Presented by Dr. Laurens Klerkx at ILRI, Addis Ababa, 12 September 2012.

1. “System redesign in Animal Production:
Dutch experiences and broader relevance”
Dr. Laurens Klerkx
Knowledge, Innovation and Technology Group
ILRI, 12 September 2012, Addis Ababa

2. What will I talk about?
 A brief introduction of our research cluster
 The case of ‘Rondeel’ as an example of system redesign
process following a ‘new product development
approach’:
● The context in which the process emerged
● The NPD/system redesign process
● The implementation in practice of the Rondeel
system
● Key issues and implications emerging from the the
NPD/system redesign
 Discussion on implications for ILRI’s work

3. Our group
 Founded in 1968 as Extension Science: study of
communication to enhance technology adoption
 In the 1980’s a more critical and systemic
perspective to innovation: AKIS -> name changed
to Communication and Innovation Studies
 In 2002 two groups developed:
● Communication and innovation studies
● Communication strategies
 Very recent clustering and reorganization:
● Knowledge, innovation and technology group
● Communication strategies group
● Applied philosphy group

4. Different lines of investigation of the
cluster
 Innovation systems and innovation networks/platforms
 Intermediaries/brokers in innovation systems
 Action and participatory research
 Research governance analysis
 Self-organization of actors
 Frame analysis
 Individual behaviour change and persuasive
communication
 Risk communication

5. Different lines of investigation of the
cluster
 Participatory video and media analysis
 Discursive strategies of actors
 Critical technology analysis (technography) and political
agronomy (SRI/biotech/pesticides)
 Ethical analysis of technology development and
agricultural production
 Reflexive process monitoring

6. Some current projects
 Convergence of Science- Strengthening Innovation
Systems (COS-SIS)
 The Evolution of SRI as a Socio-Technical Phenomenon
 Intermediary actors in the Kenyan AIS
 Support of Learning and Innovation Networks for
Sustainable Agriculture (SOLINSA)
 Preparing African Farmers against Parasitic Weeds in a
Changing Environment (PARASITE)
 Determining the cost-effectiveness of an effective
intervention to improve adherence among treatment-
experienced HIV-infected patients in the Netherlands
 Expert-lay interaction about food and technology

7. System redesign in egg production: the
Rondeel case

8. Starting point: crisis in Dutch animal
production systems
 Low animal welfare
 We import soy and keep the
dung
 Contagious disease and
multiple resistant bacteria
 Meat consumption and obesity
 Animal production and climate
change
 Low protein conversion ratio

9. Need to radically reform the ‘regime’

10. Government policy to stimulate radical
innovation
 Create and stimulate sustainable niches – overcome
system failures (e.g. strong and weak networks,
institutional failure)
 Various instruments
● R&D
● Platforms
● Linkage building
● Innovation subsidies
● Consumer awareness raising

11. What kind of R&D is needed?
 System innovation requires a holistic perspective
connecting scientific disciplines
 Research should be transdisciplinary, involve
stakeholders
 Beyond research, enabling conditions for innovation need
to be brought into place (co-evolution of hard-, soft-,
orgware)
 Research should translate desirable futures and
stakeholder demands into appealing but attainable
visions
 Following Sumberg and Reece (2004), research should
take a ‘New Product Development’ focus

12. Method of ‘interactive reflexive design’
(e.g., Bos et al., 2010)
 Actual production system and socio-technical
regime are ‘locked-in’
 Visionaries are invited to think in possibilities, not
current problems and constraints
 Surveys among citizens on ideal production system
 Also views farmers , scientists, and hens (through
ethological scientists) are integrated
 Briefs of requirements: what needs should the
system fulfil?
 Quick prototypes: images, scale models

13. Main steps in RID

14. Program of demands

15. Artist impressions

16. Nice design process outputs, but what
next?
 Government funded design projects – pre-competitive
phase
 Now companies should take up the ideas and develop
them in real systems

17. Some firms took up the challenge:
consortium

18. Design process outputs gave guidance, but
these firms still had many uncertainties
 On technological development
 On resources needed
 On public policies
 On consumer behaviour
 On supplier behaviour
 On retailers behaviour

19. Internal and external capacities
 Vencomatic and Kwetters have well qualified staff that
could help some of these uncertainties (e.g. on
marketing, technology)
 But also need for external resources and comptences
● External consultancy (in CSR, technology, market,
business model) – look for and verify options
● To make contacts in different ‘worlds’ –
government, retail, NGOs
● To get to know other similar experiences and
creative solutions
● To find and obtain capital

20. External capacities
 Livestock Research: R&D and
brokering
 Transition and Society: CSR
consultancy, process
facilitation and brokering
 TransForum: brokering,
funding, process facilitation
and monitoring

21. Also visualization design helped to ‘sell
the story’
 Towards local authorities
 Towards the national
government
 Towards farmer’s organization
 Towards Animal Protection
Society
 Towards supermarkets
 Towards farmers

22. Different components of innovation are
interdependent
 To sell egg: need to have
system built and operational
 For funding: guaranteed retail
purchases needed
 No construction: no purchases
from retail
 No promise of purchase of
retail: no funding
 Vicious cycle: who comes with
the money?

23. How to get a guarantee?
 Vencomatic as SME can invest,
but not bear all risks
 Innovation subsidies are
insufficient
 Banks do not lend for
uncertain innovations
 But state support also has its
limits
 Continuous lobby and
opportunity searching needed

24. Guarantee paved the way
 Bank gave loan
 Construction of first Rondeel

25. Guarantee paved the way

26. Guarantee paved the way
 Construction first
Rondeel enabled
having serous
negotiations with
supermarkets for
shelve space
 Eggs sold under
private label ‘AH
Pure and Honest’
 NGO’s enthousiastic
– free publicity

27. Key elements
 Building strong but
adaptive vision through
interactive design
 Building interfaces –
spanning boundaries
and mediating
 Mobilizing powerful and
influential advocates
 Role of science as
designer, advisor
 Reflexive process
monitoring to enhance
adaptive management

28. Rondeel project is just beginning – part of
niche

29. Reflection: is there a relevance for ILRI
work?
 Different system boundaries in smallholder agriculture–
less discrete systems
 Different resource endowments and enabling (or
disabling) environments
 Many more people involved/targeted in innovation
processes ILRI works in
 But parts of RID have been applied on dairy chains in
Ethiopia (system analysis)
So what lessons can be learned, e.g. for ILRI’s R4D/
innovation platform work?

30. Thank you for
your attention!
Further reading on this topic, see:
Bos, A.P., Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Gosselink, J.M.J., Bokma, S., 2009. Reflexive
interactive design and its application in a project on sustainable dairy husbandry
systems. Outlook on Agriculture 38, 137-145.
Klerkx, L., Aarts, N., Leeuwis, C., 2010. Adaptive management in agricultural innovation
systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment.
Agricultural Systems 103, 390-400.
Klerkx, L., Van Bommel, S., Bos, B., Holster, H., Zwartkruis, J.V., Aarts, N., 2012. Design
process outputs as boundary objects in agricultural innovation projects: Functions and
limitations. Agricultural Systems 113, 39-49.
Sumberg, J., Reece, D., 2004. Agricultural research through a new product development
lens. Experimental Agriculture 40, 295-314
See also my homepage for links to related articles:
http://www.com.wur.nl/UK/Staff/Klerkx