SECOND ORDER LEARNING AS A RESULT OF PAST PANDEMICS: THROUGH THE LENSES OF KNOWLEDGE- BASED ORGANISATIONS TOWARDS A TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY (TIP) Jozsi Scholten, Charlotte Huijskens and Veronique Dörr TIPCWP 2020-04 SECOND ORDER LEARNING AS A RESULT OF PAST PANDEMICS: THROUGH THE LENSES OF KNOWLEDGE-BASED ORGANISATIONS Authors: Jozsi Scholten, Charlotte Huijskens and Veronique Dörr Date: 01-08-2020 Table of contents Executive summary 3. Introduction 6. - COVID-19 6. - Methodology 6. Part I: Theoretical framework 8. - I.I. Transitions theory 8. - I.II. The role of knowledge-based organizations 9. - I.III. Types of learning 10. - 1.IV. Research question and sub-questions 11. Part II: Case studies 12. - II.I. SARS – Canadian Institute of Health Research 12. - II.II A/H1N1 – Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation 21. Part III: Discussion 34. - III.I. Limitations of our research 34. - III.II. Next steps 35. Part IV: Conclusion 37. - IV.I. Lessons learned 37. Bibliography 38. 2 Cite this paper as: Scholten, J., Huijskens, C., Dörr, V. 2020. Second Order Learning as a Result of Past Pandemics: Through the Lenses of Knowledge-based Organisations. TIPC Working Paper, TIPCWP 2020-04. Online access: http://www.tipconsortium.net/?post_type=publication&p=9711 Executive summary The report details the results of the study of learning processes in response to pandemics in knowledge-based organizations. Specifically, it refers to two case studies: the case of SARS and the Canadian Institute of Health Research (2003 – 2013), and A/H1N1 and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (2009 – 2019). These pandemics are chosen because of the similarities with COVID-19 since both are transmitted through air, happened recently and are caused by an influenza or corona virus. The two organizations are chosen because of their global focus and membership in the Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R). This study was conducted over the course of two months, from the beginning of June 2020 until the end of July 2020, as an internship in the context of the Masters Programme in International Relations in Historical Perspective in the Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium (TIPC). It consisted of two case studies, each focusing on a different pandemic and a different knowledge-based organization to examine how past pandemics have served as a landscape shock accelerating learning within international knowledge-based organizations. The first case study, which analyzed learning within the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) due to the SARS outbreak in 2003, pointed out the following: a. The initial challenges the CIHR faced with the introduction of the SARS outbreak were primarily related to the lack of research capacity, funding, and leadership on a national level. The CIHR acted on this through the creation of the CSRS, the Canadian SARS Research Consortium, initially; followed by the Pandemic Preparedness Strategic Research Initiative; which specifically worked to develop more cooperative interactions between various federal & provincial health institutions, enhance pandemic response speed, and improve research capacity by creating linkages between research bodies. b. Learnings are not traceable to a reflexivity process of actors within the CIHR. The shortcomings were addressed almost exclusively from external parties; in particular the National Advisory Committee that investigated the handling of the CIHR during the SARS outbreak. The internal assessments of the CIHR are almost entirely result- oriented, demonstrating no critical reflection on deficiencies. c. First order learning occurred through the revision of the CIHR’s funding mechanisms and through its initiation of workshops to develop network linkages. The creation of entirely new programs and research initiatives such as the CSRS and the PPSRI could be indicative of second order learning. The sources available however illustrate that the CIHR was reliant on external feedback and guidance to make structural changes. This indicates that the SARS outbreak did contribute to a change in the behaviours of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, but that the CIHR did not visibly experience double-loop learning in this process. 3 The following lessons from this case study could be relevant for TIPC: a. The lack of critical self-assessment, and in turn double-loop learning, found within the CIHR could be a predicament common amongst organizations of its nature. Its responsibility to the public, as well as its annual review by the Ministry of Health (and in turn its assigned spending budget), could create an environment in which challenging the underlying foundations of an organization are heavily disincentivized. Despite this being a speculative observation, it could be an interesting notion to explore for similar organisations nonetheless. As TIPC sets out to question whether lessons are learned through such crises, it can be compelling for publicly funded organisations to review whether there are inherent barriers for reflexivity to occur. In TIPC’s effort to experiment with transformative evaluation techniques, it may look to endorse practices of reflexivity in both the consortium and within partnered government agencies. b. The CIHR also demonstrated the difficulty of steering a network of individuals and scientific teams outside a hierarchical organization during the SARS outbreak. The CIHR case indicated that the fundamental elasticity of research work, in which participants have the latitude to choose their collaborators and their research focus, could make it naturally difficult to govern, especially under the time constraints of crisis. Despite that TIPC does not set out to mark priorities, it could still be fruitful to understand the need for clear coordination and responsibility alignment. This is especially pertinent in face of a crisis, such as COVID-19 today, in which the role of research institutions is magnified. To align the coordinative efforts and proposed responsibilities of various stakeholders could be pragmatic for TIPC in its goal to build a research agenda, and in externally applying its recommendations. c. There are also simultaneous positive learnings to be associated with the CIHR’s handling of SARS. Its application of pre-mobilized development funds that would allow for teams to immediately receive funding without delays in the usual granting process exhibited CIHR’s agility in adopting new protocols. The CIHR did demonstrate its willingness for experimentation through changes to its funding practices, as well as its initiation of off-shoot organisations such as the PPSRI. This could serve as a reference point as to how federal and /or national organizations can maneuver within bureaucratic constraints. The second case study, which analyzed learning within the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation due to the A/H1N1 outbreak in 2009 pointed out the following: a. The Gates Foundation has a very extensive evaluation policy and distinguishes itself with its desire to continue learning. The Foundation has incorporated the developmental evaluation approach in its evaluation policy which opens up the possibility of second order learning, meaning that reflexive learning within the Foundation could occur by means of its evaluation policy. While this research did not find signs of any reflexive learning methods being incorporated in the Foundation it did find sources that point to the presence of reflexive methods, for instance the launch of the Gates Foundation’s “culture change” initiative in 2017.1 b. The H1N1 pandemic triggered first order learning in the Gates Foundation as the decision of the Foundation to launch CEPI, invest in vaccine development programs 1 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Innovative practices for leading culture (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2017). 4 and hold annual high level pandemic exercises after 2009 was influenced by Gates’ individual experience along with information from outside while missing the reflexive element or changes in norms, objectives and structures. c. Second order learning did occur in the Gates Foundation between 2009-2019 as a reorganization of the Foundation included a restructuring of its global programs after a reflection on its routines and worldview. In addition, the reorganization also changed the Foundation’s objective from solely producing lifesaving technologies to also investing in modifying the conditions for these innovations. d. However, second order learning in the Gates Foundation did not occur due to the H1N1 pandemic but because of outside criticism, the arrival of Trevor Mundel as a president brought a different view of how the Foundation should restructure its work, the arrival of Cristopher Elias who pointed to the problem of the “innovation pile-up”, and a personal experience of Jeff Raikes which pointed him to the importance of integrating the different global programs. e. The extensive reorganization shows the ability of private organizations, such as the Gates Foundation where financial resources mostly come from the private fortune of the heads themselves, to address structural problems quickly if the current strategy is not having the desired outcome The following lessons from this case study could be relevant for TIPC: a. Even if organizations incorporate learning, double loop or second order learning into its evaluation policy, it remains crucial for them to address its learning limitations. Therefore, it could be helpful for TIPC to understand that addressing