The report is very interesting with a lot of information. I was very interested in the innovation part. I fully agree with the discussion regarding innovation processes and innovation system. However, there is a need to better understand and strengthen how to support innovation (not only understand how innovation occur and develop) (Faure et al. 2018). I would like to provide some inputs regarding this dimension which is missing in the report.
In learning theories, building innovation capacities of individual and organizations is the core of the accompaniment approaches. The managerial perspective helps establish principles of action and create useful tools for innovation to support practitioners. Research into management of innovation helps draws attention to the complexity of innovation situations at different levels, individual, organizational and inter-organizational (or collective). In some cases, individuals or organizations need primarily to modify their practices and strategies for action incrementally, without questioning the values that guide their actions. It is a matter of simple learning, which can be supervised or facilitated through experimentation or decision-making support. In other cases, in contrast, a change in the reference framework is required. This type of learning, called ‘transformative’ requires a different type of support, which focuses on the ability to collectively give sense into action. That is fully the case of agroecological innovation because we talk about systemic innovation or radical innovation.
Managing the emergence of innovation communities is crucial in all innovation situations (including agroecology), especially for creating design spaces, organizing deliberations and exchanges of ideas, identifying partners to involve, and monitoring collective activities (Toillier et la. 2018). More specifically, the literature on support for innovation allows us to distinguish two scales of intervention to reflect on and organize support for innovation: the local scale of innovation situations and the global scale – sectoral, regional, or national depending on the context – in which they evolve. Innovation communities have specific needs for support depending on the stages of the innovation process, the capacities of the actors
to support innovation play a critical role in innovation processes in various ways (Faure et al. 2018). During the first phases of a given innovation process (initial idea, inspiration and planning), the actors willing to support innovation mainly need to provide the space and resources for key actors to innovate. During the final phases of the innovation process (development, realization, dissemination and embedding), service provision is more standardized and many services are oriented to farmers to ensure the scaling and institutionalization of the innovation. However, Innovation Service Support (ISS) needs in terms of diversity and intensity seem to depend on two dimensions: the level of technological change required to enhance the innovation process, and the level of new coordination mechanisms needed among actors (including service providers). ISS are provided by a large range of service providers and depend on the characteristics (governance, funding, etc.) of the service providers. The mechanisms to align the ISS, and thus to fully support innovation, largely depend on the degree of concentration as opposed to fragmentation of the Innovation System. Finally, “networking, facilitation, and brokerage” functions are crucial across all the phases of the innovation process. There are a variety of mechanisms to operationalize an ISS and a diversity of organizations which may fulfil this role.
However, the ISS remain case-specific, and no ‘silver bullet’ can be provided to support innovation in agriculture. The cross-cutting recommendation for innovation support practitioners and policymakers is, therefore, that targeted diagnoses with regard to innovation phases and types, together with the characteristics and functions to be fulfilled by the support systems, may precede proposals for improving innovation support services.
Faure G. (ed.), Chiffoleau Y. (ed.), Goulet F. (ed.), Temple L. (ed.), Touzard J.M. (ed.). 2018. Innovation et développement dans les systèmes agricoles et alimentaires. Versailles : Ed. Quae, 263 p. (Synthèses : Quae).
Toillier A., Faure G., Chia E. 2018. Penser et organiser l'accompagnement de l'innovation collective dans l'agriculture. In : Faure Guy (ed.), Chiffoleau Yuna (ed.), Goulet Frédéric (ed.), Temple Ludovic (ed.), Touzard Jean-Marc (ed.). Innovation et développement dans les systèmes agricoles et alimentaires. Versailles : Ed. Quae, p. 123-137. (Synthèses : Quae).
Faure G., Knierim A., Koutsouris A., Ndah HT, Audouin S., Zarokosta E., Wielinga E., Triomphe B., S. Mathé, Temple L., Heanue K. (2018) How to strengthen innovation support services in agriculture with regard to multi-stakeholder approaches. Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, accepted
Hello,
The report is very interesting with a lot of information. I was very interested in the innovation part. I fully agree with the discussion regarding innovation processes and innovation system. However, there is a need to better understand and strengthen how to support innovation (not only understand how innovation occur and develop) (Faure et al. 2018). I would like to provide some inputs regarding this dimension which is missing in the report.
In learning theories, building innovation capacities of individual and organizations is the core of the accompaniment approaches. The managerial perspective helps establish principles of action and create useful tools for innovation to support practitioners. Research into management of innovation helps draws attention to the complexity of innovation situations at different levels, individual, organizational and inter-organizational (or collective). In some cases, individuals or organizations need primarily to modify their practices and strategies for action incrementally, without questioning the values that guide their actions. It is a matter of simple learning, which can be supervised or facilitated through experimentation or decision-making support. In other cases, in contrast, a change in the reference framework is required. This type of learning, called ‘transformative’ requires a different type of support, which focuses on the ability to collectively give sense into action. That is fully the case of agroecological innovation because we talk about systemic innovation or radical innovation.
Managing the emergence of innovation communities is crucial in all innovation situations (including agroecology), especially for creating design spaces, organizing deliberations and exchanges of ideas, identifying partners to involve, and monitoring collective activities (Toillier et la. 2018). More specifically, the literature on support for innovation allows us to distinguish two scales of intervention to reflect on and organize support for innovation: the local scale of innovation situations and the global scale – sectoral, regional, or national depending on the context – in which they evolve. Innovation communities have specific needs for support depending on the stages of the innovation process, the capacities of the actors
to support innovation play a critical role in innovation processes in various ways (Faure et al. 2018). During the first phases of a given innovation process (initial idea, inspiration and planning), the actors willing to support innovation mainly need to provide the space and resources for key actors to innovate. During the final phases of the innovation process (development, realization, dissemination and embedding), service provision is more standardized and many services are oriented to farmers to ensure the scaling and institutionalization of the innovation. However, Innovation Service Support (ISS) needs in terms of diversity and intensity seem to depend on two dimensions: the level of technological change required to enhance the innovation process, and the level of new coordination mechanisms needed among actors (including service providers). ISS are provided by a large range of service providers and depend on the characteristics (governance, funding, etc.) of the service providers. The mechanisms to align the ISS, and thus to fully support innovation, largely depend on the degree of concentration as opposed to fragmentation of the Innovation System. Finally, “networking, facilitation, and brokerage” functions are crucial across all the phases of the innovation process. There are a variety of mechanisms to operationalize an ISS and a diversity of organizations which may fulfil this role.
However, the ISS remain case-specific, and no ‘silver bullet’ can be provided to support innovation in agriculture. The cross-cutting recommendation for innovation support practitioners and policymakers is, therefore, that targeted diagnoses with regard to innovation phases and types, together with the characteristics and functions to be fulfilled by the support systems, may precede proposals for improving innovation support services.
Faure G. (ed.), Chiffoleau Y. (ed.), Goulet F. (ed.), Temple L. (ed.), Touzard J.M. (ed.). 2018. Innovation et développement dans les systèmes agricoles et alimentaires. Versailles : Ed. Quae, 263 p. (Synthèses : Quae).
http://www.quae.com/fr/r5282-innovation-et-developpement-dans-les-syste…
Toillier A., Faure G., Chia E. 2018. Penser et organiser l'accompagnement de l'innovation collective dans l'agriculture. In : Faure Guy (ed.), Chiffoleau Yuna (ed.), Goulet Frédéric (ed.), Temple Ludovic (ed.), Touzard Jean-Marc (ed.). Innovation et développement dans les systèmes agricoles et alimentaires. Versailles : Ed. Quae, p. 123-137. (Synthèses : Quae).
http://www.quae.com/fr/r5282-innovation-et-developpement-dans-les-syste…
Faure G., Knierim A., Koutsouris A., Ndah HT, Audouin S., Zarokosta E., Wielinga E., Triomphe B., S. Mathé, Temple L., Heanue K. (2018) How to strengthen innovation support services in agriculture with regard to multi-stakeholder approaches. Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, accepted