From their inception, some PFs have had a crit- ical attitude toward the traditional research and extension approaches, the mechanisms the PFs
themselves used to define priorities, and the routines developed to manage resources. This critical attitude led them to develop learning mechanisms in two key areas: improvement of administrative mechanisms and definition of research priorities. There is a third critical area, though, in which the PFs have not developed effective learning tools: new instruments to support research, extension, and innovation.
Among the contributions of the PFs to agri- cultural policy formulation, the exercise to pri- oritize agricultural chains and identify research demands stands out. The data generated by this activity had a great impact, because it was the only participative planning exercise for the agricultural sector that covered the whole country. Given the lack of other sources of information, federal and state governments used these priorities as the basis for their poli- cies. In addition to generating information, the process was important because it opened chan- nels of dialogue among actors who had previ- ously been dissociated.
It will, however, be difficult for the PFs in the short run to generate other data of such impact. Communication channels among the actors are now well established, and as a result several agents have modified their patterns of interaction with others. When the identifica- tion of research demands was completed, it was judged to have been too expensive and com- plex to repeat, and an alternate data-updating mechanism was created: innovation units in each productive chain. These units used a smaller database and a methodology that was less participative than the original.
Two additional problems with the product- centered planning mechanism are that it reduces the flexibility of the PFs and hampers sup- porting emerging products. A parameter that SAGARPA has used to evaluate the founda- tions is the alignment of funded projects with identified demands. However, emergent prod- ucts do not figure among the priorities, because by their very nature they are not yet important. In other words, the evaluation mechanism based
on identified demands penalizes the more inno- vative PFs.
An area in which the PFs can make a significant contribution is in the design and implementation of new mechanisms to foster innovation, including support for the transfor- mation of research institutions and the creation of effective extension mechanisms. Several PFs have implemented different extension mechanisms. These experiences are an explo- ration mechanism that has not yet been suf- ficiently exploited. In contrast, the PFs have not progressed with new ways of organiz- ing research and innovation. In this and the next sections, we explore alternative ways of strengthening research and extension capa- bilities. Making a major contribution to the design of rural innovation programs will help to consolidate the legitimacy of the PFs in the agricultural sector, over and above the recogni- tion they receive from the authorities. To make this contribution, though, the PFs will have to strengthen their analytical skills.
The two essential elements of the learning mechanisms developed by some of the PFs and COFUPRO were (1) the contributions of a few highly creative individuals and (2) the capac- ity for identifying knowledge gaps and finding external help to fill them. It should be stressed that the learning effort was very uneven; some PFs have experimented actively, whereas oth- ers have maintained a passive attitude. Since its creation, COFUPRO has played a fundamental role in the development of learning mechanisms for the set of PFs, especially train- ing, interfoundation exchange visits, interactions of a group of presidents and managers, exercise of self-evaluation, and contact with outsiders who brought key knowledge of research admin- istration (especially Willem Janssen of ISNAR and José Laborde, a SAGARPA adviser).
The main instruments COFUPRO used to support learning by the PFs were the stra- tegic planning exercises and the research- demand identification exercises. COFUPRO
also played a fundamental part in some activi- ties common to all PFs, such as the develop- ment of the research-demand identification methodology and the development of the online RFP.
• It is recommended that formal training mechanisms for the managers be estab- lished, for example, a graduate degree– granting academic program in the admin- istration and financing of research, exten- sion, and innovation.
The managers’ capabilities are very uneven. The lack of formal, structured training mecha- nisms does not permit either the consolidation of a minimum ability base or the strengthen- ing of the PF’s culture. External certification of managers could help to rectify the present deficiencies in administrative capabilities. This certification could be structured around a core of short courses that includes such subjects as business administration, administration of STI, and researcher–farmer interaction techniques. The courses could be structured in such a way that those managers who so wished could obtain a master’s degree, which would require forming an alliance with an institution of higher education able to award academic degrees. To reduce per-student costs and widen the target group, the courses could be orga- nized by COFUPRO and jointly financed with CONACYT. By so doing the program would also meet the needs of the Sectoral and Mixed Funds and the state science and technology councils. An additional advantage of these alli- ances is that the participation of students from different institutions helps to create horizontal links, increasing the efficiency of the system and the legitimacy of the PFs.
Competitively awarded funding to support research and innovation is to be found in near- ly all Latin American countries. The master’s program could also be opened to students from other Spanish-speaking countries.
• It is recommended that informal training mechanisms be created for PF managers and employees.
Formal training programs cannot transmit the tacit knowledge that managers acquire on the job. Thus an informal training program should also be established that could include extended training visits to PFs using best prac- tices and distance learning courses (using, for example, the Internet).
• It is recommended that the training of presidents and managers be strengthened in the analysis, design, and implementa- tion of research, extension, and innovation programs.
The PFs have developed a culture in which presidents do not need to know about scien- tific and technology policy, because these matters can be delegated to the managers (see Sections 6.1 and 6.2). This premise weak- ens COFUPRO’s potential contribution to the design of research, extension, and innova- tion policies, because COFUPRO’s interaction with the political hierarchy is centered on the presidents. The managers generally interact with the technical echelons.
Managers also do not receive any formal training in these areas; the acquisition of this type of knowledge is left up to the curiosity of each individual. However, as explained in Section 6.4, the area in which the PFs could make their greatest contribution is in the design and implementation of research and innovation programs. Training managers in these topics could take place within the framework of the above-recommended diploma courses.
Training the presidents in these subjects could take place in the form of a short course at the start of the presidential term followed by subsequent training sessions at COFUPRO events. At the moment, COFUPRO and some foundations already organize isolated training
events; their impact would be enhanced by a more structured and organic character.
• It is recommended that a think-tank be cre- ated for the analysis of new mechanisms to foster research, extension, and innovation. The think-tank would serve to systematize and strengthen the learning process for the set of PFs and would also enable balancing immediate and long-term needs.
Since their beginning, the PFs have explored alternatives to improve their activi- ties. On various occasions, exploration was based on external support that brought spe- cialized knowledge that the PFs did not have (for example, from ISNAR and the Mexican Foundation for Total Quality). But institutional capabilities in these areas were not developed; rather, the exploration was concentrated in cer- tain key individuals and in a few foundations. COFUPRO’s learning was focused on the consolidation of administrative procedures for the RFPs. This strategy is reaching its lim- its, because progress in the consolidation of a structure reduces creativity (see Section 2.3) and the challenges and opportunities that the PFs face today are more complex than those they initially faced. Limitations that the organizational structures impose on individual creativity have been recognized in the manage- ment literature, which recommends the cre- ation of a specialized structure outside the rou- tines of the mother organization (Christensen and Raynor 2003). This solution is also recom- mended for the PFs: create a formal think-tank to analyze scientific and technological policies and explore new programs to support research and innovation.
Another reason that learning mechanisms need to be strengthened is that several PFs recognize the limitations of the linear vision of science and have begun to look for new ways to foster innovation. There is, however, no worldwide consensus on what the most effec-
tive programs to support agricultural innova- tion are. In other words, the PFs are pushing up against the international frontier of knowledge in these areas. To continue using this concep- tual framework, the PFs will have to develop their own analytical capabilities, because they will not be able to rely on others, as they did in the past.
Finally, the PFs and the managers devel- oped solid capabilities for administering RFPs and projects. In contrast, most presidents became specialized in making contacts at the political level and with other presidents. Thus the foundations lack spaces specialized in the exploration of new instruments to support innovation.
The creation of a think-tank should be handled with care. The dependence of the PFs on key individuals, together with an ill-defined organizational structure, leaves them vulner- able to the departure of these key individuals. However, consolidated structures can reduce the creativity of individual PFs. As mentioned in Chapter 2 and Section 6.3, success depends on maintaining a balance between exploration and exploitation through the manipulation of variation (independent testing by the PFs) with an effective selection system (central analysis of individual experiences).
This think-tank should have a minimum structure (one or two trained professionals and an innovative farmer) and a budget that is small but allows the team to operate. The farmer would be responsible for guaranteeing smooth communications with the set of PFs and with other agents in the innovation system; the pro- fessionals would bring specialized knowledge and contacts with outside experts. To ensure close interactions with existing structures, the space could be a technical committee reporting to the president of COFUPRO. This committee would identify and systematize the innova- tions from each PF, organize monitoring of the experiences, help to diffuse the most effec- tive innovations among the PFs, and propose innovations for the PFs to test. A small budget
would force the professionals to negotiate proj- ects with the PFs and with other actors in the innovation system.
• It is recommended that external experts be consulted to define a knowledge-adminis- tration strategy (in the broad sense of the term) for the set of PFs.
Since their establishment, the PFs have made important efforts to build databases (especially of technologies and projects). These efforts have been characterized by the PFs as “knowledge management.” But this effort is too restrictive an interpretation of the concept. The specialized literature has defined knowledge management as the set of deci- sions and systematic actions relating to all aspects of individual and collective knowl- edge. Knowledge management is perceived as a system that balances four knowledge dimen- sions: content, process, culture, and infrastruc- ture (see Section 2.3.3). Content refers to the knowledge that can be managed. Processes include identification of needs, retrieval and utilization, creation or acquisition, collection, documentation and storage, and transference or socialization of knowledge. Culture refers to the organization’s practices, form, frequency of activities, and attitudes toward those activities that affect the nature of the learning process at the individual, group, and organizational levels. Infrastructure refers to the establishment of a technical platform to share knowledge; the platform should include a material dimension (such as hardware and software) and a human dimension (such as the personnel to support the system’s use and application of the knowledge- administration processes). Restricting knowl- edge management to databases amounts to re- ducing the system to infrastructure.
• It is recommended that a culture (and its attendant capabilities) be developed to document the activities that the PFs are exploring.
Both COFUPRO and the PFs document only a fraction of the actions and processes they implement. For example, some foun- dations are testing different mechanisms to encourage innovation, but these experiences are not systematically documented, analyzed, and socialized. Documenting experiences is important for three reasons. First, it facili- tates institutional learning by codifying tacit knowledge. Second, it helps to disseminate the actions of the PFs and contributes to their legit- imation in the eyes of researchers, farmers, and other actors in the innovation system. Third, writing about a process forces the writer to think about it, contributing to the consolidation of knowledge. Systematization of these experi- ences could be an activity shared between the above-proposed think-tank and PF managers.