How Do You Evaluate Innovation Communities? Key Lessons from a Global Review

Innovation and knowledge communities are increasingly used to tackle complex social, economic, and environmental challenges. From organizational innovation platforms to large international ecosystems, these communities bring together diverse actors to learn, collaborate, and co-create solutions. Yet assessing their value and impact remains methodologically challenging.

In 2024, Key Impact conducted a global literature review, funded by the Hive - the Hub for Social Initiatives and Businesses in Israel, to explore how knowledge and innovation communities have been evaluated in practice. The review examined evaluation studies from different sectors, scales, and regions in order to identify practical lessons for future evaluations.

What the Review Looked At

The review analyzed evaluations of innovation communities operating at organizational, national, and international levels, spanning fields such as climate change, digitalization, mobility, humanitarian response, and organizational innovation. These included corporate innovation communities, government-funded knowledge programs, community-led humanitarian innovation partnerships, and large European innovation ecosystems. Rather than comparing “results,” the review focused on how evaluations were designed:

• What did they measure?

• How did they define key concepts?

• Which methods did they use to capture change in dynamic, networked settings?

What We Learned

A first key insight was that definitions matter. Evaluations that clearly defined what counted as a “community,” who qualified as a member, and what was meant by “innovation” were far better equipped to assess progress and results. Where these concepts remained vague, evaluations struggled to draw clear conclusions.

Second, the review showed that most evaluations focused heavily on outputs and activities, while fewer assessed outcomes, impact, or longer-term change. Even when impact was discussed, it was often based on self-reported perceptions rather than objectively verifiable indicators.

Third, networks and partnerships emerged as a central evaluation focus, reflecting the fact that innovation communities derive much of their value from relationships. However, the depth of network analysis varied widely. Evaluations that explicitly examined connectivity, collaboration patterns, and knowledge diffusion provided richer insights into how communities actually evolved and functioned.

Finally, the review highlighted the importance of differentiating units of analysis. Stronger evaluations distinguished between implementers, community members, the community as a whole, and supported innovations, rather than treating the community as a single, homogeneous entity.