How do innovation partners differ with respect to ... - SAGE Journals

10 downloads 0 Views 601KB Size Report
depending on the stage in the innovation journey and the type of innova- tion, different resources and hence different partners are needed. Therefore, farmers ...
How do innovation partners differ with respect to innovation type and stage in the innovation journey of farmers? Evelien Lambrecht, Bianka Kühne and Xavier Gellynck

Abstract: The locus of innovation is the network within which a farm is embedded. This paper investigates the relationships between network partners and innovation (types and stages in the process) in agriculture, which is unique in this field. In contrast to the majority of innovation studies, the authors also include marketing and organizational innovations and investigate the need for different partners along the innovation journey. The study is based on in-depth interviews with farmers. The findings provide useful research-related and managerial implications that enable farmers and network coordinators to improve the innovation capacity in agriculture via networking. The main conclusion is that, depending on the stage in the innovation journey and the type of innovation, different resources and hence different partners are needed. Therefore, farmers must be aware of the importance of partner suitability and network heterogeneity related to the type of innovation and stage in their innovation process. Keywords: farmers; innovation journey; innovation type; networking; Flanders The authors are with the Agri-Food Marketing and Chain Management Division, Department of Agricultural Economics, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Gent, Belgium. Corresponding author: Evelien Lambrecht. E-mail: [email protected].

For farmers, as for entrepreneurs in general, innovation is widely recognized as an important strategic tool to increase the competitive advantage of their companies (Diederen et al, 2003; Gellynck et al, 2007). In this paper, innovation is defined as an ongoing process of learning, searching and exploring, resulting in new products, new processes, new marketing methods and forms of organization (Lundvall, 1995). Thus product innovation is defined as the introduction of a product or service that is new or significantly improved with respect to its characteristics or intended uses; process innovation as the implementation of a new or signifi-

cantly improved production or delivery method; marketing innovation as the implementation of a new marketing method involving significant changes in product design or packaging, product placement, product promotion or pricing; and finally, organizational innovation is defined as the implementation of a new organizational method in the firm’s business practices, workplace organization or external relations (OECD, 2005). Until recently, the agricultural sector was functioning under a highly protective environment (Common Agricultural Policy – CAP support). Farmers are

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 15, No 3, 2014, pp 191–203 doi: 10.5367/ijei.2014.0155

191

Innovation partners in the innovation journey of farmers

actually reacting to deregulation tendencies and to the adjustment of legislation. These changes and the trend towards globalization lead to a stronger pressure on price levels, and reframe the business conditions for farms. Those active in the agricultural sector are therefore under great pressure to reinvent themselves so that they can adapt and react quickly to these new tendencies of deregulation. Despite the importance of innovation in responding to these external changes, farmers, in common with other small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), face problems and challenges in developing and implementing innovations (Kaufmann and Tödtling, 2002). An important strategy for innovation is collaboration with network partners (Pittaway et al, 2004; Omta, 2004; Lasagni, 2012). The scarcity of resources and the complex entrepreneurial environment make it necessary for SMEs actively to select the appropriate network partners according to the required innovation type (Pittaway et al, 2004; Ritter and Gemünden, 2003; Whitley, 2002) and stage in the innovation process (Ancona-Gladstein and Caldwell, 1990; Tushman, 1977; Gruner and Homburg, 2000). However, recent studies investigating the appropriateness of network partners in relation to different innovation types and stages in the innovation process are scarce and this topic needs far more research attention (de Man and Duysters, 2005; Howells et al, 2004; Varis and Littunen, 2010; Pittaway et al, 2004). We will tackle this research gap by focusing on the agricultural sector, given its specific recent challenges. The objective of this paper is hence to investigate which innovation partners are important for the different stages of the innovation journey as well as with regard to the four different types of innovation. In the next section, we review the literature on collaboration with network partners as a tool for innovation, including the different types of network partners

identified and their possible role in the innovation process, and summarize gaps in research related to the difficulties of SMEs in identifying the appropriate network partners for obtaining access to the required inputs in the innovation process. The rest of the paper is structured as follows. In section three, a short theory section is provided concerning innovation process models and the applied framework of the resource-based view, followed by formulation of the research questions. In the fourth section, the research methodology is described, and in section five the results are presented. Next, the sixth section provides a discussion of the results, and finally, we formulate our conclusions and identify researchrelated and managerial implications and potential areas for future research.

Literature review Collaboration with network partners as a tool for innovation From the perspective of SMEs that often have limited resources, the establishment of network relations can provide an avenue to address innovation problems (Lasagni, 2012; Pittaway et al, 2004). Networks give SMEs access to complementary resources, skills, capabilities and knowledge that are not internally available (Døving and Gooderham, 2008; Pittaway et al, 2004). In order to achieve innovation, a wide range of network partners can be used, each offering significant resources. Figure 1 illustrates how the innovating farm can be embedded in a network of partners. A network is defined as a set of relations through which the company acquires, assimilates, transforms and exploits knowledge, thus serving as the medium for the combined transformation of the company’s internal

Figure 1. Potential network partners for innovation. Source: Adapted from Gemünden et al, 1996.

192

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 15, No 3

Innovation partners in the innovation journey of farmers

and external resources into an innovation (Cowan and Jonard, 2004; Omta, 2004; Zahra and George, 2002). Network types and contribution to innovation The network partners consulted can be divided into three major types: horizontal and vertical networks and collaboration with third parties (Kühne et al, 2010). Horizontal networks consist of firms belonging to the same industry, thus being primarily competitors or peers. It has become accepted that horizontal collaboration among SMEs can speed up product development (Winch and Bianchi, 2006; Morris et al, 2007). However, it comes at the risk of technology leakage to rivals and a loss of control over the innovative process (Ritala and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2012). From an empirical perspective, some studies have found a positive correlation between horizontal collaboration and innovation (Quintana-Garcia and Benavides-Velasco, 2004; Najib and Kiminami, 2011), while others did not find any evidence that horizontal collaboration was significant in explaining innovation among SMEs (De Propris, 2002; Freel and Harrison, 2006). Vertical networks are composed of different partners in the chain involved in all upstream and downstream flows of products, services, finance and information. A vertical network allows a firm to gain considerable knowledge about new technologies, markets and process improvements (Whitley, 2002) and has a significant impact on the successful implementation of product innovations (Miotti and Sachwald, 2003; Nieto and Santamaria, 2010). A recent study by Lasagni (2012), for example, finds cooperation with both buyers and suppliers to be positively significant in aiding innovation. Third parties are persons or entities other than chain members or peers, such as consultants, research institutes, financial providers, etc. Consultants, for example, can sensitize companies to possible improvements in existing processes and assist them in identifying weaknesses (Gemünden et al, 1996). Several studies have documented the important effect that universities and other research institutions have on innovations for which fundamental scientific knowledge is needed (Vuola and Hameri, 2006; Robin and Schubert, 2013). Managing and developing dynamic networks is an important requisite for entrepreneurial success (Gibb, 1997). For SMEs, however, it is often less straightforward to identify the appropriate network partners to gain access to the required inputs in the innovation process. Moreover, they often become locked into established networks and struggle to build new ones (Birkinshaw et al, 2007). Gaps in the literature The scarcity of resources and the complex entrepreneurial environment make it necessary for SMEs

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 15, No 3

actively to select the appropriate network partners according to the required innovation type (Pittaway et al, 2004; Ritter and Gemünden, 2003; Whitley, 2002) and stage in the innovation process (Ancona-Gladstein and Caldwell, 1990; Tushman, 1977; Gruner and Homburg, 2000). However, recent studies investigating the appropriateness of network partners in relation to different innovation types and stages in the innovation process are scarce, and this needs far more research attention (De Man and Duysters, 2005; Howells et al, 2004; Varis and Littunen, 2010; Pittaway et al, 2004). In addition, most of the existing studies focus much more on technological process and product innovations than on non-technological and intangible ones: that is, marketing and organizational innovations. There are nonetheless strong reasons to use a comprehensive innovation concept and give more attention to nontechnological and intangible kinds of innovations (Pittaway et al, 2004; van Galen and Verstegen, 2008; Damanpour and Aravind, 2012; Birkinshaw et al, 2008; Crossan and Apaydin, 2010). Furthermore, networking for innovation has mainly been analysed within the context of large, multinational technology firms and aimed at presenting only a multinational-specific point of view. In our paper these research gaps will be addressed by examining the network activities depending on the type of innovation and the stage in the innovation process in the agricultural sector, which is considered as a low-tech industry characterized by small and mediumsized enterprises (Gellynck et al, 2007; Kirner et al, 2009; CIAA, 2014).

Theory and research questions Innovation process models To obtain an insight into the different stages in the innovation process, we reviewed the literature on innovation process models. In the last decade, more and more scholars have recognized that innovation is not a linear and research-driven process focusing on a new product developed within one company, but that it needs to be considered as a complex interactive process involving false starts, returns between stages, dead ends and ongoing trial and error (Kirner et al, 2009; Balconi et al, 2008; Tidd et al, 2005). Furthermore, there has been a general tendency in innovation management for the models to become more complex and more connected with their surroundings. A study by Eveleens (2010) reviews 12 sources in which models of innovation processes have been proposed (see Table 1). The study gives an overview of the models of innovation processes and the contextual factors indirectly influencing the process.

193

Innovation partners in the innovation journey of farmers Table 1. Overview of innovation process models. Innovation process models

Innovation types considered

Contextual factors considered

Rogers (1962) Cooper and Kleinschmidt (1986) Rothwell (1994)

– Product Product

Van de Ven et al (1999)

Product Process Services Product Process Services Services

– – Strategy Culture Leadership Organizational structure Resources/skills Links outside the organization

Nooteboom (2001)

Mulgan and Albury (2003)

Verloop (2004) Cormican and O’Sullivan (2004)

Tidd et al (2005)

Andrew and Sirkin (2006)

Hansen and Birkinshaw (2007)

Jacobs and Snijders (2008)

Product Process Product Technology

Product Process Services Product Process Services Product Process Services Product Services



Resources/skills Organizational structure Leadership Culture – Strategy Culture Leadership Organizational structure Links outside the organization Leadership Organizational structure Links outside the organization –



Strategy Culture Organizational structure Resources/skills

Source: Based on Eveleens, 2010.

In our study, the model of Van de Ven et al (1999), known as the innovation journey approach, is applied for several reasons. To fulfil the aim of our study, we selected (marked grey in Table 1) the process models which are not restricted to product and process innovations and which include explicitly components related to links outside the organization: for example, networking. Two models fulfilled both criteria: Van de Ven et al (1999) and Tidd et al (2005). We decided to follow Van de Ven et al, who described the contextual components best suited to the scope of our study, by focusing on links outside the organization only. The model of Van de Ven et al (1999) has a number of components that, while not usually happening in an orderly sequence, take an innovation from initiation through to a development period, to implementation or termination. The initiation phase can be described as the phase in

which the idea is generated. Van de Ven et al consider this as divergent behaviour. During the divergent phase, several directions of development are explored, and new ideas, strategies and networks are created. This phase is triggered by the availability of new resources. For instance, if new people join a team, it is likely that new ideas or lines of direction will be developed. The development phase is the one in which the idea is turned into some tangible product, process or service. In Van de Ven et al’s (1999) words, this is called ‘convergent behaviour’. In this phase, it is about integrating the ideas generated during the initiation phase, and the focus shifts from exploration to exploiting and testing given directions. The convergent phase is triggered by constraining factors such as external rules imposed by the environment or internal discovery of a preferred course of action. In the implementation or termination phase, the

194

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 15, No 3

Innovation partners in the innovation journey of farmers

newly developed product, process or service is implemented. This entails supporting the innovation by, for example, preparing customers and carrying out marketing activities. Although a phased model is used, Van de Ven et al (1999) acknowledge that many feedback loops and cycles take place before proceeding through the process. The innovation journey is a repeating cycle of divergent and convergent activities that takes place at different levels more or less simultaneously. Resource-based view and relational view In the resource-based view (RBV), resources at the firm’s disposal have specific characteristics to provide the conditions for firm-level sustained competitive advantage (Wernerfelt, 1984; Penrose, 1959; Rumelt, 1984). To transform a short-term competitive advantage into a sustained competitive advantage requires that these resources should be heterogeneous in nature and not perfectly mobile (Peteraf, 1993). The original RBV formulation relies on the independent firm rather than considering the firm as part of an interacting network. However, other authors have applied the original formulation of the RBV in interorganizational settings and extended it theoretically (Lavie, 2006) into the ‘relational view’ (RV). This theoretical extension builds on Dyer and Singh (1998) and Gulati (1998) in emphasizing the importance of relationships rather than resources per se. These recent developments of the RBV claim that firms can access external resources via alliances to create further competitive advantage for the firm by expanding the resource base and developing resource complementarities (Baraldi et al, 2012). In the RV, the user has a more prominent role than in the original formulation of the RBV. Here, a firm’s position in relation to customer markets is equally important as its position in relation to technology sources and external development trajectories (Baraldi et al, 2012). This literature shows that, in terms of innovation inputs, firms will look for partners to provide the resources and capabilities they lack during their innovation journey, maximizing firm value by effectively combining the partners’ resources and exploiting complementarities (Kogut, 1988; Gulati, 1995). Research questions In line with our objective and the theoretical background, we formulate the following two research questions: RQ 1: Do network partners’ contributions differ along the innovation process (initiation, development and implementation or termination) in the agricultural sector and, if yes, how?

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 15, No 3

RQ 2: Do network partners’ contributions differ for product, process, marketing and organizational innovations and, if yes, how?

Research methodology Case study The research strategy is a case study design, as we use the innovation journey analysis to capture the complex and contextual nature of the farmers’ innovation journey (Van de Ven et al, 2008; Klerkx et al, 2010). By means of this research strategy, we gathered information to build up a detailed picture of reality (de Vaus, 2001). Case studies are rich empirical descriptions of particular instances of a phenomenon that are typically based on a variety of data sources (Yin, 1994). Case studies are characterized by being selective, strategically sampling a small number of research units, and exploring depth more than breadth (Verschuren and Doorewaard, 1999). Data were gathered through in-depth interviews with four farmers (owner and manager of the farm) in Flanders (northern Belgium). They were asked openended questions with regard to their most important innovation of the last five years and which partners they consulted to realize this project. Recruitment We selected four farmers who were each introducing a different type of innovation: product, process, marketing or organizational innovation. The respondents were selected with the help of sector organizations, research institutes or via the other responding farmers. No incentives were offered for participation. Farmers were contacted by telephone to arrange an appointment for a personal interview. The interviews took place during the second half of 2011 at the farm and were conducted by one of the authors. Each interview lasted for one to two hours. Data analysis The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed by the interviewer. The innovation journey was drawn up using MS Visio 2010. In this paper, four innovation journeys were studied, each representing a different type of innovation. In the journey, we focus on important events and the partners consulted over time.

Results In what follows, the research questions are tackled for each case, and thus for each type of innovation. For each case, we investigated the evolution of the innovation and the parties consulted at each stage of the innovation

195

Innovation partners in the innovation journey of farmers

journey. For each case, an illustrative time line is presented. Results are illustrated with verbatim quotations from the participants, translated from Dutch to English.

tacted a consultancy agency and the expertise of Ghent University. […] Even with the positive business plan, they refused to lend me money and we knocked on the door of our family.’

Case 1: Product innovation: introduction of kiwi berry

Implementation/termination. In 2009, the farmer decided to cultivate the plant using family money. He joined the kiwi berry growers’ association. As already noted, this association is coordinated by Ghent University and aims to bring the radical new product to market by supporting growers at different levels, ranging from production to marketing techniques.

Initiation. In 2008, the farmer (tomato grower) began planning to expand, as he had 7,000 m² left untouched. As it was a very bad time for tomatoes, he did not want to expand the area of tomatoes. In 2008, he heard for the first time about the kiwi berry during a football match (see Figure 2), where his friends were talking about it. It is a kiwi fruit which can be eaten with the skin, like a grape. The farmer started to search for information in the specialist literature: ‘There, I found a first article which looked interesting and led me to look for extra information […] In the beginning it was really difficult to find extra information. Indirectly, I came into contact with the auction involved in the development project of the kiwi berry. They referred me to Filip [the researcher and coordinator of the kiwi berry growers’ association, which is affiliated to Ghent University]. This man presented me in an honest way with the possibilities, advantages and disadvantages of the cultivation.’ Development. Once he had digested the information, the farmer’s interest in planting kiwi berry plants increased and he went to the bank to look for funding possibilities. However, the bank was not enthusiastic about supporting the project as it was not familiar with the product: ‘They required a business plan. Therefore, I con-

‘Since then, we have attended all grower meetings and pruning demonstrations organized by the association. […] This is very important, as this is the only place where knowledge is available about the plant and its cultivation.’ In August 2010, the first Belgian berries were sold in the supermarket, but sales were not good because the fruit was still unknown. In 2011, the kiwi berry became available for the first time in substantial quantities in the supermarkets, and this year also saw the first huge harvest for the farmer. Sales were improving, ‘but I am still uncertain about the possible return on my investment. I hope it will evolve in the right direction.’ According to the farmer, the success of the product and the association depends largely on the coordinator. Case 2: Process innovation: expansion of farm with free-range chickens Initiation. In 2003, the farmer installed a farm with 12,000 free-range chickens (see Figure 3). At that time,

2008 Contact with coordinator of the kiwi berry

2008 Contact with 2008 2009 Contact with bank for funding Start cultivation planting: consultancy agency 2008 Become member of 2008 Contact with auction grower association Contact with involved in kiwi family for funding berry project

2008 Found article in specialist literature about kiwi berry

2008 Friends talking about kiwi berry

1-1-2008 2008–2009 Looking for extra information about kiwi berry

2009–2011 Attending pruning demonstrations and grower meetings to share knowledge and experiences with colleagues

2011 Harvest first kiwi berries

31-12-2011

Figure 2. Innovation journey: product innovation.

196

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 15, No 3

Innovation partners in the innovation journey of farmers

in addition to his job as farmer, he was working in a factory, but he became more interested in the entrepreneurial and self-employed aspects of being a farmer and looked for possibilities to expand. Due to the European rule forbidding battery hens from the beginning of 2012 (EU Directive 1999/74/EG), he was interested in keeping more free-range chickens and in expanding to a farm with 30,000 chickens.

of his land. The only possibility for the farmer to expand was to buy the land and this was not very tempting financially, as he would have had to take out a bigger loan, and paying off the debts on the land and the new stable would be impossible with the income from 30,000 chickens. Consequently, he eventually decided to expand to the maximum size allowed without needing an environmental report – that is, 60,000 chickens:

Development. In December 2008, the farmer decided to develop his idea and to look for funds:

‘During 2009, I attended numerous open farm days and exhibitions to learn about the various existing systems. In January I visited Agriflanders [the agricultural exhibition in Ghent]. There, I consulted, together with the hatchery, different poultry-related stallholders and asked for information to three different suppliers of installations.’

‘A lot of banks were interested in making an offer for the investment. My accountant drew up a business plan. For the banks, this was a very interesting project, they said. The only thing they required was 30% own capital, but this is impossible!’ Hence, he had to look for a contract with a hatchery, feed supplier or an egg trader as a guarantee for the bank. This contract is a form of vertical integration, as the contractor/integrator is the owner of the animals and makes the necessary decisions: ‘I contacted three different parties for this. Only the hatchery I already worked with was interested. So I decided to continue and expand the collaboration with them.’

One of the suppliers reacted immediately and made an appointment with the farmer for them to visit installed systems together. The other two suppliers did not seem interested, but ultimately also accompanied him to see some installed systems. Almost every month during 2009, the farmer visited a company in the Netherlands to find out about the different existing systems:

He then started to contact suppliers of installations and stables, invited estimates and arranged the necessary papers for the bank and the required permits. In this connection, he called on the services of a consulting agency and his accountant. Soon afterwards, he went to the owner of the land he rented, and here he came upon a problem. The owner was not willing to lease out more

2009–2010 Looking for funding

2009 Identity problem with landholder

2008 Decision to work full-time at farm and to expand

‘I did this because the hatchery was inclined to recommend one particular system, in which they have their own interest. The information I received from the hatchery was very unidirectional and, as a farmer, you have to work in a system fulfilling your needs and not fulfilling the needs of the hatchery. […] Next to that, I visited three different farms in the neighbourhood to work with their systems, and to obtain extra insight into the, for me, most interesting systems.’

2008–2009 Looking for contract

1-1-2008 2009–2010 Attending open days, exhibitions and visiting other companies (abroad), often accompanied by system suppliers

2009 Preparation for a permit to build with help of consultancy agency 2009 Business plan drawn up with help of accountant

2009 Taking into account consumer wishes by system selection

31-12-2010 2010 Open day

2010

First animals 2010 Start construction in stable

Figure 3. Innovation journey: process innovation.

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 15, No 3

197

Innovation partners in the innovation journey of farmers 1990 Collaboration with colleagues: 1988 starts up logistic company to Starts deliver to wholesaler company: market wholesalers

2001 Starts wholesaling activities himself

2010 Starts delivering to better restaurants

2001–2011 Direct contact with customers and consumers through wholesale activity

1999 Discovering problems with wholesaler

31-12-2011

1-1-1988 1988–2011 Contact with colleague farmers

1999–2011 Looking for other markets: market vendors, traders of vegetable packs, northern France, better restaurants

Figure 4. Innovation journey: marketing innovation.

Then the farmer compared offers, taking into account the characteristics of the different systems, the experience of the installers, the price, the location of the installer and the desires of animal rights organizations. Implementation/termination. ‘I decided to work together with the most experienced installer of my favourite system, as I do not want to face the disadvantages of being the first-mover, although this was not the cheapest option.’ Another reason for choosing this installer was that he was situated very close to the farm, which is useful in case of problems. ‘As customers attach more and more value to animalfriendly products, I decided to work with the most animal-friendly system, although this is not the easiest solution for me.’ Construction began in March 2010, and on 15 October 2010, the first animals were delivered. At that time, an open day was organized so that everybody could visit the company. Case 3: Marketing innovation: looking for new markets for the organic sector Initiation. The farmer started in 1988 as an organic farmer (see Figure 4) delivering to a wholesaler. As there were several organic farmers like him working in his region, he decided to found a logistics company to gather together the products of the different farmers and deliver them to the site required by the wholesaler. After a while, the farmers ran into problems with this wholesaler:

198

‘As soon as products deviated a little from the perfect product, they were not accepted any more.’ At the same time, the bargaining power of the farmers was limited as most of their sales were to the same buyer: ‘At that time, I preferred to have several small clients instead of one big one and I started looking for other markets and began my own wholesaling activities.’ Development. Over time, the wholesaler’s market became less interesting and the collaborating farmers started looking for other markets. One good opportunity appeared to be market vendors: ‘They were more accepting of variation in the product than the wholesaler and this was interesting for us.’ Implementation/termination. Having identified the new market of the market vendors, the farmers did not stop their search for other markets. The farmer in question gradually increased the number of niches he supplied: ‘As of today, a large proportion of my products are for market vendors, the northern part of France, vegetable packs (consumer subscriptions for a weekly amount of various vegetables available at a pick-up point), and to a smaller extent supermarkets and the better restaurants.’

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 15, No 3

Innovation partners in the innovation journey of farmers 2007 Contacts bank

1995 Awareness of capacity constraint

2007 Contacts installer

2002 Rents second farm 2001 Hires Eastern European workers

2002 Idea to innovate

2003–2008 Attending study tours and visiting companies

2011 Further expansion + installation fridges

2008 New installation in use 2008 Open day

2008 Installation solar panels

31-12-2011 1-1-1995

2008–2009 2007 Adjusting installation Contact consultancy agency

Figure 5. Innovation journey: organizational innovation.

Case 4: Organizational innovation: reorganization of the operational method for chicory growing and harvesting Initiation. This case concerns an individually owned family farm with chicory growing as its primary activity. The starting point for the innovation was in 1995 (see Figure 5). The farmer was working at maximum capacity in the chicory branch: ‘When it was permissible to work with Eastern European seasonal labourers [2001], we decided to do this, as it was very difficult to find enough workers. […] Since Eastern European people want to work continuously when they are in Belgium, we decided to hire an extra farm. By doing this, capacity increased and we could ensure that the labourers could work full time. During that period, we realized that it would be difficult to further expand with the current organizational method. We decided to get rid of the other branch we were still working on (cattle breeding) and to fully focus on chicory [2002].’ Between 2003 and 2008, the farmer did extensive research on the sector. He talked to colleagues, suppliers, extensionists, researchers, etc: ‘I visited a lot of companies abroad. I went to Spain, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland. I was always looking for contacts and trying to have a look at other companies. When I saw something interesting in the specialist literature, I tried to get in touch with that company. […] By being member of

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 15, No 3

several associations, I have a lot of contacts and we got the opportunity to attend multiple study tours. […] Also via a supplier of roots, I came into contact with an extensionist who is active all over the world and who brought me into contact with some modern companies abroad.’ The seed merchant and the designer of some of the farmer’s machines also enabled contacts with other companies: ‘When visiting companies abroad, I saw a lot of things and gathered a lot of knowledge and information which inspired me for the elaboration of our own project.’ Development. First, the farm owners went to the bank with a business plan drawn up by a consultancy agency: ‘They considered the project positively and agreed to fund it. […] With my ideas, I went to a Belgian designer who had no experience at all in automation in our sector. All the experienced companies are situated abroad, and this is not practical in case of problems as repairs take a long time and are very expensive.’ Thus the farmer decided to go to a Belgian designer and was obliged to put a lot of effort into the development of the installation himself. Implementation/termination. Together with the designer, the farmer developed the ideas into a real

199

Innovation partners in the innovation journey of farmers

innovative and unique project (2007–08): ‘Everything that could be automated was automated’. In this way, personnel could keep on working and interruptions were minimized. ‘We also paid a lot of attention to ergonomics. We considered how the work could be done most easily and in a comfortable way without involving a lot of effort or movement […]. This was such a huge investment that a large-scale operation was the only opportunity to earn the installation back.’ They planned to cultivate 60 hectares to earn back the investment, but as the capacity of the installation was higher, they decided to grow to 100–120 hectares. To do this, they had to install extra fridges, and this was done in 2011.

Discussion In the current competitive environment, the achievement of innovations is becoming ever more important to increase competitive advantage. This article began with the observation that the locus of innovation is increasingly the network of partners in which the farm is embedded (Omta, 2002; Pittaway et al, 2004; Powell et al, 1996). In the literature, there are indications that the appropriate network partners differ depending on the type of innovation and the stage in the innovation process. However, research in this area is limited. The majority of the research done focuses only on product and process innovations, and is restricted to high-tech companies functioning with R&D units. Our paper contributes to these research gaps by analysing four innovation journeys in the agricultural sector, each representing a different type of innovation. Our study applies the resource-based and relational views (Wernerfelt, 1984; Penrose, 1959; Rumelt, 1984; Lavie, 2006; Dyer and Singh, 1998) as a background. On a general level, our findings provide support for the basic tenet of the resource-based and relational views that, in terms of innovation inputs, firms will look for partners to provide the resources and capabilities they lack, maximizing firm value by effectively combining the partners’ resources and exploiting complementarities. While the existing literature on network partner interaction for innovations provides some general statements, our study yields more specific insights. By mapping the dynamics during the innovation process for different types of innovation, we could answer the two formulated research questions. The findings with regard to both research questions are now discussed and related to the literature for comparison and better understanding.

200

Research question 1: Do network partners’ contributions differ along the innovation process in the agricultural sector and, if yes, how? Our results show that the kind of resources needed differ along the innovation journey of farmers. Hence, different partners are needed along the innovation journey to provide the required resources and capabilities. To answer the second part of this research question, we compare the network partners consulted in the four cases at each innovation stage. We see that in the initiation phase, many contacts with a heterogeneous group of people are important. In this phase, several directions of development are explored and new ideas, strategies and networks are created: ‘By being member of several associations, I have a lot of contacts and we got the opportunity to attend multiple study tours.’ By establishing contact with new people, it is likely that new ideas will be developed: ‘When visiting companies abroad, I saw a lot of things and gathered a lot of knowledge and information which inspired me for the elaboration of our own project.’ In the words of Van de Ven et al (2008), this is divergent behaviour. The main focus in the cases analysed is on colleagues and suppliers, both at home and abroad. In line with these findings, Nieto and Santamaria (2007) found that listening to suppliers and buyers in the early stages of product development seemed to deliver innovation results more quickly. Furthermore, it is recommended that farmers do not restrict themselves to partners from their own sector. Ideas from other sectors can be very fruitful (Nieto and Santamaria, 2007). During the development phase, suppliers are seen as important network partners. Furthermore, third parties are consulted, such as financial providers and consultants for writing a business plan. Buyers seem to be more important in the other two phases of the innovation process. This is in line with the findings of Gruner and Homburg (2000), who encourage firms to interact with buyers specifically in the early and late stages of the innovation process. Nevertheless, it might be useful to stay in contact with buyers during the development phase and to keep them informed on the progress of the innovation process to facilitate their involvement in the last stage of the project (Gruner and Homburg, 2000). According to Van de Ven et al (2008), this phase is dominated by convergent behaviour. Fewer partners are involved, as a preferred course of action has already been identified. At the stage of executing the ideas,

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 15, No 3

Innovation partners in the innovation journey of farmers

when the farmer has worked out the full concept, he is able to use the contacts made and the ideas collected during the initiation phase to connect to appropriate partners. Furthermore, identifying those partners is less difficult, as most of the providers of services and products necessary at this stage are advertising their businesses. With regard to the implementation/termination period observed in our case studies, the grower association and its collaboration with the auction are found to be very important. Many marketing activities are set up to promote the new product. Furthermore, the farmers still work closely together with their suppliers to fine-tune their innovation.

The farmer in this innovation journey mentioned the importance of good contacts with buyers from different markets, which all have different requirements. The supermarkets, for example, demand more homogeneous products, while consumers in France prefer unsorted products. With regard to organizational innovation, in the fourth case study we see that, before the implementation of the organizational innovation, the farmer had many contacts with a heterogeneous group of people, within as well as outside the agricultural sector. In comparison with the other innovation types, contacts with people from outside the agricultural sector seem to be most important in organizational innovation.

Research question 2: Do network partners’ contributions differ for product, process, marketing and organizational innovations and, if yes, how?

Conclusions and implications

When comparing the results depending on the type of innovation, our analysis shows that different network partners are needed for different types of innovation. For the product innovation, our study, similar to other studies (Whitley, 2002), shows that vertical collaboration is very important. According to Miotti and Sachwald (2003), collaboration with suppliers has a significant impact on the successful implementation of product innovations. Furthermore, in case 1, we observed the collaboration of the kiwi berry growers’ association with the auction so that the end-consumers could be better targeted. Fritsch and Lukas (2001) and others state that innovative efforts targeted at achieving product innovations are strongly associated with buyer collaboration (Souder et al, 1997; Fritsch and Lukas, 2001). According to case 1, a research institute (here, Ghent University) seems to have a positive influence on product innovations as well. In this regard, several other studies have documented the important role that universities and other research institutions play in innovations for which fundamental scientific knowledge is needed (Vuola and Hameri, 2006; Robin and Schubert, 2013). The most important contact points for the process innovation are the suppliers of inputs and infrastructure, along with colleagues who are mostly active in the same subsector (see case 2). Agricultural exhibitions are an important meeting point for the farmer. There, the farmer had a look at installations and contacted different suppliers of production systems to compare their offers. With colleagues, the farmer exchanged experiences and visited their company to have a look at the system in action. Furthermore, he attended a lot of open days. In the marketing innovation journey analysed, we observed an innovation process which requires continuous contact with colleagues, wholesalers and consumers.

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 15, No 3

The four case studies indicate that network partners’ contributions differ at the different stages of the innovation process, with more diverse partners needed in the initiation and implementation phase and more specific partners needed during the development phase. Furthermore, for the four different types of innovation, different contributions by network partners were also noted. For product innovation, suppliers and buyers are frequently consulted, together with research institutes, while for process innovations, next to suppliers and buyers, peers are important network partners. For marketing innovation, contact with colleagues and buyers such as wholesalers and consumers is very important. For organizational innovation, a more heterogeneous set of network partners is consulted, within and particularly outside the sector. Managerial implications Farmers need to pay attention to the importance of partner suitability and network heterogeneity for the innovation type and stage they are planning. Efficient networking is not the optimization of single relationships independently of each other, but rather the efficient management of synergies and coordination of all relationships. Additionally, network coordinators should set up a clear strategy and communicate about the innovations on which their network can advise and help the farmer. Future research ideas Despite the strength of the case study approach, our study includes several limitations that need to be addressed in future research. An important aspect of this study is that detailed and in-depth insights are gained from the point of view of the farmer. Consequently, the points of view of the other actors involved in the farmer’s network are not present. To map out the full

201

Innovation partners in the innovation journey of farmers

Ancona-Gladstein, D., and Caldwell, D. (1990), ‘Beyond boundary spanning: managing external dependence in product development teams’, Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol 1, pp 119–135. Andrew, J.P., and Sirkin, H.L. (2006), Payback: Reaping the Rewards of Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Balconi, M., Brusoni, S., and Orsenigo, L. (2008), ‘In defence of the linear model: an essay’, CESPRI, Milan. Baraldi, E., Gressetvold, E., and Harrison, D. (2012), ‘Resource interaction in inter-organizational networks: foundations, comparison, and a research agenda’, Journal of Business Research, Vol 65, pp 266–276. Birkinshaw, J., Bessant, J., and Delbridge, R. (2007), ‘Finding, forming and performing: creating networks for discontinuous innovation’, California Management Review, Vol 49, No 3, pp 67–83. Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., and Mol, M.J. (2008), ‘Management innovation’, Academy of Management Review, Vol 33, No 4. CIAA (2014), Data & Trends of the European Food and Drink Industry, Confederation of the Food and Drink Industries of the EU (CIAA), Brussels. Cooper, R.G., and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1986), ‘An investigation into the new product process: steps, deficiencies, and impact’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol 3, No 2, pp 71–85. Cormican, K., and O’Sullivan, D. (2004), ‘Auditing best practice for effective product innovation management’, Technovation, Vol 24, No 10, pp 819–829. Cowan, R., and Jonard, N. (2004), ‘Network structure and the diffusion of knowledge’, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Vol 28, No 8, pp 1557–1575. Crossan, M.M., and Apaydin, M. (2010), ‘A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol 47, No 6. Damanpour, F., and Aravind, D. (2012), ‘Managerial innovation: conceptions, processes, and antecedents’, Management and Organization Review, Vol 8, No 2, pp 423–454. De Man, A.P., and Duysters, G. (2005), ‘Collaboration and innovation: a review of the effects of mergers, acquisitions and alliances on innovation’, Technovation, Vol 25, No 12, pp 1377–1387. De Propris, L. (2002), ‘Types of innovation and inter-firm cooperation’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol 14, pp 337–353. de Vaus, D. (2001), Research Design in Social Research, SAGE Publications, London. Diederen, P., Van Meijl, H., Wolters, A., and Bijak, K. (2003), ‘Innovation adoption in agriculture: innovators, early adopters and laggards’, Cahier d’économie et sociologie rurales, Vol 67.

Døving, E., and Gooderham, P.N. (2008), ‘Dynamic capabilities as antecedents of the scope of related diversification: the case of small firm accountancy practices’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 29, No 8, pp 841–857. Dyer, J.H., and Singh, H. (1998), ‘The relational view: cooperative strategies and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage’, Academy of Management Review, Vol 23, pp 660–679. Eveleens, C. (2010), Innovation Management: A Literature Review of Innovation Process Models and their Implications, Nijmegen. Freel, M.S., and Harrison, R.T. (2006), ‘Innovation and cooperation in the small firm sector: evidence from northern Britain’, Regional Studies, Vol 40, pp 289–305. Fritsch, M., and Lukas, R. (2001), ‘Who co-operates on R&D?’ Research Policy, Vol 30, pp 297–312. Gellynck, X., Vermeire, B., and Viaene, J. (2007), ‘Innovation in food firms: contribution of regional networks within the international business context’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol 19, No 3, pp 209–226. Gemünden, H.G., Ritter, T., and Heydebreck, P. (1996), ‘Network configuration and innovation success: an empirical analysis in German high-tech industries’, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol 13, No 5, pp 449–462. Gibb, A.A. (1997), ‘Small firms training and competitiveness: building up the small business as a learning organization’, International Small Business Journal, Vol 15, No 3, pp 13–29. Gruner, K.E., and Homburg, C. (2000), ‘Does customer interaction enhance new product success?’ Journal of Business Research, Vol 49, pp 1–14. Gulati, R. (1995), ‘Social structure and alliance formation patterns: a longitudinal analysis’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 40, pp 619–652. Gulati, R. (1998), ‘Alliances and networks’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 19, pp 293–317. Hansen, M.T., and Birkinshaw, J. (2007), ‘The innovation value chain’, Harvard Business Review, Vol 85, No 6, pp 121–130. Howells, J., James, A.D., and Malik, K. (2004), ‘Sourcing external knowledge: a decision support framework for firms’, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol 9, No 4, pp 143–154. Jacobs, D., and Snijders, H. (2008), Innovatieroutine, Van Gorcum, Assen. Kaufmann, A., and Tödtling, F. (2002), ‘How effective is innovation support for SME’s? An analysis of the region of upper Austria’, Technovation, Vol 22, No 3, pp 147–159. Kirner, E., Kinkel, S., and Jaeger, A. (2009), ‘Innovation paths and the innovation performance of low-technology firms – an empirical analysis of German industry’, Research Policy, Vol 38, No 3, pp 447–458. Klerkx, L., Aerts, N., and Leeuwis, C. (2010), ‘Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: the interactions between innovation networks and their environment’, Agricultural Systems, Vol 103, pp 390–400. Kogut, B. (1988), ‘Joint ventures: theoretical and empirical perspectives’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 9, pp 319– 332. Kühne, B., Gellynck, X., and Weaver, R.D. (2010), ‘Network connections and innovation capacity in traditional agrifood chains’, 116th EAAE Seminar: Spatial Dynamics in Agri-food Systems: Implications for Sustainability and Consumer Welfare, Parma, Italy. Lasagni, A. (2012), ‘How can external relationships enhance innovation in SMEs? New evidence for Europe’, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol 20, No 2, pp 310–339. Lavie, D. (2006), ‘The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: an extension of the resource-based view’, Academy of Management Review, Vol 31, pp 638–658. Lundvall, B.-A. (1995), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Pinter Publishers, London. Miotti, L., and Sachwald, F. (2003), ‘Co-operative R&D: why and

202

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 15, No 3

picture, investigation of the other stakeholders’ perspectives is recommended. Furthermore, it would be valuable to test for the generalizability of our results in the agricultural sector through a quantitative survey of a representative sample.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the farmers who took time to participate in the interviews. Last but not least, we want to thank the Flemish Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT 090918) for making it possible to conduct this research.

References

Innovation partners in the innovation journey of farmers with whom? An integrated framework of analysis’, Research Policy, Vol 32, pp 1481–1499. Morris, H.M., Kocak, A., and Ozer, A. (2007), ‘Co-opetition as a small business strategy: implications for performance’, Journal of Small Business Strategy, Vol 18, No 1, pp 35–55. Mulgan, G., and Albury, D. (2003), ‘Innovation in the public sector’, Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office, London. Najib, M., and Kiminami, A. (2011), ‘Innovation, co-operation and business performance: some evidence from Indonesian small food processing cluster’, Journal of Agribusiness in Developing and Emerging Economies, Vol 1, No 1, pp 75–96. Nieto, M., and Santamaria, L. (2010), ‘Technological collaboration: bridging the innovation gap between small and large firms’, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol 48, No 1, pp 44–69. Nieto, M.J., and Santamaria, L. (2007), ‘The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation’, Technovation, Vol 27, pp 367–377. Nooteboom, B. (2001), Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies, Oxford University Press, Oxford. OECD (2005), Oslo Manual – Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, OECD, Paris. Omta, O. (2002), ‘Innovation in chains and networks’, Journal on Chain and Network Science, Vol 2, No 2, pp 73–80. Omta, O. (2004), ‘Management of innovation in chains and networks’, in Camps, T., Diederen, P., Hofstede, G.J., and Vos, B., eds, The Emerging World of Chains and Networks. Bridging Theory and Practice, Reed Business Information, ‘sGravenhage. Penrose, E.T. (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Oxford University Press, New York. Peteraf, M.A. (1993), ‘The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource based view’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 14, pp 179–191. Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., and Neely, A. (2004), ‘Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence’, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vols 5–6, Nos 3–4, pp 137–168. Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W., and Smith-Doerr, L. (1996), ‘Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 41, No 1, pp 116–145. Quintana-Garcia, C., and Benavides-Velasco, C.A. (2004), ‘Cooperation, competition and innovative behaviour: a panel data of European dedicated biotechnology firms’, Technovation, Vol 24, pp 927–938. Ritala, P., and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2012), ‘Incremental and radical innovation in coopetition – the role of absorptive capacity and appropriability’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol 30, No 1, pp 154–169. Ritter, T., and Gemünden, H.G. (2003), ‘Network competence: its impact on innovation success and its antecedents’, Journal of Business Research, Vol 56, pp 745–755. Robin, S., and Schubert, T. (2013), ‘Cooperation with public

research institutions and succes in innovations: evidence from France and Germany’, Research Policy, Vol 42, pp 149–166. Rogers, E.M. (1962), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, Glencoe, IL. Rothwell, R. (1994), ‘Towards the fifth-generation innovation process’, International Marketing Review, Vol 11, No 1, pp 7–31. Rumelt, R. (1984), ‘Towards a strategic theory of the firm’, in Lamb, ed, Competitive Strategic Management, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Souder, W.E., Buisson, D., and Garrett, T. (1997), ‘Success through customer-driven new product development: a comparison of US and New Zealand small entrepreneurial high technology firms’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol 14, pp 459–472. Tidd, J., Bessant, J., and Pavitt, K. (2005), Managing Innovation, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Tushman, M.L. (1977), ‘Special boundary roles in the innovation process’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 22, No 4, pp 587–605. Van de Ven, A.H., Polley, D.E., Garud, R., and Venkataraman, S. (2008), The Innovation Journey, Oxford University Press, New York. Van de Ven, A.H., Polley, D.E., Garud, R., and Venkataraman, S. (1999), The Innovation Journey, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York. van Galen, M., and Verstegen, J. (2008), ‘Innovatie in de agrarische sector: We kunnen er niet genoeg van krijgen!’ 2008-067, LEI Wageningen, Den Haag. Varis, M., and Littunen, H. (2010), ‘Types of innovation, sources of information and performance in entrepreneurial SMEs.’, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol 13, No 2, pp 128–154. Verloop, J. (2004), Insights in Innovation: Managing Innovation by Understanding the Laws of Innovation, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam. Verschuren, P., and Doorewaard, H. (1999), Designing a Research Project, Lemma, Utrecht. Vuola, O., and Hameri, A.P. (2006), ‘Mutually benefiting joint innovation process between industry and big-science’, Technovation, Vol 26, pp 3–12. Wernerfelt, B. (1984), ‘A resource based view of the firm’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 5, pp 171–180. Whitley, R. (2002), ‘Developing innovative competences: the role of institutional frameworks’, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol 11, pp 497–528. Winch, G.W., and Bianchi, C. (2006), ‘Drivers and dynamic processes for SMEs going global’, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol 13, No 1, pp 73–88. Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Applied Social Research Methods), SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Zahra, S.A., and George, G. (2002), ‘Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extention’, Academy of Management Review, Vol 27, No 2, pp 185–203.

ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND INNOVATION Vol 15, No 3

203