- Governance of innovation networks, Innovation statistics, Agricultural Netchains, Tracking Dynamics of Innovation Networks, Ambidextrous Capacity of Innovation Networks, Innovation systems agricultural innovation platforms, and 15 moreInnovation Networks, Ambidextrous Management of Innovation Networks, Management of Innovation, Ambidextrous Managers, Innovation Intermediaries, Monitoring And Evaluation, Knowledge Management, Netchain Analysis, Ambidextrous Innovation Agents, Meta-governace of innovation networks, Entrepreneurship, Social Networking, Agriculture, Social Entrepreneurship, and Environmental Sustainabilityedit
The study addresses research gaps concerning multi-organisational arrangements in innovation networks, specifically how innovation networks are orchestratedor managed. This paper presents the concept of mobiles of innovation networks and... more
The study addresses research gaps concerning multi-organisational arrangements in innovation networks, specifically how innovation networks are orchestratedor managed. This paper presents the concept of mobiles of innovation networks and their dynamic meta-governance, from a longitudinal and relational view. It shows evidence on different governance modes of the mobiles hubs at different network levels and different stages of an innovation process.
Research Interests:
International agricultural research organizations have made efforts to ensure their research products reach the intended beneficiaries, in order to reduce poverty and to improve rural livelihoods. Examples exist of initiatives to... more
International agricultural research organizations have made efforts to ensure their research products reach the intended beneficiaries, in order to reduce poverty and to improve rural livelihoods. Examples exist of
initiatives to transfer technologies (research institution to farmer) and to facilitate the information sharing processes. These initiatives include participatory approaches, capacity building processes, and, in various
cases, have utilized new information and communication technologies (ICT). These ventures have also been a step in the process of participation and democratisation of farmers in what has been called the information society. There are still limitations hindering the participation of farmers in many technology
transfer projects however. Often farmers are unable to access the “media” of information sharing, or they may find the information is not useful, irrelevant, or in an unfamiliar language. These problems are
compounded by a lack of awareness and skills in ICT s such that the possibility of feedback to, and communication with, research organizations can seem very remote.
Village Information and Communication Centers (VICs) in Rwanda are public spaces where farmers can share knowledge, access information in their own language, and other community services (shop for sale
of agricultural inputs, amalgamation of products for getting better prices, cooperative banks, training points, community meeting places and so forth) in their own place.
Free access and democratization of information are key principles in organization and operations of VICs.
Organized farmer groups in a form of farmer association is the basic requirement of establishing the centers to ensure institutional support backing, hosting and managing the VICs, including cost share the running of the centers.
From the initial stage of establishing the VICs it should be clear that the centers are demand-driven and address the information needs and priorities of the rural and marginalized communities (women and men,
youth, sick, elderly and disabled). In other words VICs should be organized in manner that there is broad ownership base as the objective is to benefit the maximum number of farmers on wider and diversified
issues related with agriculture and rural development. Efforts should also be made to ensure that VICs promote multidirectional flows of information and communication between different stakeholders, R&D
partners, farmer’s associations and other communities groups, including sharing of expert as well as traditional knowledge of communities. The long term sustainability of VICs lies in community empowerment which also demands a strategic vision, basically developed in partnership with farmers to invest in human resources, in the physical condition of the VICs, and in training.
In this way VICs can be an economic and effective mechanism for research organizations to disseminate to farmers the products of their research and to facilitate a feedback about the process and results of the research.
Key words: Village information and communication center; information and knowledge sharing; agriculture; technology transfer; learning communities; Rwanda; Africa.
initiatives to transfer technologies (research institution to farmer) and to facilitate the information sharing processes. These initiatives include participatory approaches, capacity building processes, and, in various
cases, have utilized new information and communication technologies (ICT). These ventures have also been a step in the process of participation and democratisation of farmers in what has been called the information society. There are still limitations hindering the participation of farmers in many technology
transfer projects however. Often farmers are unable to access the “media” of information sharing, or they may find the information is not useful, irrelevant, or in an unfamiliar language. These problems are
compounded by a lack of awareness and skills in ICT s such that the possibility of feedback to, and communication with, research organizations can seem very remote.
Village Information and Communication Centers (VICs) in Rwanda are public spaces where farmers can share knowledge, access information in their own language, and other community services (shop for sale
of agricultural inputs, amalgamation of products for getting better prices, cooperative banks, training points, community meeting places and so forth) in their own place.
Free access and democratization of information are key principles in organization and operations of VICs.
Organized farmer groups in a form of farmer association is the basic requirement of establishing the centers to ensure institutional support backing, hosting and managing the VICs, including cost share the running of the centers.
From the initial stage of establishing the VICs it should be clear that the centers are demand-driven and address the information needs and priorities of the rural and marginalized communities (women and men,
youth, sick, elderly and disabled). In other words VICs should be organized in manner that there is broad ownership base as the objective is to benefit the maximum number of farmers on wider and diversified
issues related with agriculture and rural development. Efforts should also be made to ensure that VICs promote multidirectional flows of information and communication between different stakeholders, R&D
partners, farmer’s associations and other communities groups, including sharing of expert as well as traditional knowledge of communities. The long term sustainability of VICs lies in community empowerment which also demands a strategic vision, basically developed in partnership with farmers to invest in human resources, in the physical condition of the VICs, and in training.
In this way VICs can be an economic and effective mechanism for research organizations to disseminate to farmers the products of their research and to facilitate a feedback about the process and results of the research.
Key words: Village information and communication center; information and knowledge sharing; agriculture; technology transfer; learning communities; Rwanda; Africa.
Research Interests: Communication, Information Management, Democratization, Information Communication Technology, Management of Innovation, and 7 moreTechnology transfer, Communities of practice, Smallholder Farmers & Poverty Alleviation, Technology transfer to developing countries, Learning Communities, Social Innovation, and Knowledge Communities
Plataformas promoviendo capacidades multiples de las redes para resolver problemas collectivos: Hubs móviles de innovación y su dinámica de gobernabilidad para manejar redes multi-nivel y otras interfaces en procesos de innovación
Research Interests:
Cooperatives serve both social and economic collective purposes and the members of a cooperative are at the same time both owners and users of the cooperative. This dual character leads to ambiguity, and the contradictory activities of... more
Cooperatives serve both social and economic collective purposes and the members of a cooperative are at the same time both owners and users of the cooperative. This dual character leads to ambiguity, and the contradictory activities of cooperatives can make their coordination problematic, especially when they involve multi-level innovation networks with diverse stakeholders. Specific problems include coordinating multi-level stakeholders with different interests, competing institutional frameworks and different professional backgrounds or cultures. It is also necessary to resolve the paradoxes associated with the users of cooperatives being accountable to themselves as the owners. Further problems relate to maintaining the stable participation of members in complying with contract conditions (e.g. production and quality demands) while opening the network to new members according to the principle of open ownership. The paper explains how innovation networks that cooperate with smallholder farmers are coordinated to balance exploration and exploitation when tackling challenges in an innovation process, and the governance coordination mechanisms that are used. It is based on six study cases of farmer groups involved in different configurations of innovation networks, research and development interventions and multi-stakeholder innovation platforms that aim to tackle challenges in the potato netchain in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Uganda. It uses and adjusts social network and value chain analyses (netchain analysis) to track relational-structural governance dynamics with a longitudinal approach, introducing the concept of innovation netchain as a variant of innovation networks. It finds that in the paradigm of open innovation, more open governance and management mechanisms emerge to respond to globalized and complex societal challenges. The paper proposes the concept of mobile hubs of innovation networks and their dynamic meta- governance and a typology of different modes of management mechanism for innovation networks. It concludes that the dynamic orchestration of activities facilitated by the multi-level fora of multi-stakeholder innovation platforms (i.e. a mobile hub of innovation networks) democratically at the farmer, national, regional and even the virtual levels should decide on the modes of governance and leadership required for coordinating activities. Ambidextrous management of the multi-stakeholder cooperative balances the exploration and exploitation dynamics of an innovation process. Published on: http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/a9e9b1ac-59d4-4cce-84e5-13535312bbb1 In book: FAO. 2016. Enabling more inclusive and efficient food and agricultural systems in Africa . FAO session at the IFAMA World Forum, 18 June 2014, Cape Town, South Africa, by Da Silva, C., Mpagalile, J., van Rooyen, J. & Rizzo, C. Rome, Italy., Chapter: 9, Publisher: Published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Stellenbosch University, pp.131-154
Research Interests: Governance, Management of Innovation, Cooperatives, Innovation Networks, Open Innovation, and 11 moreInnovation and Creativity (Business), Multi-Stakeholder Processes, Multi-Stakeholder, Multi-Stakeholder Participation, Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives, Global Internet governance, networks, multi-stakeholder, Multiple Stakeholders Coordination, Multiple stakeholder theory, Multi Stakeholder Engagement, Mobile Hubs of Innovation Networks, and Ambidexterity networks
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35353.01123
Ambidextrous management for the emergence of mobile hubs of innovation networks as interface for simultaneous exploration and exploitation in open innovation processes. Mobility as a dynamic capability necessary for innovation:... more
Ambidextrous management for the emergence of mobile hubs of innovation networks as interface for simultaneous exploration and exploitation in open innovation processes. Mobility as a dynamic capability necessary for innovation: structural, contextual and temporal mobility. Mobility is the pivotal point to foster dynamism and to balance exploration and exploitation capabilities in an innovation process according to the needs of the networks. Multi-stakeholder innovation platforms foster the emergence of mobile hubs of innovation due to their ambidextrous management and design. The platform and its mobile hubs coordinate collective efforts in multi-level network settings with three types of mobility: structural, contextual and temporal: Innovation platforms as an interface for a dynamic governance of multi-level innovation networks (structural mobility for ambidexterity) Structural mobility refers to the capability of the innovation networks to connect to other stakeholders at different network levels, and maintain an appropriate diversity of the stakeholders of the network and organisational relationships over time. In developed countries ambidexterity is managed effectively via combined units in large firms, separated work units in small and medium size enterprises, or through regional clusters for networks. These units, fora, or 'hubs' manage knowledge flows, and have a tendency to be centralised, static and neutral. In developing countries, I found that a dynamic orchestration of innovation networks takes place in multi-stakeholder innovation platforms. Platforms tend to be complicated, include stakeholders from multiple levels, and need to address many challenges simultaneously. Consequently it is difficult to establish a hub that is neutral, and central. The hub is a mobile hub. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.12143.43684
Presented in summer school, Amsterdam, 2012
Ambidexterity is a managerial dynamic collective capability of innovation networks for tackling complex challenges in open innovation processes. Different network governance dynamics of innovation networks represent different ways of... more
Ambidexterity is a managerial dynamic collective capability of innovation networks for tackling complex challenges in open innovation processes. Different network governance dynamics of innovation networks represent different ways of management of networks. An ambidextrous management and design in multi-stakeholder innovation platforms facilitates the emergence of mobile hubs of innovation networks. These mobiles hubs manage the interfaces (structural, contextual and temporal) to coordinate collective efforts in multi-level network settings. This research was conducted in Uganda, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14546.56005 ·On
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308329547_Ambidexterity_as_a_capability_of_innovation_networks_and_multi-stakeholder_innovation_platforms_mobile_hubs_as_the_interface_to_coordinate_multi-level_networks?showFulltext=1&linkId=57e0f65908aec6ce9f29b74d
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308329547_Ambidexterity_as_a_capability_of_innovation_networks_and_multi-stakeholder_innovation_platforms_mobile_hubs_as_the_interface_to_coordinate_multi-level_networks?showFulltext=1&linkId=57e0f65908aec6ce9f29b74d
The study addresses research gaps concerning multi-organisational arrangements in innovation networks, specifically how innovation networks are orchestrated- or managed. This paper presents the concept of mobiles hubs of innovation... more
The study addresses research gaps concerning multi-organisational arrangements in innovation networks, specifically how innovation networks are orchestrated- or managed. This paper presents the concept of mobiles hubs of innovation networks and their dynamic meta-governance, from a longitudinal and relational view. It shows evidence on different governance modes of the mobiles hubs at different network levels and different stages of an innovation process.
Case studies of farmer groups that participate in different trajectories to foster innovations in the potato netchain in Uganda, Rwanda and DRC are presented. Social network and netchain analyses are combined for tracking dynamics of innovation networks over time and how they tackle different challenges.
Multi-stakeholder innovation platforms (MSIPs) are presented in this paper as an example of mobiles hub of innovation networks, and how an ambidextrous management combines and balances dynamics of managed-orchestrated and resilient innovation networks. Ambidexterity is found to be a dynamic and reflexive managerial capability of networks, that goes further the capability of organisations. Changes in roles of from managers and innovation agents are described for facilitating dynamics of innovation.
Mobile learning hubs were also identified as dynamic hybrid communities of practice for knowledge and learning at different network levels in the innovation process, which follow the governance mechanisms of innovation networks to foster different modes of knowledge production and learning, which were sometimes aided by the use of ICT’s.
Case studies of farmer groups that participate in different trajectories to foster innovations in the potato netchain in Uganda, Rwanda and DRC are presented. Social network and netchain analyses are combined for tracking dynamics of innovation networks over time and how they tackle different challenges.
Multi-stakeholder innovation platforms (MSIPs) are presented in this paper as an example of mobiles hub of innovation networks, and how an ambidextrous management combines and balances dynamics of managed-orchestrated and resilient innovation networks. Ambidexterity is found to be a dynamic and reflexive managerial capability of networks, that goes further the capability of organisations. Changes in roles of from managers and innovation agents are described for facilitating dynamics of innovation.
Mobile learning hubs were also identified as dynamic hybrid communities of practice for knowledge and learning at different network levels in the innovation process, which follow the governance mechanisms of innovation networks to foster different modes of knowledge production and learning, which were sometimes aided by the use of ICT’s.
Research Interests:
Research Interests: Innovation Networks, Multi-Stakeholder Processes, Governance of innovation networks, Mobile Hubs of Innovation Networks, Tracking the social organisation of innovation, and 5 moreAmbidextrous governance, Metagovernance innovation, Tracking mobile hubs of innovation networks, Multi-stakeholder Platform, and Multi-stakeholder Coordination
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Tackling complex challenges in innovation processes requires the collaborative efforts of innovation networks at various levels. These innovation networks need to be governed appropriately to manage contradictory but also complementary... more
Tackling complex challenges in innovation processes requires the collaborative efforts of innovation networks at various levels. These innovation networks need to be governed appropriately to manage contradictory but also complementary dynamics for innovation.
Exploration and exploitation are concepts that describe different types of dynamics in innovation processes that require management. In this thesis I present ambidexterity as the higher order managerial capability to orchestrate innovation networks while exploring but also exploiting opportunities to innovate, which entails multiple network capabilities.
I analysed stakeholder testimonies and household level panel data from case studies in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda to assess the performance of innovation networks that aim to tackle complex challenges of family farms in developing countries. I tested the effectiveness of three network governance mechanisms (first order, second order and meta-governance) and their influence on network capabilities.
An ambidextrous management in multi-stakeholder innovation platforms fosters multiple network capabilities and the emergence of mobile hubs to manage various interfaces of innovation networks. However, in contrast to the management of organisations, I found that the management of innovation networks via network governance mechanisms that focus mainly on managing structural challenges, is not the most effective managerial strategy in innovation processes. Managing exploration and exploitation effectively might need a more ambidextrous management of structural, contextual and temporal challenges in interplay, more ‘govern-ability’ and sufficient resources. I recommend further research on the context as a mediating factor between network governance and network-related capabilities. These findings are relevant for managing effectively multi-stakeholder processes for tackling collectively different types of challenges in different contexts.
Exploration and exploitation are concepts that describe different types of dynamics in innovation processes that require management. In this thesis I present ambidexterity as the higher order managerial capability to orchestrate innovation networks while exploring but also exploiting opportunities to innovate, which entails multiple network capabilities.
I analysed stakeholder testimonies and household level panel data from case studies in Uganda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda to assess the performance of innovation networks that aim to tackle complex challenges of family farms in developing countries. I tested the effectiveness of three network governance mechanisms (first order, second order and meta-governance) and their influence on network capabilities.
An ambidextrous management in multi-stakeholder innovation platforms fosters multiple network capabilities and the emergence of mobile hubs to manage various interfaces of innovation networks. However, in contrast to the management of organisations, I found that the management of innovation networks via network governance mechanisms that focus mainly on managing structural challenges, is not the most effective managerial strategy in innovation processes. Managing exploration and exploitation effectively might need a more ambidextrous management of structural, contextual and temporal challenges in interplay, more ‘govern-ability’ and sufficient resources. I recommend further research on the context as a mediating factor between network governance and network-related capabilities. These findings are relevant for managing effectively multi-stakeholder processes for tackling collectively different types of challenges in different contexts.
