Systemic problems hampering innovation in the New Zealand agricultural innovation system

This study identifies systemic problems in the New Zealand Agricultural Innovation System (AIS) that affect the ability of participants in the agricultural sectors to co-develop technologies. We integrate structural and functional streams of innovation system enquiry, gathering data through 30 semi-structured interviews with individuals in Government, industry and research. Interviews explored perceptions of the influence of actors, interactions, institutions, infrastructure, and market structure on the effectiveness of AIS functions. Examples of systemic problems were: (i) a lack of facilitative and transformational leadership and systemic intermediaries to support the formation of strategic innovation agendas in vertically and horizontally fragmented industries; (ii) a culture of hunting for funding within research organisations; hindering sustained involvement of researchers in innovation, (iii) a large number of actors in the RD and (iv) a lack of institutional support for interactions between actors and roles that support interactions, such as innovation platforms and innovation brokers. The existing New Zealand AIS limits innovation to a linear process; restricting opportunities for innovation to occur and fostering competition amongst organisations that collectively have much to contribute to innovation in the agricultural sectors through constructive collaboration and roles in all facets of the innovation process. These findings indicate an urgent need to create a policy and legislative framework, built on a systemic understanding of innovation that more pro-actively stimulates and fosters co-innovation. Such a framework would facilitate the formation and effectiveness of innovation-brokering organisations and multi-actor platforms, enabling coordinated innovation agenda setting and prioritisation of issues in which all actors in the value chain and innovation support system jointly articulate a shared agenda for change.

[1]  Andrew Hall,et al.  Enhancing agricultural innovation : how to go beyond the strengthening of research systems , 2006 .

[2]  B. Hillebrand,et al.  Trust, Contract and Relationship Development , 2005 .

[3]  C. Leeuwis,et al.  Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment , 2010 .

[4]  J. Hagmann,et al.  Making innovation systems work in practice: experiences in integrating innovation, social learning and knowledge in innovation platforms , 2011 .

[5]  Earl R. Babbie,et al.  The practice of social research , 1969 .

[6]  Stefan Kuhlmann,et al.  Functions of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change , 2007 .

[7]  C. Negro,et al.  The role of collaborative partnerships in industry innovation: lessons from New Zealand's dairy sector , 2010 .

[8]  Laurens Klerkx,et al.  Achievements and challenges of innovation co-production support initiatives in the Australian and Dutch dairy sectors: A comparative study , 2013 .

[9]  W. Newton Suter,et al.  Introduction to Educational Research: A Critical Thinking Approach , 2005 .

[10]  Sharan B. Merriam,et al.  Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation , 2009 .

[11]  C. Leeuwis,et al.  Learning towards system innovation. Evaluating a systemic instrument , 2010 .

[12]  G. Heimeriks,et al.  A review of the European offshore wind innovation system , 2013 .

[13]  M. Hekkert,et al.  Innovation Studies Utrecht ( ISU ) Working Paper Series Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems : a framework for policy makers and innovation scholars , 2011 .

[14]  Laurens Klerkx,et al.  Operationalizing Demand-Driven Agricultural Research: Institutional Influences in a Public and Private System of Research Planning in The Netherlands , 2009 .

[15]  R. Smits,et al.  The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy , 2004 .

[16]  Kristi Jackson,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis with NVivo , 2007 .