System redesign in animal production: Dutch experiences and broader relevance


Published on

Presented by Dr. Laurens Klerkx at ILRI, Addis Ababa, 12 September 2012.

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

System redesign in animal production: Dutch experiences and broader relevance

  1. 1. “System redesign in Animal Production:Dutch experiences and broader relevance”Dr. Laurens KlerkxKnowledge, Innovation and Technology GroupILRI, 12 September 2012, Addis Ababa
  2. 2. 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
  3. 3. 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
  4. 4. Different lines of investigation of thecluster 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
  5. 5. Different lines of investigation of thecluster 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
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. System redesign in egg production: theRondeel case
  8. 8. Starting point: crisis in Dutch animalproduction 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
  9. 9. Need to radically reform the ‘regime’
  10. 10. Government policy to stimulate radicalinnovation 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
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. Main steps in RID
  14. 14. Program of demands
  15. 15. Artist impressions
  16. 16. Nice design process outputs, but whatnext? Government funded design projects – pre-competitive phase Now companies should take up the ideas and develop them in real systems
  17. 17. Some firms took up the challenge:consortium
  18. 18. Design process outputs gave guidance, butthese firms still had many uncertainties  On technological development  On resources needed  On public policies  On consumer behaviour  On supplier behaviour  On retailers behaviour
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. External capacities Livestock Research: R&D and brokering Transition and Society: CSR consultancy, process facilitation and brokering TransForum: brokering, funding, process facilitation and monitoring
  21. 21. 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
  22. 22. Different components of innovation areinterdependent  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?
  23. 23. 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
  24. 24. Guarantee paved the way Bank gave loan Construction of first Rondeel
  25. 25. Guarantee paved the way
  26. 26. 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
  27. 27. 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
  28. 28. Rondeel project is just beginning – part ofniche
  29. 29. Reflection: is there a relevance for ILRIwork? 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?
  30. 30. Thank you foryour attention!Further reading on this topic, see:Bos, A.P., Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Gosselink, J.M.J., Bokma, S., 2009. Reflexiveinteractive design and its application in a project on sustainable dairy husbandrysystems. Outlook on Agriculture 38, 137-145.Klerkx, L., Aarts, N., Leeuwis, C., 2010. Adaptive management in agricultural innovationsystems: 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. Designprocess outputs as boundary objects in agricultural innovation projects: Functions andlimitations. Agricultural Systems 113, 39-49.Sumberg, J., Reece, D., 2004. Agricultural research through a new product developmentlens. Experimental Agriculture 40, 295-314See also my homepage for links to related articles: