Empresas activas por sector

Predominantly small to medium-sized companies were involved in the partnerships. Five partnership networks included one to two larger companies and the two largest partnership networks included around seven larger companies. In each of the partnership networks two to three knowledge or research institutes are also participating.

With an average budget of one million euro for four years, the goals of the innovation partnerships ranged from the development of animal-friendly poultry systems to agro- parks where sustainable (industrial ecology, high animal-welfare, energy-efficiency and low environmental burden) agriculture is integrated in urban development. Three of the largest partnerships were directed to new forms of regional and knowledge management, branding and communication which allow new businesses to emerge. This enabled entrepreneurs from different sectors to find each other and engage in more effective cooperation between entrepreneurs and governmental bodies. Examples of innovative outputs from these networks are new courses developed by a University of Applied Sciences, a website of the region, regional TV broadcasts and the cradle-to-cradle development of a business park. In seven partnerships, innovations were undertaken which led to a reduction in energy use, waste production and pollution, either through interconnected and exchange of energy and waste streams, or through a sector-wide, concerted effort. Eight partnerships focused on the introduction of new, sustainability-oriented concepts in the market. For example, shortening of the chain led to the opening of a new concept store where locally (sustainably-) produced fruit and vegetables are sold; a new poultry-holding system was used to improve animal welfare and introduce a new egg concept in the market; for agricultural use of the saline seepage in the Dutch coastal provinces, salt-tolerant crops were identified which can be grown in brackish water and used in the same way as fresh-water crops.

5.3.4 Measures

Innovation uncertainty. The differences in aims enabled differentiation of the extent of innovation uncertainty, in terms of task and demand uncertainty. Partnerships with innovation aims which are more novel for the sector and of a larger scope are considered to entail a higher level of innovation uncertainty than those which are less novel and have smaller scope innovation aims (as explained in the theoretical part, the novelty of the aims increases the level of uncertainty about task and demand).

Network heterogeneity. The differentiation of the partnerships along the lines of network heterogeneity was done on the basis of the number of types of partners (typified according to the ISIC list). Table A3.2 in Appendix 3 shows two examples of networks with the ISIC categorisations. The networks differed in size (ranging between 6 and 50 participating organisations) and heterogeneity (ranging between 4 and 25+ ISIC categories). Positioning

two globally distinct groups: networks with less than 15 types of organisations, which are less organisationally challenging, and networks with more than 15 types of organisations, which are more organisationally challenging.

Structural governance. As agreements can be made on a contractual (enforceable by judicial/ legal procedures) and extra-contractual basis (enforceable by internal dispute-settlement mechanisms) (Grandori and Furlotti, 2010), a distinction was made between agreements codified in a formal contract (contractual) and informal agreements (extra-contractual) such as those made in project proposals. Appendix 3 Table A3.1 shows a list of agreements which were either codified in a formal contract or agreed in an extra-contractual way. The number of aspects agreed contractually and the number of aspects agreed extra-contractually (through project proposals) were inventoried and used as measures of contractual and extra-contractual formalisation.

The extent of rational commitment is established on the basis of indicators such as time investment, managerial support for the project, ownership of the aims, etc. (see Table A3.1 Appendix 3).

Relational governance. The governance mechanisms, attitudinal commitment and trust, were also established on the basis of indicators and/or statements. For example, attitudinal commitment is indicated by the presence of loyalty among the partners. Trust is established on the basis of indicators and statements about confidence in the intentions and capabilities of the partners (see Table A3.1 Appendix 3).

5.3.5 Analysis

Data analysis consisted of a process of shifting back and forth between the raw data, the patterns emerging from the data, and extant theory on governance of co-innovation. The analysis took an iterative rather than a linear path but for the purpose of simplicity it is presented here in distinct stages.

Step 1. Classification of partnerships

First of all, the measures of innovation uncertainty and network heterogeneity are used to classify the 18 partnerships as introduced in the theoretical part of the paper. The distribution of the partnerships is presented in Figure 5.2. The number of partnerships with high network heterogeneity and high innovation uncertainty is limited. This indicates that the actors from the agri-food sector do not choose en masse to engage in innovations with a high level of uncertainty in partnerships of high network heterogeneity. Innovations with a high level of uncertainty are being undertaken but mainly in networks with limited heterogeneity.

Step 2. Case study selection

On the basis of this classification, four cases, representative of each type (see the white delineated dots in Figure 5.2), were selected in order to study in more depth the development of the interplay between structural and relational governance mechanisms. The cases were selected on the basis of their position in Figure 5.2 and the aims of the partnerships, in order to discuss cases representative of the different combinations of innovation uncertainty and network heterogeneity. The goals and level of innovation uncertainty and network heterogeneity per partnership will be discussed at the start of each of the case descriptions below.

Step 3. Analysis events

With the aim of analysing the interplay between structural and relational governance mechanisms which develop over time, one of the analytical steps was to understand and structure key events during the process of co-innovation and analyse the organisational challenges and governance mechanisms used to tackle these challenges. Firstly, detailed case studies were written (Eisenhardt, 1989) portraying different phases in the process, such as the phase before the official start date of the partnership, the first year of the partnership, and the following 3 years of the partnership. These are the general phases of the studied partnerships, but each partnership also had its specific milestones, which were analysed next to the general phases. Next to phases and milestones, the specific organisational challenges were also identified.

Innovation uncertainty Network heterogeneity ×2 ×2 High Low Uncertain Homocertain Heterogeneous Heterouncertain High Low

Figure 5.2 Distribution of partnerships according to the classification in Figure 5.1; the white dots indicate partnerships that were selected for description and discussion in the text.

Step 4. Analysis relational and structural governance

The fourth step in the analysis consisted of understanding the role of the different structural and relational governance mechanisms which were indicated by the interviewees to have been applied prior to the start, during the first year and after the first year of the co-innovation. Different key concepts from literature were used as indicators of relational governance including rational and attitudinal commitment, compliance and competence trust. Structural governance related to agreements was analysed on the extent to which agreements were used as an anchor point, strict application or without any application. These aspects were analysed in detail in each of the interview transcripts and by comparing this information with meeting notes, evaluation and review reports.

Step 5. Analysis interplay governance mechanisms

In the fifth stage of the analysis, the findings from step 3 and 4 were integrated to understand how the interplay between the structural and relational governance mechanisms was used or applied to deal with the organisational challenges during the different phases of the co- innovation partnerships. For example, for the first year of the partnerships it was analysed to what extent the agreements were used or were deviated from, and whether trust was present and what role it played. Specific events were regarded as milestones where governance mechanisms played an important role in tackling organisational challenges and maximising benefits. The interviewees’ information and the analyses revealed where and how the governance failed especially at the stages and milestones where difficulties were encountered in dealing with the challenges in an effective way. This provided input for conclusions about the way in which the complementary roles of the structural and relational governance mechanisms could have contributed to better results. The analysis is completed by studying the weight of structural and relational mechanisms in the different types of partnerships. Mean values from the seven- point Likert scale statements and other scorings (e.g. formalisation) from the 18 partnerships are used to analyse the overall differences.

5.4 Results

In the following part, the way in which the structural and relational governance mechanisms interplayed during the collaboration is discussed on the basis of the four cases indicated in Figure 5.2. The cases are described in a condensed way, focusing on the depiction of the interplay among the different structural and relational governance mechanisms. Hereby, the events and organisational challenges are referred to where necessary to clarify at what stage in the collaboration and for what purpose the role of structural and relational governance mechanisms was important.