|
1 What is innovation system?
The World Bank (2007) defines innovation system as a network of organizations focused on bringing new processes and new forms of organization into social and economic use, together with the institutions and policies that affect their behaviour and performance. This is a general understanding of the contemporary concept of innovation that sees innovation not as mere technologies or products but as the process through which knowledge is generated, crafted from various sources and put into use. Thus, innovation may address new creations of social and economic significance, improvements in technical and managerial issues, institutional and policy aspects (Smits, 2002; Hall et al., 2004).
In spite of many encouraging developments in the promotion of the IS perspective in many parts of the world, there are still grey areas in its application. The major problem occurs when innovation is divorced from system concepts that can demonstrate its architecture for operationalization. This misunderstanding is not only dominant among the public organizations, but also among the private sector, non-governmental organizations, and international organizations. With few exceptions, innovation, innovation systems and systems concepts are not adequately treated in university curricula and training programmes of several intermediate training centers. Had there been adequate space for these organizations to contribute to addressing this gap, much could have been achieved in promoting the idea. System thinking is a good mirror to help us rethink about our science and development paradigms.
An innovation system is a designed social system facilitated by human agency. Following the system thinking of the 1980s, after the work of Checkland and his associates, a system is a mutually agreed definition or delineation of entities performing specific functions. What makes it a system is some degree of ‘organizedness’ that defines its structure (Checkland, 1993, Senge et al., 1994). This structure owes its essential characteristics and thereby its functions to the patterns of organization (Capra, 1997; 2002). These patterns of organization are created through a configuration of relationships among components of a system. In a nutshell, the overall design includes aspects such as the roles and expectations of different actors, incentives structure to change habits and practices, patterns of interaction in communication within the nodes, and decision-making processes.
In agriculture and rural development, the IS could, for example, consist of research, extension, farmers, NGOs, private sector, parastatals, and cooperatives, farmers, and community based organizations. Specific IS, for instance, in dairy or fodder, could be defined by patterns of organization relevant to dairy or fodder, as each configuration is unique. However, this does not mean that there is no room for sharing generic principles on how to establish a comparable system in another domain within its own context (Tesfaye, 2008). As the recent definition of the World Bank indicates, IS are embodied in a wider institutional and policy context to bring about behavioural changes and improve performance. These developments do not only refer to individual organizations within the network, but also to that of the system which is characterized by patterns of organization akin to actors involved. Taking this point even further, what a full-fledged IS depicts is the innovation capacity at system level rather than isolated capacities of component organizations (Hall, 2005). Therefore, the challenge is to achieve a genuine paradigm shift in research and development through increased understanding and application of IS thinking for agriculture and rural development. This should be based on the architecture on which it is crafted i.e., the link between structure and pattern (see above), which are often implicit in IS literature.
A system is partly influenced by the external environment and partly driven internally. The resultant change in the transformation process is, however, determined by the internal dynamics of the system – the process - in which the structure and patterns are linked (Capra, 2002). Hence, application of IS thinking requires understanding of which actors to bring on board if the intention is the creation of IS for a particular purpose, and what process to adopt to facilitate the system. Note that the process is creating patterns of organization of that system. Some of these patterns are installed at the beginning when the system is defined, while others emerge in the learning process. This in turn requires inductive learning through a flexible approach in both time and other resources. The ultimate goal is of course, ensuring changes in the innovation capacity of the system (Hall et al., 2007) and self-reliance.
Patterns of organization in a given IS are maintained and develop through communication loops at different nodes ensuring the flow of information within and between the system and its environment. Moreover, these communication loops help to produce and reproduce the meaning of the system which leads to a set of rules and values that shape the behaviour of the system actors and patterns of interaction with the environment. This network-like communication tends to operate as self-generating mechanisms (Capra, 2002) that ensure continuity of that system. Hence, learning and thereby innovation takes place through this continuous communication loop in which actors within an IS are engaged. What needs to be emphasized is that IS are organically “built” networks of organizations. This organic link is ensured as long as there is continuous communication and learning. Poor or no communication leads to an erosion of the organic link within the network and maybe even a failure of the system, and innovation itself.
As the ultimate goal is a holistic system that involves all potential actors, it needs to operate as a learning system. This goal is facilitated by a soft system methodology that suits the action research framework (Salomon and Engel, 1997; Wilson and Morren, 1990; Checkland and Scholes, 1990).
2 Developments in system thinking, action research and IS
In the early 1980s research on system thinking led to two main perspectives: hard system and soft system. Owing to the bio-physical roots of early system thinking, the overall conceptualization later framed what is considered now as hard system that is posited to be systemic and constructs models to represent the world to optimize it. On the contrary, the soft system thinking creates the process of inquiry as a system, epistemologically. The aim of the soft system methodology is not to generate knowledge that enables us to predict about the nature of world reality (ontology), rather to enhance understanding of the reality through a purposeful action which involves negotiation, consensus and accommodation (Checkland and Scholes, 1990; Bawden, 1995; Roling, 1997; Salomon and Engel, 1997).
Soft system methodology, which gives due recognition to the hard system methodology is very appropriate for IS. It is compatible with the key features of IS such as complexity and involvement of networks of actors – organizations - which have different values, habits, and practices, which vary in their spatial positions and face differential access to resources, knowledge and power.
Turning to action research, its marked development also goes back to the first half of the twentieth century when Kurt Lewin (1946) published his work on action research (Melrose, 2001). Action research is an approach rather than a methodology as it integrates methodology from both qualitative and quantitative roots. Simply defined, action research is about undertaking action and studying that action as it takes place (Bargal, 2008). Use of action research helps to improve the scope of learning unlike that of action learning in the family of participatory approaches (Pretty, 1995) that does not give adequate room for research.
With few exceptions, (Checkland and Scholes, 1990; Checkland, 1993; Salomon and Engel, 1997), similarities of soft system methodology and action research framework are not explicit in most literature on the subjects. From the ontological and epistemological points of view, soft system methodology and action research are one and the same. Therefore, IS can be readily operationalized through action research that is widely known, using soft system methodology as a guide of the inquiry process (Tesfaye, 2008).
3 How to initiate IS in agriculture and rural development
Innovation requires systemic view as it involves various dimensions that are contributed by different actors. It also involves institutional and policy, technological artefacts, economic issues, and managerial aspects. However, the scope of a system, with respect to sub-systems and environment within which it operates varies from situation to situation. Even though various systems are related to one another, trying to bring all actors from the very beginning may not be possible nor desirable in a designed system like IS.
In view of this, IS facilitators need to understand the overall context of particular IS. For example, in fodder, a range of actors who can contribute to the fodder sector need to be invited for participation in the fodder IS. What is even very important is that fodder or for that matter any technical option is not a stand alone component, but embedded in a wider institutional and policy, socio-economic, technical and political environment in which several actors participate (Hall et al., 2007). This common-sense observation makes a strong case for IS perspective to organize and manage wider developmental issues. Innovation system facilitates the context within which technological changes could be enhanced. This requires involvement of relevant actors as deemed necessary rather than requiring involvement of all actors at once. This approach minimizes occurrence of second-generation problems such as no market for produce, no credit for processing products, restrictive policies and institutions, etc., that can be internalized through involvement of wider actors.
In the real-life situation all actors who are relevant for actors’ configuration in fodder IS may not see their roles and perhaps have the required incentive to join the initiative from the very beginning (Personal experience in FIP-II project, India). However, unlike in the bio-physical system where missing one component impairs the functioning of that system, in the designed system such as IS, one may start from some key actors to build the IS as a network that grows until all potential actors are brought on board. However, when the initial actors have less power or resources, the process could be slow, but it will get there, as long as there is adequate facilitation.
The IS framework can also be used to organize actors around non-farm activities within rural development programmes, gender sensitive initiatives, and any other human activity for that matter. The basic issues are identification of relevant actors around a common goal and facilitation of the learning process through action research. As indicated above, actors who do not have much in common can hardly communicate and thereby exchange information and resources for innovation. Hence, creating the conditions for networking when there is potential contribution is inevitable (cf. action research).
Even though the journey of initiating and facilitating IS is far from easy and there is no blue-print, one may use different concepts, tools and techniques to grapple with the complex situation (Hall et al, 2007)
|
