Today, agricultural systems are being called to rethink more responsive development models capable of ensuring food for all and facilitating rural areas’ competitiveness. In this context, it is widely recognized that innovation is key to developing businesses, regions, and countries. Indeed, in the narrative related to the adoption of innovations in agriculture, the development of new technologies is central to their potential contribution to improving products and processes in the agri-food system. Also, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) in 2010 emphasised the development of climate-smart agriculture practices, describing them as crucial to food security and climate change objectives (FAO, 2010). In recent years, agroecology and practices related to Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) have gained significant attention by reconfiguring the meanings associated with innovation (Andrade et al., 2020; Ludwig & Macnaghten, 2020). An increasing body of literature highlights that innovation adoption process results from a flow of knowledge that involves different actors of an agricultural system (Klerkx et al., 2012; M. Knickel et al., 2019). These actors participate in an ongoing process of restructuring that modifies their roles and objectives. In this context, the knowledge, motivations, and values of farmers and rural businesses are crucial to the innovation process (K. Knickel et al., 2009). The Agriculture Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS) approach, introduced by the European Commission to support the creation and transfer of knowledge, signed a shift towards a system that places the farmer at the centre and involves various actors engaged in the creation, processing, dissemination and utilisation of knowledge and information to support the development of innovation in agriculture. This systemic approach is characterized by dynamics involving the transformation of inputs into outputs through interactions between system components and the relationships established among them (Ackoff, 1971). In this case study, we have taken into consideration the complexity behind the direct and indirect relationships between actors, the dynamics established over time and the interactions with the environment, which leads us to consider the concept of ecosystems, where the network of interactions is more dynamic and influenced by the external environment. There is a complexity in drawing and defining boundaries that are typically considered open and permeable (Iansiti & Levien, 2004). Starting from the case study of Pecorino Toscano PDO produced in the south of Tuscany, this research will contribute to the literature on digital ecosystems by defining a theoretical framework useful to define policies, practices and strategies to encourage the digital and green transition. Each of the mentioned ecosystems focuses on different factors and critical elements that constitute them. The Business Ecosystems (BE) find their roots in the idea of value networks (Moore, 1993; Normann & Ramírez, 1993) and can be seen as a group of companies which simultaneously create value by combining their skills and assets (Eisenhardt & Galunic, 2000). Each participant is specialized in a specific activity, and it is the collective effort of many participants that constructs value, while efforts individually have no value outside the collective effort (Clarysse et al., 2014). Iansiti & Levien (2004) affirm that many of the players in such ecosystems fall outside the traditional value chain. Business ecosystems provide entrepreneurial firms with resources and information to navigate a constantly changing competitive environment (Wright, 2014). A crucial role inside a business ecosystem is played by keystone companies, which provide new tools or services available and used by the other ecosystem’s players inside the ecosystem. Knowledge Ecosystems (KE), on the other hand, are usually concentrated around universities and research centres, since the main objective is to generate new knowledge that will be useful to all network participants who are generally geographically connected (Clarysse et al., 2014; Järvi et al., 2018). Instead, the Innovation Ecosystem (IE) focuses on the system of actors, artefacts, institutions, activities and relationships that are built around innovation (Granstrand & Holgersson, 2020). IE emphasised the importance of competition and cooperation strategy based on the rules established by common institutions (Hannah & Eisenhardt, 2018). Using the exploratory case study of Pecorino Toscano PDO produced in the south of Tuscany, we will attempt to answer the following research questions: How do the knowledge ecosystem and the business and innovation ecosystems interact? And what role does the knowledge ecosystem play in these interactions?
Enhancing the digitalization of rural areas by utilizing the potential of the knowledge, business, and innovation ecosystems.
Maria Bonaria Lai;
2024-01-01
Abstract
Today, agricultural systems are being called to rethink more responsive development models capable of ensuring food for all and facilitating rural areas’ competitiveness. In this context, it is widely recognized that innovation is key to developing businesses, regions, and countries. Indeed, in the narrative related to the adoption of innovations in agriculture, the development of new technologies is central to their potential contribution to improving products and processes in the agri-food system. Also, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) in 2010 emphasised the development of climate-smart agriculture practices, describing them as crucial to food security and climate change objectives (FAO, 2010). In recent years, agroecology and practices related to Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) have gained significant attention by reconfiguring the meanings associated with innovation (Andrade et al., 2020; Ludwig & Macnaghten, 2020). An increasing body of literature highlights that innovation adoption process results from a flow of knowledge that involves different actors of an agricultural system (Klerkx et al., 2012; M. Knickel et al., 2019). These actors participate in an ongoing process of restructuring that modifies their roles and objectives. In this context, the knowledge, motivations, and values of farmers and rural businesses are crucial to the innovation process (K. Knickel et al., 2009). The Agriculture Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS) approach, introduced by the European Commission to support the creation and transfer of knowledge, signed a shift towards a system that places the farmer at the centre and involves various actors engaged in the creation, processing, dissemination and utilisation of knowledge and information to support the development of innovation in agriculture. This systemic approach is characterized by dynamics involving the transformation of inputs into outputs through interactions between system components and the relationships established among them (Ackoff, 1971). In this case study, we have taken into consideration the complexity behind the direct and indirect relationships between actors, the dynamics established over time and the interactions with the environment, which leads us to consider the concept of ecosystems, where the network of interactions is more dynamic and influenced by the external environment. There is a complexity in drawing and defining boundaries that are typically considered open and permeable (Iansiti & Levien, 2004). Starting from the case study of Pecorino Toscano PDO produced in the south of Tuscany, this research will contribute to the literature on digital ecosystems by defining a theoretical framework useful to define policies, practices and strategies to encourage the digital and green transition. Each of the mentioned ecosystems focuses on different factors and critical elements that constitute them. The Business Ecosystems (BE) find their roots in the idea of value networks (Moore, 1993; Normann & Ramírez, 1993) and can be seen as a group of companies which simultaneously create value by combining their skills and assets (Eisenhardt & Galunic, 2000). Each participant is specialized in a specific activity, and it is the collective effort of many participants that constructs value, while efforts individually have no value outside the collective effort (Clarysse et al., 2014). Iansiti & Levien (2004) affirm that many of the players in such ecosystems fall outside the traditional value chain. Business ecosystems provide entrepreneurial firms with resources and information to navigate a constantly changing competitive environment (Wright, 2014). A crucial role inside a business ecosystem is played by keystone companies, which provide new tools or services available and used by the other ecosystem’s players inside the ecosystem. Knowledge Ecosystems (KE), on the other hand, are usually concentrated around universities and research centres, since the main objective is to generate new knowledge that will be useful to all network participants who are generally geographically connected (Clarysse et al., 2014; Järvi et al., 2018). Instead, the Innovation Ecosystem (IE) focuses on the system of actors, artefacts, institutions, activities and relationships that are built around innovation (Granstrand & Holgersson, 2020). IE emphasised the importance of competition and cooperation strategy based on the rules established by common institutions (Hannah & Eisenhardt, 2018). Using the exploratory case study of Pecorino Toscano PDO produced in the south of Tuscany, we will attempt to answer the following research questions: How do the knowledge ecosystem and the business and innovation ecosystems interact? And what role does the knowledge ecosystem play in these interactions?
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
