIT D-Lab has implemented an advanced ‘Energy’ CCB in Uganda. This project has illustrated
that participants benefit from attending a second CCB that allows them to develop knowledge
of the design cycle, learn additional technical skills, and build more advanced technologies that
address common daily challenges. A similar project in Pibor and Duk would help participants to
practice creativity and develop their sense of agency beyond the first CCB training.
Recommendation 5 | Increase the number of CCB-B trainings to make it accessible to a larger
number of participants.
Participants that attended the CCB-B training reported that it helped them gain basic business
skills including identifying potential customers and tracking costs and income. Our interviews
with participants indicate that other participants would have liked to attend a CCB-B and would
have benefited from these skills.
37
Recommendation 6 | Develop a starter fund for businesses
Eight small businesses have been started as a result of the project. The businesses often need
small amounts of capital to start, for example to pay for raw materials or to fix broken parts.
MIT D-LAB and YSAT will consider developing a fund to provide capital to fledgling businesses.
Recommendation 7 | Form links with humanitarian organisations implementing livelihood
activities in Pibor and Duk to identify if there are ways to work together or to influence their
projects in future.
In the original concept note, the project included elements designed to “impact how aid is
practised” in Pibor and Duk. In particular, the team planned to involve other actors in the
Co-Creation Event, including humanitarian organizations. The project design was updated and
the Co-Creation Event focussed on bringing together diverse groups of participants from Pibor
and Duk including people of different backgrounds, ethnicities and ages. The challenges
implementing the CCB also meant that the team had limited time to form linkages with
humanitarian organisations through other activities.
This evaluation illustrates that the CCB process provides participants with tangible
technologies that are new to the area and that can be used immediately to help earn an income.
MIT D-Lab and Y-SAT should pursue connections with these and other humanitarian
organisations to help position the Innovation Centre’s as a service provider for livelihoods. This
could include providing CCB trainings or renting the technologies at a cost, which would help
promote the sustainability of the project.
Recommendation 8 | Strengthen the Training of Trainers
The six Trainers were selected by local authorities and had no previous experience in building,
mechanics, facilitation or design training. They attended a Training of Trainers in Uganda but,
given their lack of previous relevant experience, it was not long enough to build the skills and
experience necessary to facilitate the CCBs. YSAT hired part time Technicians from both Pibor
and Duk to accompany the trainings and the experienced Trainers from Uganda also provided
extra in-person support. In future:
● Have innovation center managers visit other centers to learn what they could be like and
share experiences
● Have more capacity-building/training opportunities for the Trainers (eg. in project
identification and selection and using Kobo for data collection)
D-Lab provided additional recommendations from their experience of delivering the project:
● Have community outreach activities at the innovation center, in order to bring more people in,
have them feel more comfortable, increase the activity etc.
● Have “design/technology road shows” that allow trainers to do short (single day, or half day)
activities outside of the center to raise awareness and to provide services
● Develop technology service clusters that bring together the best CCB technologies,
specifically those that provide a service such as knife sharpening, paste making, phone
charging, etc. and refine them to be rugged and robust enough to withstand extended use.
● Hire “youth ambassadors” to work at the center, helping out but also mobilizing youth to
come to the center for activities
38
● Think about other roles that the innovation center could fulfil.
Annexes
Annex 1: Evaluation framework
This Annex provides an overview of the evaluation framework including the evaluation
questions, the evaluation sub-questions, and the methods being used to address each question.
Key Research
Questions
Sub Questions Methodology
1. Learning: What
impact does CCB
training have on
participants’
knowledge,
mindsets and
agency?
What percentage of participants report positive change
after each workshop in:
● Knowledge and skills related to design
● Mindsets around their ability to solve challenges
● Mindsets around attempting to try things they
have not done before
From the perspective of people trained, what advantage
does the innovation ecosystem give to people to create
technologies and tools [over other vocational training
models available]?
From the perspective of people trained, how does the
project contribute to self-reliance including increased
agency, problem solving, and technical skills?
How do participants describe the value of the CCBs,
Co-Creation summits and the innovation ecosystem?
Pre-post workshop
surveys
KIIs with CCB graduated
participants
2. Behaviour
change: To what
extent does the
project transfer soft
and hard skills that
can be used outside
of the training
environment?
What percent of participants report in the end-line
evaluation that they have:
● Continued working on the prototype from the
training
● Used the technology in their own day-to-day life
● Used the technology to earn income (i.e. sold,
rented, used in a business)
● Applied the design process to another challenge
● Collaborated with other participants from the
training
● Taught elements of the design process to others
● Collaborated with members of a group with
which they had differences or conflict
To what extent do participants use the technology in their
homes?
How do participants use the technology to generate or
create income?
To what extent do participants report developing
resilience and confidence? In what ways is this
Pre-post workshop
surveys
KIIs with CCB graduated
participants and household
members
39
Key Research
Questions
Sub Questions Methodology
experienced?
3. Technology
Development: To
what extent is the
project and the
local innovation
eco-system an
effective way for
participants to
produce things that
practically improve
their livelihoods or
save labour?
What percent of prototypes produced in D-Lab training
that, at the time of the endline evaluation, are:
● Actively in development
● In use
● Generating income
● Saving labour
What does “success” mean to participants? Are they
achieving these definitions of success?
How has access to the workshops, mentoring, networking
or Co-Creation activities facilitated the development of
the prototypes?
How do Co-Creation activities impact the design and
development (including scale) of prototypes?
Observations
KII with CCB graduated
participants and
community members
(customers/ neighbours)
Prototype photo diaries
Case studies
4. Gender: What
impact does CCB
and the innovation
ecosystem have on
participating
women and girls?
To what extent do the innovation ecosystem activities
contribute to greater self-reliance (including increased
agency, problem solving, and technical skills) for women
and girls?
From the perspective of women and girls trained, what
advantage does training people to create technologies
and tools give them [over other vocational training
models available]?
How do women and girls describe the value of the CCBs
and Co-Creation summit to them? What are the
advantages and disadvantages of training?
To what extent does CCB impact how female participants’
gender role is perceived?
KII with graduates
Researcher diary
5. Neutral spaces:
To what extent are
workshops and
Co-Creation
contributing to the
creation of neutral
spaces?
Do participants feel comfortable in the innovation centre?
How does the design and implementation of the project
contribute to or undermine the neutrality of the innovation
centre?
What relationships are created as a result of the project?
How are these relationships similar or different to other
parts of a participant's lives?
To what extent is CCB or the activities in the innovation
center facilitating positive working relationships between
different groups? Does bringing people together to build
something have an impact on relationships, particularly
with respect to conflict?
Interviews with CCB
graduates
Everyday peace indicators
Researcher diary
40
Key Research
Questions
Sub Questions Methodology
How do Co-Creation experiences influence relationships
between participating IDPs, host community and
humanitarian organisations?
6. Local innovation
ecosystem: How
does the model
need to be
adapted?
How does the local innovation ecosystem support IDPs in
producing things that practically improve their livelihoods
and save labour?
How does the local innovation ecosystem influence how
humanitarian aid is provided? What are the opportunities?
What are the risks of the local innovation ecosystem?
To what extent did the design and implementation of the
project lead to a developed innovation ecosystem in the
two locations? Including
● Internal and external relationships and
engagement
● Operational aspects - team size, structure and
composition
● Participant selection
● CCB, Co-creation summit, and other
non-financial support
To what extent did other external factors (including those
related to the conflict) influence the development of a
local innovation ecosystem?
What changes should be made for future iterations of the
project in South Sudan?
KIIs with stakeholders
KIIs with humanitarian aid
providers
Researcher diary
41
Annex 2: Outcome harvesting
The methodology combined in-depth interviews with a light-touch ‘outcome harvesting’
exercise. Outcome harvesting is useful in cases where change takes place in complex,
multi-stakeholder environments. The approach identifies changes (or outcomes) that have
taken place and works backwards to identify (a) how significant the change is (i.e. its level
and breadth of impact or potential impact) and (b) what contributed to the change. For this
evaluation we used the following definitions.
Activity Definitions
Change statement The observable change in the behaviour, relationships, activities or
actions of a social actor (person, group, organisation, community)
influenced by the activities of the project.
Significance Is the change important?
● Minor - change is small or not important
● Moderate - a step towards a transformational change
● Major - a transformational change toward increasing or
sustaining livelihoods
Contribution What was CCB’s role in making the change happen?
● Low - it would have happened anyway
● Medium - it happened faster
● High - would not have happened otherwise
42
Annex 3: Data collection
This Annex provides a summary of all data colleciton activities.
Method Description Duk Pibor
Pre-post surveys Surveys of CCB participants 20 post- surveys
Co-creation Event
survey
Surveys of Co-Creation Event
participants
19 pre- surveys
24 post- surveys
Outcome harvesting
workshops
A group discussion to harvest
information about changes that have
occurred for the participants and how
CCB contributed to these changes.
1 1
KIIs with Graduated
participants
In-depth semi-structured interviews
guided by open-ended questions to
explore the attitudes and perceptions of
staff and partners toward the project,
and learning outcomes and experiences
of CCB participants
25 23
KIIs with Household
members
2 4
KIIs with Local
Authorities
2 3
KIIs with Centre
managers/facilitators
2 2
Observations The observations sought to understand
the pedagogy and to explore the extent
is CCB an effective way for participants
to produce things that practically
improve their livelihoods or save labour.
1 1
FGDs The FGDs drew upon the Everyday
Peace Indicators methodology.
4 0
Validation workshops Findings workshops with the facilitators
and a group of CCB graduates to
present initial data and explore the
themes that are arising.
2 2
Researcher journals A journal of the researcher’s reflections
on the project throughout the
evaluation.
1 1
43
Figure 7. CCB participants demonstrating the paste maker.
44