Post on 10-May-2015
description
“System redesign in Animal Production:
Dutch experiences and broader relevance”
Dr. Laurens Klerkx
Knowledge, Innovation and Technology Group
ILRI, 12 September 2012, Addis Ababa
What will I talk about?
A brief introduction of our research cluster
The case of ‘Rondeel’ as an example of system redesign process following a ‘new product development approach’:
● The context in which the process emerged
● The NPD/system redesign process
● The implementation in practice of the Rondeel system
● Key issues and implications emerging from the the NPD/system redesign
Discussion on implications for ILRI’s work
Our group
Founded in 1968 as Extension Science: study of communication to enhance technology adoption
In the 1980’s a more critical and systemic perspective to innovation: AKIS -> name changed to Communication and Innovation Studies
In 2002 two groups developed:
● Communication and innovation studies
● Communication strategies
Very recent clustering and reorganization:
● Knowledge, innovation and technology group
● Communication strategies group
● Applied philosphy group
Different lines of investigation of the
cluster
Innovation systems and innovation networks/platforms
Intermediaries/brokers in innovation systems
Action and participatory research
Research governance analysis
Self-organization of actors
Frame analysis
Individual behaviour change and persuasive communication
Risk communication
Different lines of investigation of the
cluster
Participatory video and media analysis
Discursive strategies of actors
Critical technology analysis (technography) and political agronomy (SRI/biotech/pesticides)
Ethical analysis of technology development and agricultural production
Reflexive process monitoring
Some current projects
Convergence of Science- Strengthening Innovation Systems (COS-SIS)
The Evolution of SRI as a Socio-Technical Phenomenon
Intermediary actors in the Kenyan AIS
Support of Learning and Innovation Networks for Sustainable Agriculture (SOLINSA)
Preparing African Farmers against Parasitic Weeds in a Changing Environment (PARASITE)
Determining the cost-effectiveness of an effective intervention to improve adherence among treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients in the Netherlands
Expert-lay interaction about food and technology
System redesign in egg production: the
Rondeel case
Starting point: crisis in Dutch animal
production systems
Low animal welfare
We import soy and keep the dung
Contagious disease and multiple resistant bacteria
Meat consumption and obesity
Animal production and climate change
Low protein conversion ratio
Need to radically reform the ‘regime’
Government policy to stimulate radical
innovation
Create and stimulate sustainable niches – overcome system failures (e.g. strong and weak networks, institutional failure)
Various instruments
● R&D
● Platforms
● Linkage building
● Innovation subsidies
● Consumer awareness raising
What kind of R&D is needed?
System innovation requires a holistic perspective connecting scientific disciplines
Research should be transdisciplinary, involve stakeholders
Beyond research, enabling conditions for innovation need to be brought into place (co-evolution of hard-, soft-, orgware)
Research should translate desirable futures and stakeholder demands into appealing but attainable visions
Following Sumberg and Reece (2004), research should take a ‘New Product Development’ focus
Method of ‘interactive reflexive design’
(e.g., Bos et al., 2010)
Actual production system and socio-technical regime are ‘locked-in’
Visionaries are invited to think in possibilities, not current problems and constraints
Surveys among citizens on ideal production system
Also views farmers , scientists, and hens (through ethological scientists) are integrated
Briefs of requirements: what needs should the system fulfil?
Quick prototypes: images, scale models
Main steps in RID
Program of demands
Artist impressions
Nice design process outputs, but what
next?
Government funded design projects – pre-competitive phase
Now companies should take up the ideas and develop them in real systems
Some firms took up the challenge:
consortium
Design process outputs gave guidance, but
these firms still had many uncertainties
On technological development
On resources needed
On public policies
On consumer behaviour
On supplier behaviour
On retailers behaviour
Internal and external capacities
Vencomatic and Kwetters have well qualified staff that could help some of these uncertainties (e.g. on marketing, technology)
But also need for external resources and comptences
● External consultancy (in CSR, technology, market, business model) – look for and verify options
● To make contacts in different ‘worlds’ – government, retail, NGOs
● To get to know other similar experiences and creative solutions
● To find and obtain capital
External capacities
Livestock Research: R&D and brokering
Transition and Society: CSR consultancy, process facilitation and brokering
TransForum: brokering, funding, process facilitation and monitoring
Also visualization design helped to ‘sell
the story’
Towards local authorities
Towards the national government
Towards farmer’s organization
Towards Animal Protection Society
Towards supermarkets
Towards farmers
Different components of innovation are
interdependent
To sell egg: need to have system built and operational
For funding: guaranteed retail purchases needed
No construction: no purchases from retail
No promise of purchase of retail: no funding
Vicious cycle: who comes with the money?
How to get a guarantee?
Vencomatic as SME can invest, but not bear all risks
Innovation subsidies are insufficient
Banks do not lend for uncertain innovations
But state support also has its limits
Continuous lobby and opportunity searching needed
Guarantee paved the way
Bank gave loan
Construction of first Rondeel
Guarantee paved the way
Guarantee paved the way
Construction first Rondeel enabled having serous negotiations with supermarkets for shelve space
Eggs sold under private label ‘AH Pure and Honest’
NGO’s enthousiastic – free publicity
Key elements
Building strong but adaptive vision through interactive design
Building interfaces – spanning boundaries and mediating
Mobilizing powerful and influential advocates
Role of science as designer, advisor
Reflexive process monitoring to enhance adaptive management
Rondeel project is just beginning – part of
niche
Reflection: is there a relevance for ILRI
work?
Different system boundaries in smallholder agriculture– less discrete systems
Different resource endowments and enabling (or disabling) environments
Many more people involved/targeted in innovation processes ILRI works in
But parts of RID have been applied on dairy chains in Ethiopia (system analysis)
So what lessons can be learned, e.g. for ILRI’s R4D/ innovation platform work?
Thank you for
your attention!
Further reading on this topic, see: Bos, A.P., Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Gosselink, J.M.J., Bokma, S., 2009. Reflexive interactive design and its application in a project on sustainable dairy husbandry systems. Outlook on Agriculture 38, 137-145. Klerkx, L., Aarts, N., Leeuwis, C., 2010. Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment. Agricultural Systems 103, 390-400. Klerkx, L., Van Bommel, S., Bos, B., Holster, H., Zwartkruis, J.V., Aarts, N., 2012. Design process outputs as boundary objects in agricultural innovation projects: Functions and limitations. Agricultural Systems 113, 39-49. Sumberg, J., Reece, D., 2004. Agricultural research through a new product development lens. Experimental Agriculture 40, 295-314
See also my homepage for links to related articles:
http://www.com.wur.nl/UK/Staff/Klerkx