1) The document discusses top-down knowledge transfer versus co-creation approaches for supporting agricultural innovation. It notes the limitations of top-down linear technology transfer models. 2) Co-creation is defined as active collaboration between producers and users initiated by firms to co-construct services and solutions. It allows for dialogue, access, and transparency between stakeholders. 3) Advantages of co-creation include adaptive innovation through learning cycles, building strategic relationships, and creating exceptional experiences through provocative leadership that focuses on customer needs.

1. Speaker -Praveen Kumar (M.Sc. (Ag Ext) 21081)
Division of Agricultural Extension
ICAR-IARI New Delhi 110012
Credit Seminar
Top Down Knowledge Transfer v/s
Co-creation:
How to Support Innovation
Better

2. 1. Introduction
2. Problems discussion
3. Innovation
4. Agri. Innovation system
5. Innovation support
services
6. Top down knowledge
transfer
7. Co-creation
8. Research review
9. Conclusion 2
Outline

3. Complex Agricultural Problems
Key characteristics of complex agricultural
problems
1.
Different
problem
dimensions
2.
Interactions
across
different
levels

4. • Biophysical
• Technological
• Socio-cultural
• Economic
• Institutional
• Political
Exploring solutions is unlikely to be successful if these
dimensions are analysed separately
1.Multi-dimensional

5. Climate Change and Food Security
Rainfall patterns
Temperature
Reduced yield/
income
Kyoto protocol
Carbon credits
Who is responsible?
Who pays?
Drought resistant
varieties
Cropping
calendar

6. • International
• Regional
• National
• Subnational
• Community
• Farm
• Plot
Exploring solutions requires interventions across
different levels
2. Multi-level Interactions

7. 2. Multi-level Interactions

8. Need for Agricultural Innovations
Strategies needs to focus on :
• Integrated analysis of problem dimensions, design
integrated solutions
• Interactions between multiple levels
• Needs and interest of different stakeholder groups
(including gender, age, ethnic groups)
• Flexibility and adaptive capacity to respond to the
uncertain and unpredictable context

9. What is Innovation ?
Innovation is an idea, practice or object that
is perceived as new by an individual or other
units of adoption.

10. Innovation is defined as :
Everything ‘that is in some case new, or a change
for an individual or a community that may help in
doing things better, making things easier or solving
problems’. (Rogers, 2003)
Implementation of a new or significantly improved product
(good, service or practice), a new marketing method or a
new organisational or institutional (rule, norm, standard)
method in business practices. (OECD 1997 and Eurostat
2009 )

11. Educational institutes
Actors in Innovation Process

12. A network of organisations, enterprises, and
individuals focused on bringing new products,
new processes, and new forms of organisation
into economic use, together with the institutions
and policies that affect their behaviour and
performance (World Bank, 2012)
Agricultural Innovation System

13. Features of AIS
The main focus of the approach is reversal of learning
where researcher and extension worker is also learning
from farmers
Put emphasis on people rather than things and work on
what matters to participants and to learn from the
beneficiaries rather than to teach them.
•
• Source-world bank, 2013
Priorities & roles are reversed; with farmers and farm seen
as central

14. Agricultural Innovation Systems
AIS
AKIS
FSR
TT

15. • From technology transfer approach to agricultural innovation
systems – a journey through time…
Shift from Technology Transfer to
Agricultural Innovation System

16. Shift from Technology Transfer to
Agricultural Innovation System

17. Source: Klerkx et al 2012
Shift from Technology Transfer to
Agricultural Innovation System

18. Innovation Support Services (ISS)
ISS are immaterial and intangible by nature and
involves several providers and beneficiaries in
activities in which they interact to address a
more or less explicit demand emerging from a
problematic situation and formulated by the
beneficiaries and to co-produce the services
aimed at solving the problem. (Faure et al. 2012;
Labarthe et al. 2013)

19. Knowledge and technology transfer1.
Advisory and consultancy support at farm and
organizational level2.
Capacity building and documenting learning3.
Demand articulation4.
Networking facilitation5.
Access to resources6.
Types of Innovation Support Services

20. 1. The level of technological change required to achieve
desired changes (at farm level, value chain level, territory
level), “Hardware” dimension.
2.The level of changes for new coordination among actors
required to achieve the desired changes. “orgware”
dimension.
Factors Influencing the Alignment
and Coordination Mechanisms of ISS

21. Knowledge transfer
Knowledge transfer is a process of passing critical “know
how” and “know what” from experts to users; untapped or
unshared knowledge.

22. Pre-requisite for Knowledge Transfer
Instill an atmosphere of trust in the organization
Fix a culture to accommodate change
Doing is far better than talking
Know how the firm handle mistakes

23. Factors in Knowledge Transfer
1.
2.
3.
Where the knowledge
is transferred from
Media used in
knowledge transfer
Where the knowledge
is transferred to

24. Inhibitors of Knowledge Transfer
Lack of
trust
Lack of
time and
conference
places
Status of
the knower
Quality
and
speed of
transfer

25. Source-Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information
Technology, 31st May 2016. Vol.87. No.3
Knowledge Management Process

26. Top Down Knowledge Transfer Model
Top Down KT is a one-way process where technologies
developed by scientists are passed on to extension
services to be transferred to users.

27.  In this model the
response of users to
the new technology is
gathered
Limitations –
 The feedback function
solely rests with the
extension service
(Stoop, 1988)
Feedback Technology Transfer Model

28. The major limitations of the approach includes :-
 Lack of transforming research outputs into
development impacts and inability to meet users need
 Inability to promote a continuous learning and
innovation process
 Unable to appreciate local and indigenous knowledge
 Inability to create interaction among different sources of
knowledge
 Limitation in developing user capacity in relation to the
innovation
Limitations of Linear TT Approach
(Source: Lundy et al. 2007)

29. Co-creation is a
management
initiative, that brings
different parties
together in order to
jointly produce a
mutually valued
outcome.

30. Pre-requisite of Co-creation
Prahalad and Ramaswamy et al, 2009
Dialogue Interaction between customer
Access Allow customer to access the data
Risk-benefit To monitor risk and gaps between customer and firm
Transparency Information among business is accessible

31. Principles of Co-creation

33. Typesof Co-creation
http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/File:4_types_of_co-creation.png

34. 6.
Evaluate
4.
Design
2.
Analyse
1. Identify
3. Define
5. Realize
Steps in Co-creationInviteShareCombineSelectContinue

35. Co-creation Methodology of a Telecom major

36. Strategies for effective co-creation
Clarify objectives and processes up-front
Objectives must also include practical
outcomes
Use professional facilitators
Choose an appropriate process
Ensure there are sufficient resources
Conduct formative evaluation

37. Advantages of co creation
1.
2.
3.
Introspection- Co-creation demands introspection
and continuous listening, and can tap every
interaction and relationship in a digitally disrupted world
Adaptive innovation- Launch , learn, repeat
Strategic relationships- development of strategic
relationship between 2 enterprises
4.
5.
Provocative and purposeful leadership- focusing on
leading drivers and focusing on customer intent,
such as sentiment, reputation, and engagement
Create exceptional experiences and organisations

38.  Dependence on customer’s
behaviour
 Serving a niche market only
 Dependence on customers’ views/interests
 Dependence on customers’ experience
Disadvantages of Co-creation

40. Consumer co-creation and new product development: a
case study in the food industry
Purpose of the study – is to analyze the innovation outputs companies can achieve by
involving customers at the “fuzzy front end” of the new product development process.
Strategy adopted - collaborative innovation platform with the aim of listening
to their ideas developed by company
Ideas are provided by consumers at this platform
Ideas are screened only by consumer community
Best ideas are selected by consumers.
Internal business feasibility analysis of the most voted idea
is done and idea is then implemented by company.
Involvement of
consumers -

41. Findings of the case study
Time period of case study - from March 2010 to February 2013
2995
1225
540
355
5109

42. The request of a new, more functional shape of a
breaded product gave birth to a new product
An idea given by a customer - for the development of a
new line of wheat meal biscuits, which gave birth to
three new types of biscuits
 Among the nine ideas implemented, a new ingredient
for a type of snack, two ideas to put back on sale a
type of biscuit, and a snack.
Results

43. Conclusion of the Case Study
The results of our case study show involving customers at these stages
may lead to effectively and rapidly matching emerging and latent
customers’ needs.
The results have shown that customers are capable of producing original,
new, and feasible ideas, which are highly valuable for companies’ in their
innovation activities.
Customers’ ideas produced through co-creation platforms supplement
the knowledge of in-house marketing and R&D experts.
Involving consumers helped the company to know how customers will
react to new products’ offering, and what kind of project should be
prioritized.

44. Researches also demonstrated various effects of co-
creation on customers
S.
No
Participants in innovation
process
Non participants
1 Shows more commitment Show positive intension towards
advertised co created products
2 Trust to organization Intended to recommend the
technology to others
3 Exhibit enhanced loyalty Talk about the technology in
general
4 Emotional connection
5 Stronger tendency towards
positive word of mouth
6 Demand for products that
they co- created

45. Some forms of co-creation
As far as innovation is concerned open innovation, crowd sourcing and co-creation are
important.

46. OPEN INNOVATION CROWD-SOURCING CO-CREATION
Use of purposive inflows and
outflows of knowledge to
accelerate internal innovation .
An organization decides to tap
into the knowledge of a wider
crowd and input is sourced
from a large and undefined
group of people.
Active collaboration
between producers and
users that is initiated by the
firm co-construct the service
experience to suit their
context.
Creates an environment where
individuals and organizations
can actively get involved in the
creation of mutually beneficial
solutions
Lower level of engagement and
involvement of people than
open innovation and co-creation
A way of enhancing
customer engagement by
directly involving them in
the company’s value
creation and product
development processes.
HOW IT DIFFERS FROM OPEN INNOVATION AND
CROWD-SOURCING

47. Farming system research
Participatory technology development
Overlapping Approaches of Co-creation

48.  Main advantage of FSR, it begin and end with the farmer.
 The model involves:
1. diagnosis to define problems (farmer, scientist)
2. interdisciplinary team research to develop potential solutions
3. on-farm and experiment station testing
4. adaptation of proposed solutions to farmer's conditions
5. farmer evaluation and adaptation of the technology and
monitoring of its adoption (Stoop, 1988).
Farming System Research

49. PTD PROCESS
Getting started
Understanding problems and opportunities
Looking for things to try
Experimentation
Keeping up the process
Sharing the result

50. Why participation is so important?
The significance of participation:
 Involvement of people ensures that the interests and needs
of local people will be defined more effectively.
 The solutions will be socially and culturally acceptable.
 Creates a collective self-esteem leading to revitalization of
local experiences.

51. TOT Approach PTD Approach
Why ? Generalizes predetermined solutions
across wide areas, beyond the farming
system.
Gives more attention to local validity of
farmers’ solutions to empower local farmers’
knowledge.
Who ? The “experts” are based in their agencies
or offices.
Outsiders such as research scientists and
extension staff, as well as local leaders and
farmers, work in mutual respect for rural life.
What ? Each expert looks through the lens of his
or her own disciplinary diagnosis,
informed mainly by experimental
stations.
Outsiders support or facilitate local people to
identify their own problems, needs and
opportunities.
How ? Experts send students or young
researchers to collect quantitative data
from the field or experimental stations
using surveys and pre-structured
questionnaires.
Experts and farmer’s skills rely on a range of
participatory methods to collect qualitative
data.
When
?
According to office project planning A long-term interaction following a project
cycle and process.
Difference between TOT and PTD

52. 1. Changing management mindset
2. Balancing freedom and rules
3. Creating a collaborative culture
4. Motivating co-creative clients
5. Avoiding disappointing clients
Challenges of co- creation

53. Conclusion
The co-creation process tends to use external ideas in addition to internal
ideas to improve the innovation capacity of its participants.
Co-creation process aims to build a direct line of communication between
all the stakeholders involved in the product development and consumers
in order to achieve innovation and build a clear understanding of user
experience.
Co-creation also contributes to reducing innovation risk and accelerates
the development of new products or the improvement of existing ones

54. 1. Bartl, Michael (2009). Methods and Tools for Co-Creation and Open Innovation. MICHAELBARTL.COM, Munich
2. Chathotha, P., Altinay, L., Harrington, R., Okumus, F., & Chane, E. (2012). Co-production versus co-creation: A
process based continuum in the hotel service context. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 32, 11-20.
3. Filieri, R.,2013. Consumer co-creation and new product development :A case study in food industry,
Article in Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 31 Issue: 1, pp.40-53
4. Nicholas lnd. (January 2013) The meaning of co creation – Article in European business review ,
, Ohio school of management .US
5. Prahalad, C., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). 11 Strategy as Discovery. In The Future of Competition (p. 200). Boston,
Massachusettes: Harvard Business School press.
6. Rogers E. M. (2003) Diffusion of innovations. New York, U.S.A: Free Press.
7 Witell, L., Gustafsson,A.,(June 2012 )Customer co-creation in service innovation: A matter of communication.,
Article in Journal of Service Management.
References

55. The best way to anticipate the future is to
co-create it.