How Programme Teams Progress Agricultural Innovation in the Australian Dairy Industry

Abstract

Purpose: This article outlines the emergence of programme teams in the Australian dairy farm sector as a response to counter weaknesses in the institutional environment for agricultural innovation which favours technology adoption/diffusion approaches. Design/methodology/approach: The strengths, weaknesses and risks of different approaches to innovation in the Australian dairy sector RD&E system are analysed and key features of an emerging programme team approach defined. The programme team approach is compared and contrasted with the features of innovation capacity from international literature. An analysis of the relative investment in this innovation capacity in different topics or domains of dairy innovation is provided. Findings: The programme team approach to innovation involves groups of researchers, extension people, public and private organisations, farmers, community groups, and policy and service groups brought together to progress innovation and change in a topic area or domain. Leadership of the process is provided by an area expert or champion. The team takes responsibility for: (a) understanding the businesses of key players who have an influence in the innovation or domain; (b) deciding the nature of the desired change that all stakeholders can align to; (c) identifying features of the enabling environment to establish what capacity is needed; (d) designing a 'route to change' strategy (in contrast to traditional route-to-market thinking); and (e) piloting and refining the approach within the target populations. The group manages emerging risks and keeps on top of issues, as well as identifies any knowledge gaps for research that are preventing innovation and change.Conclusions/practical implications: The programme team approach provides a semi-formal governance mechanism for innovation to develop, despite an institutional environment that favours technology adoption. Further, the activities of programme teams consist of practices which integrate research-led and demand-pull approaches. Currently, investment in such innovation capacity is relatively low and highly variable across different topic domains. Added value: The article provides tangible activities that managers of agricultural RD&E programmes can invest in to progress systemic approaches to innovation and is a guide for agricultural education and extension practitioners to proceed in their innovation work.

Doing water research differently for innovation in regional water productivity in Australia

“…to illustrate how the consultation process enabled novel thinking and established new social arrangements and enrolled particular material resources for 'progressing innovation' (Nettle, Brightling, and Hope 2013) in regional water productivity. In Round 1 of the survey on 'Regional Water Productivity and Innovation' , respondents were asked to consider a conceptual framework for innovation in Regional Water Productivity.…”

“…Scholars of innovation recognise an ongoing tension between a systemic view of innovation and one that posits innovation as an adoption and diffusion process (Nettle, Brightling, and Hope 2013), and the resultant roles for research. Conventional perspectives on innovation, such as 'linear' or 'pipeline models' , emphasise organised.…”

Triggering system innovation in agricultural innovation systems: Initial insights from a community for change in New Zealand

“…However, the ability of actors to co-innovate is influenced by the structural composition of the agricultural innovation system (AIS): the presence of actors, their interactions, the institutions that influence their behaviour, and supportive physical, financial and knowledge infrastructure and incentives (Nettle et al, 2013;Wieczorek and Hekkert, 2012).…”

“…To address this, policies that proactively stimulate and support co-innovation at the systems level are needed (Wieczorek and Hekkert, 2012). Many countries, including NZ, have yet to fully embed such policies (Nettle et al, 2013) by addressing the institutional logics underpinning systemic problems (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2013;Kivimaa and Kern, 2016). Institutional logics are 'the socially constructed, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organize time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality' (Thornton and Ocasio, 1999: 804).…”

Using a co-innovation approach to support innovation and learning: Cross-cutting observations from different settings and emergent issues

“…An enabling setting in organizations is also required to allow for emergent research designs in dynamic innovation processes as opposed to fully planned projects also requiring flexibility from funders regarding the type of activity needed at particular points in time and the different ways of evaluating impact (Botha et al, 2014;Klerkx et al, 2017;Roux et al, 2010). Co-innovation requires change from multiple actors at different levels in agricultural innovation systems to embed these approaches (Klerkx and Nettle, 2013;Minh et al, 2014;Nettle et al, 2013;Schut et al, 2016;Turner et al, 2016).…”