Design process outputs as boundary objects in agricultural innovation projects; functions and limitations

The purpose of this article is to investigate the functions of design process outputs (such as design briefs, scale models, visualizations, animations) as boundary objects in the implementation of novel agricultural production system concepts. The case study analysis of the innovation process that led to the establishment of the Rondeel poultry husbandry system reveals that the interpretative flexibility of design process outputs as boundary objects helps in creating mutual understanding among diverse actors involved in the implementation of a novel agricultural production system concept, and in mobilizing support for it. In some cases, boundary objects allow for interpretative flexibility but remain stable in shape; sometimes, however, the boundary objects themselves change as a result of the redesign process they induce. Furthermore, implementers of novel systems may prefer to maintain a rigid interpretation of the boundary object, using such interpretative rigidity of the boundary object as both an inclusion and exclusion mechanism for actors and options in the innovation process. The results confirm that a design process output such as a scale model can be purposefully created to serve as a boundary object and support novel agricultural system concept implementation. However, the effectiveness of a boundary object cannot be predicted and fully planned ex-ante.

[1]  Paine,et al.  Networks of practice for co-construction of agricultural decision support systems: Case studies of precision dairy farms in Australia , 2012 .

[2]  R. Yin Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[3]  Cees Leeuwis,et al.  Finding niches for whole-farm design models – contradictio in terminis? , 2006 .

[4]  A. Wieczorek,et al.  Transitions towards sustainability through system innovation , 2005 .

[5]  R. L. McCown,et al.  Changing systems for supporting farmers' decisions: problems, paradigms, and prospects , 2002 .

[6]  James Sumberg,et al.  AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH THROUGH A ‘NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT’ LENS , 2004, Experimental Agriculture.

[7]  Ellen Moors,et al.  Exploring emerging technologies using metaphors--a study of orphan drugs and pharmacogenomics. , 2008, Social science & medicine.

[8]  Ole Broberg,et al.  Participatory ergonomics in design processes: the role of boundary objects. , 2011, Applied ergonomics.

[9]  Jacky Swan,et al.  The object of knowledge: The role of objects in biomedical innovation , 2007 .

[10]  D. Roep,et al.  Constructing a Sustainable Pork Supply Chain: A Case of Techno-institutional Innovation , 2007 .

[11]  Debbie Harrison,et al.  Boundary objects in multi-actor interactions within tightly structured networks , 2011 .

[12]  Delia Grace,et al.  Linking international agricultural research knowledge with action for sustainable development , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[13]  Guy Faure,et al.  How does research address the design of innovative agricultural production systems at the farm level? A review , 2011 .

[14]  Raghu Garud,et al.  The innovation journey , 1999 .

[15]  Christopher Lettl,et al.  User involvement competence for radical innovation , 2007 .

[16]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[17]  Maria Backman,et al.  Vehicles for attention creation - The case of a concept car at Volvo Cars , 2006 .

[18]  S. F. Spoelstra,et al.  Practices for reflexive design: lessons from a Dutch programme on sustainable agriculture , 2004 .

[19]  Peter J. Thorburn,et al.  A Conceptual Framework for Guiding the Participatory Development of Agricultural Decision Support Systems , 2010 .

[20]  J. Whyte,et al.  Knowledge Practices in Design: The Role of Visual Representations as `Epistemic Objects' , 2009 .

[21]  J.D.H. Keatinge,et al.  Why promising technologies fail: the neglected role of user innovation during adoption ☆ , 2001 .

[22]  Kenneth R. Fleischmann,et al.  Boundary Objects with Agency: A Method for Studying the Design–Use Interface , 2006, Inf. Soc..

[23]  James W. Jones,et al.  Systems approaches for the design of sustainable agro-ecosystems , 2001 .

[24]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Product Design and Development , 1995 .

[25]  Marianne Cerf,et al.  Participatory design of agricultural decision support tools: taking account of the use situations , 2012, Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

[26]  Cees Leeuwis,et al.  Enhancing the Reflexivity of System Innovation Projects With System Analyses , 2010 .

[27]  P. Groenewegen,et al.  Engaging Boundary Objects in OMS and STS? Exploring the Subtleties of Layered Engagement , 2009 .

[28]  Francesca Montagna,et al.  Decision-aiding tools in innovative product development contexts , 2011 .

[29]  John Bessant,et al.  DEVELOPING RADICAL SERVICE INNOVATIONS IN HEALTHCARE — THE ROLE OF DESIGN METHODS , 2009 .

[30]  Don E. Kash,et al.  Emerging patterns of complex technological innovation , 2002 .

[31]  R. Rabbinge,et al.  Exploratory land use studies and their role in strategic policy making. , 1998 .

[32]  Martin K. van Ittersum,et al.  Land use models in complex societal problem solving: Plug and play or networking? , 2009, Environ. Model. Softw..

[33]  A. P. Bos,et al.  Designing complex and sustainable agricultural production systems: an integrated and reflexive approach for the case of table egg production in the Netherlands , 2008 .

[34]  C. Leeuwis Integral technology design as a process of learning and negotiation : A social science perspective on interactive prototyping , 1999 .

[35]  M. Schut,et al.  Biofuel developments in Mozambique. Update and analysis of policy, potential and reality , 2010 .

[36]  Frans Berkhout,et al.  Normative expectations in systems innovation , 2006, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..

[37]  A. P. Bos,et al.  Reflexive Interactive Design and its Application in a Project on Sustainable Dairy Husbandry Systems , 2009 .

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

[39]  Glen C. Rains,et al.  Redirecting technology to support sustainable farm management practices , 2011 .

[40]  Guillaume Martin,et al.  Forage rummy: A game to support the participatory design of adapted livestock systems , 2011, Environ. Model. Softw..

[41]  Objet-frontière ou Projet-frontière ?: Construction, (non-)utilisation et politique d'une banque de données , 2009 .

[42]  James Sumberg,et al.  Agricultural research in the face of diversity, local knowledge and the participation imperative: theoretical considerations , 2003 .

[43]  B. Flyvbjerg Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research , 2006, 1304.1186.

[44]  E. Turnhout,et al.  The effectiveness of boundary objects: the case of ecological indicators , 2009 .

[45]  K. Papadimitriou,et al.  Dynamics of a project through Intermediary Objects of Design (IODs): A sensemaking perspective , 2007 .

[46]  Ellen H.M. Moors,et al.  User producer interaction in context , 2012 .

[47]  Chris Kimble,et al.  Innovation and knowledge sharing across professional boundaries: Political interplay between boundary objects and brokers , 2010, Int. J. Inf. Manag..

[48]  Holger Meinke,et al.  The interface between land use systems research and policy: multiple arrangements and leverages. , 2009 .

[49]  Susan Leigh Star,et al.  Institutional Ecology, `Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39 , 1989 .

[50]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Boundary Objects in Design: An Ecological View of Design Artifacts , 2007, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[51]  S. L. Star,et al.  Invisible Mediators of Action: Classification and the Ubiquity of Standards , 2000 .

[52]  Tony Huzzard,et al.  Constructing interorganizational collaboration , 2010 .

[53]  Margunn Aanestad,et al.  Changing practice through boundary organizing: A case from medical R&D , 2012 .

[54]  Pieter J. Beers,et al.  Future sustainability and images , 2010 .

[55]  Y. Everingham,et al.  Agricultural decision support systems facilitating co-learning: a case study on environmental impacts of sugarcane production , 2011 .

[56]  E. Hippel Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user innovation , 2009 .

[57]  Tammy E. Beck,et al.  RADICAL CHANGE ACCIDENTALLY: THE EMERGENCE AND AMPLIFICATION OF SMALL CHANGE , 2007 .

[58]  Sylwia Męcfal Recenzja książki. Robert K. yin, Case Study Research. Design and Methods (fourth Edition), thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2009 , 2012 .