International Journal of Rural Management http://irm.sagepub.com/

Knowledge building in rural areas : Experiences from a research centre −rural SME scientific partnership in central italy Carmelo Cannarella and Valeria Piccioni International Journal of Rural Management 2005 1: 25 DOI: 10.1177/097306800400100102 The online version of this article can be found at: http://irm.sagepub.com/content/1/1/25

Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Institute of Rural Management

Additional services and information for International Journal of Rural Management can be found at: Email Alerts: http://irm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://irm.sagepub.com/subscriptions Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com by Monojit Banerjee on October 10, 2012

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://irm.sagepub.com/content/1/1/25.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Jun 1, 2005 What is This?

Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com by Monojit Banerjee on October 10, 2012

Knowledge Building in Rural Areas: Italy

25

International Journal of Rural Management, 1(1), 2005 Sage Publications l New Delhi/Thousand Oaks/London DOI: 10.1177/097306800400100102

KNOWLEDGE BUILDING IN RURAL AREAS: EXPERIENCES FROM A RESEARCH CENTRE –RURAL SME SCIENTIFIC PARTNERSHIP IN CENTRAL ITALY Carmelo Cannarella Valeria Piccioni ∗ This article proposes an approach designed and adopted to identify and qualify effective positive experiences in the cooperation between rural small and medium enterprises, and research institutions (and the resulting knowledge flows). It outlines a managerial prototype, based on identified processes, which could be cloned and applied in other contexts in order to make knowledge more productive for rural areas. On the bases of the experiences from a case study in Central Italy, an analytical framework linked to three interrelated levels emerges: (a) agents’ nature and characteristics; (b) relations between agents; and (c) dynamics of an agent-based binary system. At present, the first two levels have been implemented to evaluate the dynamics of this partnership, to create general indicators to identify divergence/convergence balances between the agents involved and to create a knowledge system for the management of the conflicting strategies that emerge from their intrinsically different natures.

INTRODUCTION It is well known that cooperation between small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and research centres can make a productive tissue more competitive and dynamic (Combs and Link 2003; Hagedoorn, Link and Vonortas 2003; Martin 2003; Scott 2003). But how can this cooperation be stimulated? Is the availability of financial resources, and a multiplicity of tools and subjects to collimate innovation demand and supply, the only condition to encourage these initiatives? How can the creation of long-term sound bridges between rural entrepreneurs and researchers be facilitated? Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com by Monojit Banerjee on October 10, 2012

26

CARMELO CANNARELLA

AND VALERIA

PICCIONI

The aim of this article is to identify the mechanisms which qualify entrepreneurresearcher relations and determine their success or failure. The focus is on scientific partnerships, defined here as stable and long-term systematic collaborations (not linked to isolated and extemporaneous events) between a research centre and an SME, based on a more or less conscious agreement to achieve an interrelation system to trigger reciprocal knowledge transfer and learning processes. We distinguish this experience from conventional technology transfers and academic spin-offs which focus on the engineering aspect (techniques, methods, technologies, and the corresponding organizational and social relations) of entrepreneur-researcher relations; the analysis adds a cultural and human aspect (behaviours, actions and reactions, expectations, and the like), by considering the idea of positive psychological result as a key factor activating positive influences and creating models. Such models—based on identified processes, and can thus be cloned and applied in other contexts—are capable of extending benefits beyond the short term, top-down provision of technical consultancy between the agents involved, towards the achievement of a wider and substantial public good. This public good is connected to the opportunities to develop constructive processes of change (thus justifying the investment) which influences, thanks also to imitations and external contacts, mentalities and management approaches for the achievement of continuing improvements and positive impacts, i.e., in the interactions between productive activities and environment. The considerations presented here derive from the experiences of the authors while cooperating with some rural SMEs in the agro-industrial and agro-business sectors, in central Italy, to implement innovation and know-how transfer. During this period, the authors observed entrepreneur-researcher collaborations—like common research projects, training activities, demonstration events, learning visits—with varying impact on firm or farm life. Some partnerships, including simple initiatives, seemed capable of modifying methods, practices, techniques and mentalities, while others, despite high quality scientific actions, were suddenly interrupted or abandoned. To organize the study, we identified three macro analytical issues: (a) nature and characteristics of the agents involved (Who); (b) characteristics of their relations (How); and (c) characteristics of the knowledge system such partnership tends to generate (What). The first two are discussed in this article.

NATURE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AGENTS INVOLVED Approach and method The creation of the system at the base of a partnership can become a very difficult task because the actors involved tend to maximize their own utilities through Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com by Monojit Banerjee on October 10, 2012

Knowledge Building in Rural Areas: Italy

27

different paths due to their different intrinsic nature. The aim of a partnership— with its circulation, negotiation and appropriation processes—is to stimulate innovative processes within (in this case) a binary system composed of two agents: a research centre and a rural SME. An analysis of the characteristics and intrinsic nature of the agents involved should contribute to identifying specific patterns and qualities as positive preconditions (or, on the contrary, negative attitudes) for the creation and development of such scientific partnerships (Lemon and Sahota 2004). The eventual presence of a relationship between these qualities and the capabilities of the resulting system to generate impacts or paths by which knowledge circulates, can be translated by the agents into ‘change’ and substantial innovation. All this should drive to qualify the concept of success of the system through its potential in creating impacts (rather than mere scientific results), and highlighting intrinsic factors and mechanisms capable of breaking routines and circular repetitions, and activating innovative cycles (Rinne 2004).

The rural SME’s profile Usually, in rural SMEs, the will to establish scientific partnership emerges from a generic interest in innovation, which can vary highly in time and from firm to firm. This interest can acquire different forms and intensities, corresponding to different innovation needs (Del Monte and Papagni 2003; Drucker 1999; Galende and de la Fuente 2003; Rothwell and Zegveld 1982). Rarely can a rural SME deploy specific staff for research purposes. Empirical observations highlighted that this interest in innovation is usually based in one or more individuals (frequently the firm’s owner) who, as ‘pioneers’, stimulate the introduction of innovations within a firm and manage the development of scientific partnerships. Innovation is defined here as a new combination of existing material or immaterial elements, encompassing in a broader sense, not only technology but any (even apparently minor) form of routine change at economic, managerial, social or psychological levels. Interest in innovation is triggered by not only a well defined need to inject changes within a realistic context but also by the existing patterns of behaviours, attitudes, approaches and practices among managers and staff of a firm. Innovation, hence, does not grow in ground zero; an innovation process rests on earlier innovation processes. Each innovation process, thus, creates the preconditions for the following one (Antoniou and Ansoff 2004; Cannarella and Piccioni 2003). The possibility of establishing a scientific partnership presupposes the presence of pioneers and the emergence of innovation demand. An analysis of the context will comprise: (a) existing elements; (b) practices; (c) organizational systems based on these practices; (d) referring values; (e) production/processing volume; ( f ) existence of technical problems and how they are usually solved; ( g) trade strategies and prices adopted; (h) expectations; (i) priorities; and ( j ) level of staff from irm.sagepub.com by Monojit on October 2012 commitment. ThisDownloaded evaluation can lead to Banerjee defining the10, firm’s profile as also

28

CARMELO CANNARELLA

AND VALERIA

PICCIONI

identifying eventual critical points which scientific cooperation will face. It would, in particular, highlight (Abe 1987; Juran 1987; Karatsu 1987): (a) the firm’s values and priorities; (b) characteristics of the firm’s culture; (c) prevailing mentalities; (d) characteristics of decisional and management processes; (e) techniques and methods used by the staff; and ( f ) ‘climate’ (perceptions and feelings of the staff about relations, organizational mechanisms and staff management). Such analysis would clarify whether innovation is seen as a tool mainly influencing individuals’ mentalities rather than as norms or equipment to be implemented only to reduce costs or increase profits. This is a positive precondition for a flexible mentality which, together with a spirit of initiative and creativity, can be translated into a ‘culture of innovation’ related to three key interconnected factors (Cannarella and Piccioni 2003): 1. time for adjustment: Every change creates problems. The culture of innovation is linked to the degree of reactivity and adjustment capabilities in coping with (and solving) problems related to the introduction of innovation. Benefits from the implementation of innovation tend to decrease when the time required for adjustment increases. In a firm having an adequate culture of innovation, adjustment time will be generally short, thus generating greater gains from the process of change. On the contrary, if a firm shows scarce reactivity and takes too long a time to cope with and solve problems, potential advantages will be less, and the bases and credibility of the innovation process eroded; 2. sensibility to problems: The culture of innovation depends highly on how a firm reacts to and deals with problems. High sensibility is when the problems are considered as operative impulses or as incentives with high sense of responsibility; they are identified and analysed during the planning phase by adopting a preventive approach. On the contrary, hiding, ignoring or underestimating problems, and throwing responsibility and faults at each other denote low sensibility; in such settings, problems are usually faced in extremis and responded with emergency remedies; and 3. involvement: The culture of innovation depends on how managers and workers are involved in the innovative process. More the human resources involved, more is the effectiveness of innovative actions. Workers in all sections of the firm have to be informed and involved even if the innovative actions do not (apparently) concern them directly. This triggers interests and reaction attitudes towards innovation and contributes to a mentality of innovation in the whole firm. Data from this evaluation can be organized into two main indicators: innovative potential and market position (Figure 1). Innovative potential can be described by the critical elements of the culture of innovation (time of adjustment, sensibility to problemsDownloaded and involvement) and technologies. Strength and weakness from irm.sagepub.com by Monojit Banerjee on October 10, 2012

Knowledge Building in Rural Areas: Italy

29

of a firm’s market position is related to parameters such as price, quality and degree of substitution of the product or service, promotion, public relations and power. A combination of these variables generates four categories with different scenarios and strategies (Table 1). Figure 1 Market Position and Innovative Potential

These categories can encompass firms interested in scientific partnerships and innovation, but types of innovation and characteristics of cooperation can vary greatly across categories. Greater the potential for innovation, broader is the spectrum of possibilities to develop a scientific partnership because it facilitates the emergence and identification of innovation interests and needs.

The research centre’s profile The possibilities for scientific partnership depend on the extent of problemsolving approach existing in research institutions. It requires a paradigm shift with a softening in scientists’ and researchers’ attitudes about ‘getting their hands dirty’, and how they should be spending their time. The role of research in boosting economic growth, and the paradigm shift necessary to undertake and manage innovation flows are well known (Feldman and Desrochers 2003; Kihlgren 2003; Lofsten and Lindelof 2003; Varga 1998). It is important to note that the presence of this approach within a research centre is often accepted as Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com by Monojit Banerjee on October 10, 2012

30

Table 1 Scenarios and Strategies of a Rural SME Area

Scenario

Possible Strategy

2. Weak innovative potential but strong market position

Conservative firms often show lack of faith in innovation. Too long a time for adjustment, scarce human resources’ involvement, and less sensibility to problems diminish the benefits from adoption of innovation.

Firm’s pioneers and researchers have to show the capability to interrupt vicious circles and conservative attitudes, and support a partnership capable of generating convincing problem-solving results in the short term. If the firm is strong in extra-economic factors (public relations, power), mistrust towards scientific partnerships will depend on the distorted scenario in which the firm operates (e.g., when political connections prevail over product quality). These connections can provide privileged access to market, subsidies and other public support. Cooperation with researchers will face obstacles, and opposition and innovation will not be seen as priority by the management because competition takes place on different parameters. (Table 1 continued)

PICCIONI

Firms interested in scientific partnerships based on big innovative breakthroughs can attempt innovations for diversifying output, improving management efficiency or boosting productivity.

AND VALERIA

Excellence

CARMELO CANNARELLA

Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com by Monojit Banerjee on October 10, 2012

1. High innovative potential and strong market position

(Table 1 continued) Possible Strategy

3. Weak innovative potential and weak market position

Creation and development of scientific partnership find obstacles because of a strong conservative attitude, often based on the experience of the owner (sometimes inherited), who instinctively knows what to do to obtain his usual gains. He respects, as best as he can, this experience and tends to adopt very gradual changes only on the bases of circumstances. Innovation is thus identified with an unknown risk; in these firms there are no or few (and often marginal) pioneers.

Opportunities to inject innovation are linked to the adoption of extremely gradual processes: small steps with prudent (but highly convincing) actions involving small investments.

4. High innovative potential and weak market position

Firms are very interested in scientific partnerships and innovation because they need to strengthen their market position.

Support partnerships capable of generating problemsolving results in the short term. Stimulate flexibility, creativity and spirit of initiative. If the firm’s weakness depends on extra-economic factors, the innovative potential is frustrated by distortions in the operative environment in which privileged contacts prevail over market efficiency. In such cases, these firms might shift to Area 3 because leaders and pioneers see their efforts to inject innovation constantly frustrated.

Knowledge Building in Rural Areas: Italy

Scenario

Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com by Monojit Banerjee on October 10, 2012

Area

31

32

CARMELO CANNARELLA

AND VALERIA

PICCIONI

given or usually established. However, evidence shows that this is not as obvious as it seems and that research institutions do not have a ‘natural’ attitude towards innovation, but highly variable approaches. Causes of failure or limited success in scientific partnerships with an SME can be found also in the incapacity of a research team to promote constructive relations, a sense of superiority or a scarce predisposition to learn from these experiences. Many arguments regarding SMEs can be extended to research centres as well. We can thus find conservative or progressive organizations with differing strength in the research ‘market’. The existence of problem-solving approach in a research centre suggests the presence of ‘pioneers’ capable of triggering and encouraging innovative actions, and a shared ‘culture of innovation’. By quantifying the time of adjustment, sensibility to problems and involvement (along with their interrelations), it is possible to understand the predisposition of the organization towards routines—static and repetitive conditions—which represent an actual and potential source of opposition to partnerships or, on the contrary, its capability to positively respond to the natural instability generated by collaborations with an SME. Another important consideration is the nature of what a research centre can concretely offer in terms of innovation (Phaal, Farrukh and Probert 2004). The nature of innovation differs according to its features (Franklyn 2003); there are ‘need spotting’ innovations (providing answers to known problems), ‘solution spotting’ innovations (finding new ways of using existing practices or techniques), ‘mental inventions’ (dreamed up ideas with little reference to outside world) and ‘random events’ (situations in which innovations arise serendipitously). An analysis of the nature of the innovation can indicate the predisposition to develop scientific partnerships. The prevalence of mental inventions (even if they are scientific findings of high quality) in the research centre can limit the supply of innovation which an SME would be potentially interested in because the economic view of innovation rarely coincides with the pure scientific one. Empirical observations can confirm that these two visions are divided by an antithesis frequently translated into personal contrasts between technicians and entrepreneurs: often innovations and changes are suggested by one side, and rejected by the other. Often scientists too do not recognize that innovations (new technologies) and economics have different concepts of ‘utility’. New technologies are generally directed to improve production but economic reality does not push them to their logical conclusion and in a technologically perfect way; it submits their implementation to an economic point of view. The economically best and the technically perfect do not always coincide and the opposition of an entrepreneur to innovations is not simply due to ignorance or indolence, but because sometimes it is better to adapt technologically inferior methods to given conditions. Putting knowledge into concrete action through a scientific partnership thus means that knowledge is tested by continuous adaptation processes in which it is constantly transformed and possibly improved. It unavoidably requires, in a Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com by Monojit Banerjee on October 10, 2012

Knowledge Building in Rural Areas: Italy

33

research team, adequate flexibility and a positive predisposition to learn from experiences. This collaborative approach is essential for replacing the conventional concept of technology transfer.

CHARACTERISTICS

OF THE

RELATIONS

BETWEEN AGENTS

Approach and method The dynamics of a continually evolving and adjusting relation network critically influences the partnership’s fate; it encompasses a number of variables whose combined action can determine a complex problematic mix capable of generating and ossifying concrete gaps (Brown and Michael 2003; Fritsch 2003; Hearn, Rooney and Mandeville 2003; Intzell and Hilton 1999; Izushi 2003; Jamison and Hard 2003; Perez and Sànchez 2003). These variables have been organized into some parameters—Relation Discrepancy (RD)—according to the following scheme: 1. discrepancy caused by the inner nature of the agents involved; 2. discrepancy in terms of distance: It includes problems caused by physical distance between a research centre and a rural firm. If the two agents are too distant, possibilities of stimulating positive and frequent relations among the people involved, and their quickly meeting each other are unavoidably eroded. Too long a distance also implies a limited knowledge of each other’s context; if both agents operate in the same territory, it facilitates the potential reciprocal comprehension of needs and problems. Added to this physical distance, is the psychological distance derived from the fact that often researchers and entrepreneurs know little about each other. This causes a confrontational relation between ‘adversaries’ who consider many aspects of the other’s world as being not immediately evident and comprehensible. Frequently, researchers tend to be not interested in many issues considered crucial by entrepreneurs and vice versa; 3. discrepancy in terms of time: Research institutions and firms have their own notions of ‘time’. In many cases, research activities and procedures last several years whereas needs of entrepreneurs are generally short term. In addition, one should include the bureaucracy’s time which is likely to play a critical role, for example, in the financing of projects and other initiatives. These partnerships operate through collaborative actions (research projects, training activities, seminars, and the like) that are often organized on the basis of public financial resources. If development agencies and other public institutions take too long a time to put these resources at the disposal of the partners, it will cause frustration and discourage any attempts to connect even the most enthusiastic researcher and entrepreneur; Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com by Monojit Banerjee on October 10, 2012

34

CARMELO CANNARELLA

AND VALERIA

PICCIONI

4. discrepancy in terms of interests and goals: Objectives and results, for many researchers, may be divorced from a global vision of the area in which firms operate. Frequently, the objective is too circumscribed, limited and partial, especially when compared with a firm’s strategy; 5. discrepancy in terms of approach: A researcher and an entrepreneur often show completely different approaches when coping with problems and complications related to innovation; 6. discrepancy in terms of communication: Research institutions and agencies tend to use two different languages. One is mainly based on juridical and legal terms, and the other is tailored for specific intervention areas (like agriculture, health, environment, scientific research). The result of this coexistence of languages is frequently translated into very complex documents which create severe communication problems between institutions and individuals, and also among institutions. This condition can also be the consequence of an unclear language frequently adopted in state law and regulations, to which research institutions have to refer. These documents are rarely written by considering the final users and are created mainly to be coherent to bureaucrats. A typical example of this is the sort of rhetoric which inspires the redaction of reports, programmes, scientific proposals and research projects. Often, obscure language is used to hide the lack of substance and goals. Without clear language, and well-defined objectives and scope, bridging research and SMEs will be a very difficult task. Such a situation can contribute to the diffusion of mistrust and diffidence among firms towards research organizations; 7. discrepancy caused by different practices: Lack of adequate knowledge of enterprise’s characteristics results in actions that sometimes conflict with the needs of farms and rural firms; and 8. discrepancy associated with financial problems: Chronic lack of funds for research pushes scientists to spread time and resources on a great number of project ideas with the hope that at least a small percentage of them will be financed. This leads to some forced coexistences, and make partnerships only a pretext to get funds. In such cases, financial considerations override any scientific interest. The distorting effects of this condition also reverberate in the prevalence of ‘right contacts’ moving the bias from increase in know-how to those in know-who. At this stage of the analysis, it is possible to extract some indicators useful to evaluate, at least broadly, potential forces of convergence or divergence resulting from the agents’ profiles and their RDs. They can be used during the preliminary phase of planning to promote a preventive evaluation methodology rather than a reactive one. These provisional indicators cannot preview the success or failure potential of a partnership; rather they outline a general framework (even if static) within which the future actions involved in the partnership will be expressed. Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com by Monojit Banerjee on October 10, 2012

Knowledge Building in Rural Areas: Italy

35

Once the partnership is launched, data must be constantly updated to monitor the RD dynamics of agents and if necessary, intervene to keep them under control. Through interview and questionnaires, the constant evaluation of the components (concluded, in progress, as well as planned and incumbent initiatives such as common research projects, educational and training activities, and seminars) of the formal and informal relation system—being developed by the agents—can provide useful information to monitor the scientific partnership’s conditions and strength. Also, graphic representation (like divergence intensity chart) can be used in this exercise. Agents show different visions, perceptions and value assignments even on each component of a collaborative action (say, a research project), which can be identified as follows: 1. context: This is the dimension within which the partnership and related initiatives take place, which can be identified by physical, geographical, economic, social, political, scientific and institutional elements; 2. agents: It includes ‘interest focii’, encompassing internal and external organizations, and subjects; 3. goals: They are the expected outcomes of an initiative; 4. inputs: It refers to resources necessary to achieve the expected goals, including the processing elements required to translate goals into results and actions; 5. actions: These are the operational expressions of the initiative; 6. results: These are the outcomes of the initiatives; 7. products: These are concrete objects channelling and containing results; and 8. impacts: These are the positive and negative modifications induced by the initiatives’ outcomes, and based on imitation, transfer and acquisition processes. This evaluation process and its parameters are described in Figure 2. These auto-evaluations must be constantly updated due to the action of time, which modifies agents’ visions. For example, agents’ perceptions will vary when examined immediately after a process conclusion and after a long period.

Model’s implementation and results The case of scientific partnership analysed here is the collaboration between the Department of Crop Production—Agroecology Research Group (University of Tuscia, Italy) and ColleValle AgriNatura (a 400-hectare cooperative farm in central Italy). We examined, on the basis of the analytical model described, the agents’ profiles from the beginning of their collaboration (in the mid-1980s) and irm.sagepub.com by Monojit Banerjee on October 10, 2012 its evolution up to Downloaded now, asfrom well as the modifications in their relations (types and

36

CARMELO CANNARELLA

AND VALERIA

PICCIONI

Figure 2 Evaluation Components and Criteria

number of joint initiatives) with the related variable intensity of mutual activities. We identified the presence in both agents of pioneers. Evaluations have been made objectively (description of agents’ profiles, distance and communication patterns) and subjectively (interviews and questionnaires, about visions, interests and approaches). In particular, we focused our attention on the agents’ context when this collaboration started. At that time, the cooperative (situated about 35 km from the University of Tuscia) was engaged in conventional agriculture but with a progressive erosion of its once dominant market strength. The interviews also highlighted some peculiar productive conditions that the farm was facing: At that time, the general conditions of our cooperative were no longer sustainable, in particular with regard to soil fertility and erosion, workers’ safety (workers were often exposed to direct contact with toxic chemicals), infestation of plants that were increasingly resistant to herbicides, etc. We urgently needed some help, some innovative expertise capable of modifying the entire system of technical management….

Collating all the data available, we concluded that for the time when contact for the development of the partnership was first established (post-1985), the SME could be placed in the fourth quadrant of Figure 1. Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com by Monojit Banerjee on October 10, 2012

Knowledge Building in Rural Areas: Italy

37

We applied the same approach for the research team involved in the partnership— identifying the pioneers, outlining the research team’s profile and, through questionnaires and interviews, its values and ‘climate’. Our research leader doesn’t live in this time. He is always several years ahead…. …in our research activity in agroecology, we have found in Italy some resistance and opposition. At the international level, these issues are better accepted. The availability of private partners is essential to better calibrate our activities and to improve the capability of our research projects to be more realistic, and consequently the possibilities of being financed.

On the basis of the information available, we concluded that for the same period (late 1980s), the research team could be placed in the fourth quadrant of Figure 1. We can conclude that both agents were placed in the same area of the figure and that this coincidence, to some extent, created favourable preconditions to push the agents towards each other (each could do with the other). After this static analysis, we evaluated the dynamics of their relations—screening number, types and quality of their joint initiatives. During the preliminary period, cooperation was activated by a few timid informal actions (like short seminars and demonstration events). In the beginning of the 1990s, there was an intensification in the number and nature of the initiatives (formal joint research projects and training activities). In addition, during this period, the farm started to adopt deep changes in production orientation, transforming itself into an organic farm. After that, an increase in synergies between agents has been reported, along with more high quality joint initiatives (like research projects, prototypes, advanced experimental production methods). What provoked such dramatic changes in this scientific partnership? To explain this, we examined the joint activities in the partnership during that critical time period (late 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s) and we observed, in particular, a joint research project titled ‘System for Seed Production with Organic Techniques’. This project was not particularly innovative for the research team but presented a relevant ‘need spotting’ degree for the farm; it also involved convincing actions. The project acted as a turning point for the farm’s production orientation, and due to its convincing and realistic characteristics, fuelled the consolidation of the scientific partnership itself. The history chart of this scientific partnership is presented in Figure 3. During period A (Preliminary) the partnership starts with exploration and reciprocal experimentation activities. In this phase, the collaboration is young and tends to be based in pioneers and small circumscribed teams. When a partnership is still young, it shows high potential failure margins. Both agents act prudently due to lack of full reciprocal knowledge, the development of which can also generate unexpected results and frustration. Period B (Consolidation) starts with an adjustment phase and ends with the maturity phase. This period is Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com by Monojit Banerjee on October 10, 2012 characterized by more synergies between agents as increasing maturity in relations

38

CARMELO CANNARELLA

AND VALERIA

PICCIONI

Figure 3 The Scientific Partnership’s Historical Chart

contributes to progressive reduction of potential frustration and mistrust. This period B is a routine and standardization phase during which the partnership tends to be simplified along with a decrease in risk and uncertainty. Between these two periods, a period C (Turning Point) can be highlighted during which the research project (mentioned above) was carried out. In this critical phase, relevant productive results and impacts were achieved (solution of farm’s productive cul-de-sac), and more or less basic operative choices and decisions were adopted to move from A to B in the partnership’s development. So, what concretely decided the outcome of this success story? At first sight, it could be stated that the convincing degree of the turning point research project posed the basis for the positive development of this partnership. The similar location of both agents (in the same section in Figure 1), the presence of a welldefined innovation demand at the beginning of the turning point period, and the timely reply of the research team with an effective need spotting innovation supply added further energies to the partnership; all these reassured the agents about each other’s reliability. Yet, these conditions should be considered as effects rather than causes of a more complex process. We have organized and monitored, through interviews and questionnaires, the evolution of the agents’ relation network from the beginning of the partnership to date, in particular, to quantify the consistence of the cited discrepancies. We transferred the resulting data into a divergence intensity chart (Figure 4). In 1989, these agents maintained a rather circumscribed divergence area which remained (and still remains) almost unmodified throughout the time period of the entire partnership. For this reason, the substantial success of this experience (and the positive related knowledge flows) can be situated in the agents’ capability to spontaneously keep this area Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com by Monojit Banerjee on October 10, 2012

Figure 4 The Scientific Partnership’s Divergence Intensity Charts

Knowledge Building in Rural Areas: Italy

Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com by Monojit Banerjee on October 10, 2012

Notes: 1 = very low (VL); 2 = low (L); 3 = medium (M); 4 = high (H); 5 = very high (VH) Distance = <10 km (VL); 10–30 km (L); 30–50 km (M); 50–100 km (H); >100 km (VH)

39

40

CARMELO CANNARELLA

AND VALERIA

PICCIONI

under constant control, in particular, with regard to some critical parameters such as communication, interests and approaches. Both agents passed from the fourth quadrant to the first quadrant in Figure 1; in particular, the rural SME highly improved its absorption skills, increased the number and quality of collaborations with other research teams and became a premier educational resource in the territory.

CONCLUSION The creation and development of a scientific partnership are strictly linked to specific peculiarities of the agents involved, their interrelations and the expectation-frustration balance (Holt 2002; Lundstedt and Moss 1989; Von Zedtwitz et al. 2003). These experiences must gratify the agents involved to stimulate further external contacts and replication. The partnership case discussed in this article confirms that often a rural firm or farm can suffer an initial condition of a lack of information on innovation which acts as a bottleneck in business and in development as a whole. Cooperation with research centres can help to solve this problem. In the case under review, the relation network between agents and the related knowledge management was made spontaneously, and the divergence balance positively controlled. Empirical evidence, however, shows that uncontrolled or mismanaged relation networks and knowledge flows can generate the opposite condition: an information overload which can confuse and discourage the agents involved, and generate new bottlenecks. Therefore, success or failure of partnerships is not exclusively linked to the availability of economic resources; it requires agreement based on not only innovation demand-supply balance, but also mutual involvement. Without investments devoted to this aim, entrepreneurs and researchers will approach these initiatives with very limited enthusiasm. Yet, researchers and entrepreneurs should not be left alone in the management of these partnerships because casual collaborations can be ineffective (even when huge investments are potentially available), and can have boomerang effects with frustration, and the erosion of initiative and creativity of the individuals involved. The possibilities of properly managing these initiatives so as to develop efficient and effective knowledge flows are thus linked to dialogue and synergies founded on reciprocal trust. Therefore, collaborative actions must be convincing: more the trust is enhanced, the easier it is to engage in dialogue, and more likely is the achievement of synergies. The management of the involved variables and the related problematic issues outlines the framework of a binary system based on a network of multi-goals and multi-expectations between agents with a number of emerging and non-emerging elements we have considered as given so far. Substantial differences in quality and architecture of this relation network can determine the possibilities of success of each initiative. In a well-connected Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com by Monojit Banerjee on October 10, 2012

Knowledge Building in Rural Areas: Italy

41

system, even simple activities can produce deep impacts for both agents; on the contrary, a weak system can lead to demoralizing experiences. Interesting results are expected from the third level of analysis (in progress), which will describe in depth the system’s dynamics, especially the ways in which reciprocal influences and interactions can be managed (Boudon 1981) to generate ‘updated successful agreements’ based on informal norms and the regularity of imitative reiterations (Lepetit 1985), and to keep the disruptive-constructive balance under control to grant the development and survival of the system itself. Empirical observations can confirm that the agents do not show flat and horizontally predictable performances but show highly variable reactions continually evolving within a complex system. Carmelo Cannarella and Valeria Piccioni are with the Research Team on Development and Innovative Processes at the Institute of Chemical Methods, National Research Council of Italy.

Note ∗The authors would like to warmly thank F. Caporali and E. Campiglia from the Depart-

ment of Crop Production, University of Tuscia, and F. Brugnoli of ColleValle AgriNatura, for their friendly and supportive cooperation decisive in our conducting this study.

References Abe, Y. 1987. People-oriented Management. Tokyo: Diamonds Inc. Antiniou, P. and I. Ansoff. 2004. ‘Strategic Management of Technology’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 16 (2): 275–91. Boudon, R. 1981. Effetti Perversi dell’Azione Sociale (Perverse Effects of Social Action). Milan: Feltrinelli. Brown, N. and M. Michael. 2003. ‘A Sociology of Expectations: Retrospecting Prospects and Prospecting Retrospects’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15 (1): 3–18. Cannarella, C. and V. Piccioni. 2003. ‘Innovation Transfer and Rural SMEs’, Journal of Central European Agriculture, 4 (4): 372–88. Combs, K. L. and A. N. Link. 2003. ‘Innovation Policy in Search of an Economic Foundation: The Case of Research Partnerships in the United States’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15 (2): 177–87. Del Monte, A. and E. Papagni. 2003. ‘R&D and the Growth of Firms: Empirical Analysis of a Panel of Italian Firms’, Research Policy, 32 (6): 1003–14. Drucker, P. 1999. Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Feldman, M. and P. Desrochers. 2003. ‘Research Universities and Local Economic Development: Lessons from the History of the Johns Hopkins University’, Industry and Innovation, 10 (1): 5–24. Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com by Monojit Banerjee on October 10, 2012

42

CARMELO CANNARELLA

AND VALERIA

PICCIONI

Franklyn, C. 2003. Why Innovation Fails. London: Spiro Press. Fritsch, M. 2003. ‘Does R&D-Cooperation Behavior Differ between Regions?’, Industry and Innovation, 10 (1): 25–39. Galende, J. and J. M. de la Fuente. 2003. ‘Internal Factors Determining a Firm’s Innovative Behaviour’, Research Policy, 32 (5): 715–36. Hagedoorn, J., A. N. Link and N. S. Vonortas. 2003. ‘Introduction: Strategic Research Partnerships—Economic, Managerial and Policy Implications’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15 (2): 155–57. Hearn, G., D. Rooney and T. Mandeville. 2003. ‘Phenomenological Turbulence and Innovation in Knowledge Systems’, Prometheus, 21 (1): 231–45. Holt, K. 2002. Market Oriented Product Innovation: A Key to Survival in the Third Millennium. Boston: Kluwer. Inzelt, M. and J. Hilton (eds). 1999. Technology Transfer: From Invention to Innovation. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Izushi, H. 2003. ‘Impact of the Length of Relationships upon the Use of Research Institutes by SMEs’, Research Policy, 32 (5): 771–88. Jamison, A. and M. Hard. 2003. ‘The Story-lines of Technological Change: Innovation, Construction and Appropriation’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15 (1): 81–91. Juran, J. M. 1987. ‘Managing for Quality: The Critical Variable’, Proceedings of the International Conference on Quality Control, Tokyo. Karatsu, H. 1987. ‘How to Cope with the Gray Part of Management’, Proceedings of the International Conference on Quality Control, Tokyo. Kihlgren, A. 2003. ‘Promotion of Innovation Activity in Russia through the Creation of Science Parks: The Case of St. Petersburg (1992–1998)’, Technovation, 23 (1): 65–76. Lemon, M. and P. S. Sahota. 2004. ‘Organizational Culture as a Knowledge Repository for Increased Innovative Capacity’, Technovation, 24 (6): 483–98. Lepetit, B. 1985. Les Formes de l’Experience. Paris: Albin Michel. Lofsten, H. and P. Lindelof. 2003. ‘Determinants for an Entrepreneurial Milieu: Science Parks and Business Policy in Growing Firms’, Technovation, 23 (1): 51–64. Lundstedt, S. B. and T. H. Moss. 1989. Managing Innovation and Change. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Martin, S. 2003. ‘The Evaluation of Strategic Research Partnerships’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15 (2): 159–76. Perez, M. P. and A. M. Sànchez. 2003, ‘The Development of University Spin-offs: Early Dynamics of Technology Transfer and Networking’, Technovation, 23 (10): 823–31. Phaal, R., C. Farrukh and D. R. Probert. 2004. ‘Technology Roadmapping: A Planning Framework for Evolution and Revolution’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71 (1–2): 5–26. Rinne, M. 2004. ‘Technology Roadmaps: Infrastructure for Innovation’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71 (1–2): 67–80. Rothwell, R. and W. Zegveld. 1982. Innovation and the Small and Medium-sized Firm, London: Pinter. Scott, J. T. 2003. ‘Absorptive Capacity and the Efficiency of Research Partnerships’, Technology AnalysisDownloaded & Strategic Management, 15 (2): 247–53. from irm.sagepub.com by Monojit Banerjee on October 10, 2012

Knowledge Building in Rural Areas: Italy

43

Varga, A. 1998. University Research and Regional Innovation: A Spatial Econometric Analysis of Academic Technology Transfers. Boston: Kluwer. Von Zedtwitz, M., G. Haour, T. Khalil and L. A. Lefebvre (eds). 2003. Management of Technology: Growth through Business Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Oxford: Pergamon.

Downloaded from irm.sagepub.com by Monojit Banerjee on October 10, 2012