“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