Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
Language
- English (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
- Agricultural innovation project (1)
- Agricultural innovation system (1)
- Co-innovation effectiveness; Organisational Innovation System; Attitude towards interaction; Ideal type (1)
- Farm advisory service; Innovation; Agriculture; Coinnovation; AKIS; Innovation support service; EIP-AGRI (1)
- Organisational innovation system (1)
- Project assessment (1)
- Spillover effect (1)
Institute
A large variety of organisations provides support for cooperative approaches in the field of research and innovation in agriculture, forestry and rural development, and acts as Innovation Support Services (ISS). The findings from ProAkis (2015) show that different types of organisations such as administrative offices, public or semi-public advisory services, rural academies/universities, producer organisations, other NGOs or private consultants engaged in the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) can act as ISS. The funding of ISS can be public, private or a mix of both. A first literature review indicates that studies often focus on the larger “enabling environment” and the structure of the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS). Moreover, many authors pay particular attention to the role of public or semi-public advisory organisations (Knierim et al., 2015; Sulaiman 2015). The aim of this paper is to assess the different types of organisations that provide support for interactive innovation, and to analyse the particular role of each type of organisation for interactive innovation projects.
Particular attention will be payed to the divers group of organisations that are not part of a (semi)-public advisory organisation. The paper is based on the analysis of more than 200 case studies of publically or privately funded interactive innovation projects within the EU and beyond. The selection of cases took place under the framework of the project LIAISON funding by the EU research and innovation programme Horizon 2020 (grant agreement No 773418). European and national databases contain several thousands of projects in agriculture, forestry and rural development. We selected projects applying the interactive innovation approach from a) EU programmes (EIP-Agri, Horizon2020, Interreg, and LIFE+); b) nationally/regionally or privately funded projects; and c) informal initiatives or networks in the agri-food, forestry, bioeconomy or nature conservation area. Preliminary results indicate that publically funded IIS play a core role for legal/administrative compliance of projects. Semi-public advisory services take up this role as well, and they are strong in linking farmers with scientists, technicians, entrepreneurs etc.
However, they often exist and offer efficient ISS only for those industries that have a long tradition for a sector or area (e.g. dairy, pork, poultry or club fruit). Niche sectors or industries with little policy engagement often lack the support of a publically funded advisory service but profit more from producer organisations or rural academies/universities when they take up the role of ISS.
CONTEXT
Innovation is an important driver of increased productivity, sustainability and resilience in agriculture, forestry and related sectors. An analysis of how different types of multi-actor co-innovation partnerships function can help to identify the reasons why some are more successful than others in ‘speeding up’ innovation.
OBJECTIVE
To provide a framework for the analysis of the co-innovation process, we developed a multidimensional conceptual typology of co-innovation activities based on a review of 200 such partnerships involving farmers and foresters from across Europe. This framework is based on innovation systems theory and the prevailing policy context of the ‘multi-actor approach’.
METHODS
The overarching concept or dependent variable measured by the typology is ‘effectiveness of co-innovation by a multi-actor partnership’ and the two dimensions of the overarching concept are the ‘structural components of the Organisational Innovation System’, with four categories, and ‘attitude towards interaction’, with two categories. The result is a matrix of eight ‘ideal types’ of co-innovation activity. These eight types are characterised according to first-order constructs derived from our research data.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The results show that the co-innovation process can successfully take contrasting forms according to the ‘contextual contingencies’ encountered by the partnership. In other words, no one ideal type is intrinsically ‘superior’ to another but may be more ‘appropriate’ in given circumstances. Factors influencing approaches to implementation include actor capacities, aspirations and networks, the co-innovation topic and its influence on the partnership size and the workplan structure, the type of co-innovation activity outputs and the need to engage with the ‘larger periphery’ of stakeholders, and the nature of the enabling environment.
SIGNIFICANCE
The typology is not a classification since the ideal types represent organisational forms that might exist rather than real partnerships. However, the analytical framework it provides will help policy makers and programme managers to develop targeted interventions, according to actor needs and local circumstances, for ‘speeding up’ innovation.
A large variety of organisations provides support for cooperative approaches in the field of research and innovation in agriculture, forestry and rural development, and acts as Innovation Support Services (ISS). The findings from ProAkis (2015) show that different types of organisations such as administrative offices, public or semi-public advisory services, rural academies/universities, producer organisations, other NGOs or private consultants engaged in the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) can act as ISS. The funding of ISS can be public, private or a mix of both. A literature review indicates that studies often focus on the
larger “enabling environment” and the structure of the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS). Moreover, many authors pay particular attention to the role of public or semi-public farm advisory organisations (Knierim et al., 2015; Sulaiman 2015). The paper is based on the analysis of more than 200 case studies of publically or privately funded interactive innovation projects within the EU and beyond. The selection of cases took place under the framework of the Horizon2020-funded European research and innovation project LIAISON. European and national databases contain several thousands of projects in agriculture, forestry and rural development. We selected projects applying the interactive innovation approach from a) EU programmes (EIP-Agri, Horizon2020, Interreg, and LIFE+); b) nationally/regionally or privately funded projects; and c) informal initiatives or networks in the agri-food, forestry, bioeconomy or nature conservation area. The results indicate that publically funded IIS play a core role for legal/administrative compliance of projects. Semi-public advisory services take up this role as well, and they are strong in linking farmers with scientists, technicians, entrepreneurs etc. However, they often exist and offer efficient ISS only for those industries that have a long tradition for a sector or area (e.g. dairy, pork, poultry or club fruit). This paper shows that different types of organisations (research institutes, farmers or producer organisations, NGOs, processing or marketing SMEs, or public bodies) provide various forms of support for the studied interactive innovation groups. No particular type of organisation such as the farm advisory services are more suitable than the other organisations for the delivery of ISS. Instead, it depends on former collaboration, the particular topic, objective or capacities available as well as the cultural/political context who engages in interactive innovation and provides innovation support.
CONTEXT
Current research emphasises that agricultural innovation projects are influenced in multiple ways by the Agricultural Innovation Systems (AIS) in which they operate. Yet little attention has been paid to the reverse direction of this relationship, i.e. how agricultural innovation projects affect AIS in the course of their innovative activities. Accordingly, there are currently no tools to measure such AIS spillovers from agricultural innovation projects.
OBJECTIVE
This paper shows that even where agricultural innovation projects have not been designed with the explicit aim of influencing AIS they can have spillovers on the AIS in which they operate. Based on this finding, it argues that designing agricultural innovation projects in a way that maximises such positive and reduces negative AIS spillovers would be a useful tool for strengthening agricultural innovation capacities in a particular territory or sector.
METHODS
Based on the concept of agricultural innovation projects as Organisational Innovation Systems (OIS) that are embedded in AIS, the paper develops an analytical framework for assessing spillovers of such projects on AIS and applies it to a case study of an Operational Group in the German Federal State of Hessen.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The case study shows that agricultural innovation projects may yield diverse spillovers on the AIS in which they operate. In addition to considering how agricultural innovation projects are shaped – constrained and/or enabled – by AIS, the research community on agricultural innovation should pay more attention to this side of the interrelation of AIS and agricultural innovation projects. Designing agricultural innovation projects responsibly so that spillovers on AIS are monitored can help to improve national or sectoral AIS.
SIGNIFICANCE
This paper points to an underexplored issue in research on agricultural innovation and, related to this, a thus far unused potential policy tool for improving national and sectoral AIS. It further develops the concept of innovation projects as OIS into an approach for assessing the effects of projects on AIS; an area of project assessment that until now has not been adequately covered.