Game-On: Rethinking Innovation for Impact at Scale

Photo credit: ILRI/Edwin Kang’ethe

What should CGIAR invest in next? With over 1,000 innovations in its global portfolio, answering this question isn’t just about good science—it’s about strategic decision-making. And at CGIAR Science Week, that decision-making took on a surprisingly playful form. 

At CGIAR Science Week, an unorthodox session titled “Game On: Playing with Complexity” brought researchers, practitioners, and development partners together—not to listen passively, but to play. And in doing so, to fundamentally rethink how we prioritize, fund, and scale innovations in agricultural research for development. 

Photo credit: CGIAR/Marc Schut

Led by Iddo Dror, the session was facilitated by a team from ILRI, IWMI, the CGIAR Portfolio Performance Unit, and the Scaling for Impact program—including Nicoletta Buono, Nora Hanke-Louw, and Edwin Kangethe. It featured an abridged version of a serious game developed by CGIAR in collaboration with professional experience designers Konstantin Mitgutsch (Playful Solutions) and Francine Boon (Sherlocked). While fun and interactive, the game’s purpose was anything but light: to support high-stakes decisions on where CGIAR should focus its time, resources, and partnerships.​ 

What Is Innovation Portfolio Management? 

IPM is CGIAR’s structured approach to managing its vast suite of innovations—from climate-smart agriculture tools to digital advisory platforms—ensuring that investments are strategically prioritized, evidence-based, and context-sensitive. 

The game offered a rare opportunity for decision-makers—including board members and funders—to step into the portfolio management role themselves, evaluate innovations, and grapple with real-world constraints such as scalability, contextual fit, and funding limitations. 

Step by Step: How the Game Played Out 

Each participant received a deck of six innovation cards, each representing a real CGIAR innovation from a different global region. These cards had been pre-vetted and scored at levels 8 or 9 on CGIAR’s 0–9 readiness scale, indicating their high maturity and potential for scaling. 

Step 1: Individual Evaluation
Participants independently evaluated each innovation card using four criteria (scored from 0 to 10), assigning each innovation a total score out of 40 based on how well it addressed their group’s specific challenge linked to CGIAR’s five impact areas: Gender Equality and Social Inclusion, Human Health, Nutrition and Food Security, Environmental Health and Biodiversity, Climate Adaptation and Mitigation, and Poverty Reduction, Livelihoods ad Jobs. 

Photo credit: ILRI/Edwin Kang’ethe

Step 2: Group Consensus via “Funding”

Armed with three coins (representing limited donor resources), participants became “funders.” They invested their coins in the innovation they believed was most promising—but they couldn’t vote for their own choice. This playful constraint pushed cross-evaluation, discussion, and negotiation. The innovation receiving the most funding within each group moved forward.

Step 3: Mapping the Scaling Journey

Using “journey maps,” each group mapped out the obstacles and opportunities their selected innovation would face on its way to large-scale impact. They placed cards and wrote sticky notes to simulate real-world variables: financing needs, policy environments, gender inclusion, stakeholder engagement, and more. 

Playing with Purpose 

While the session closed with a light-hearted “golden ticket” treasure hunt and a few well-earned prizes, the message was clear: decision-making for impact can’t be done in isolation, or in theory alone.  

Participants weren’t just choosing the “best” innovation; they were forced to grapple with real-world complexity: context variability, financing gaps, information delivery, and systems interactions. As one group emphasized during the debrief, no single innovation works in isolation. Success depends on bundled solutions, aligned systems, and enabling environments. 

This reflects a key shift in how CGIAR approaches scaling: away from isolated interventions and toward integrated innovation packages that are adapted to diverse contexts. 

Systems thinking, often treated as a buzzword, came to life during the session. Participants built “journey maps” for innovations, mapping challenges and opportunities. They learned firsthand that systems aren’t puzzles to be solved once and for all—they are dynamic, context-dependent, and shaped by relationships and trade-offs. 

Photo credit: CGIAR/Marc Schut

From Game to Governance 

The real value of the game became clear in the reflection: it mirrors the decisions funders and board members make every day. Which innovation will have the greatest impact? What’s the return on investment? What enabling conditions need to be in place? 

CGIAR’s Results Dashboard already provides the data behind these decisions—readiness levels, beneficiaries reached, funding flows—but the game adds a human, participatory dimension to prioritization. It forces decision-makers to weigh trade-offs, listen to diverse perspectives, and reflect on what success actually requires in different contexts. 

As Iddo Dror put it, “This isn’t just about one winning card. It’s about understanding how systems work, how innovations interact, and how we invest wisely.” 

Written by Hannah Ewell