The interaction of multiple champions in orchestrating innovation networks: Conflicts and complementarities Laurens Klerkx a,* , Noelle Aarts b,1 a Knowledge, Technology and Innovation Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands b Strategic Communication Group, Wageningen University/ASCOR, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands article info Available online 29 March 2013 Keywords: Innovation champions Innovation intermediaries Innovation brokers Innovation networking Network orchestration Open innovation abstract In networked or open innovation processes, so-called innovation communities have been identified in the innovation champion literature, in which innovation champions from different levels in the innovation system supposedly act as a team. It has however not been studied in detail to what extent and how different champions in innovation communities complement each other and act as a team. Applying the concept of innovation network orchestration to analyze the role and position of different kinds of champions as brokers in innovation networks, the purpose of this paper is to unravel the interaction between champions and what this entails in terms of role complementarities and conflicts as regards innovation network orchestration. This is done by using an explorative multiple case study approach in which three innovation journeys are analyzed. The results indicate that a distinction can be made between primary innovation communities, who act as aggregated orchestrators of the overall innovation network, and who in turn orchestrate secondary innovation communities in certain sub- networks. Here different kinds of champions complement each other and act as a team, but these complementarities are not a given: they are negotiated over time in interaction, and lack of reflection on each other’s roles may result in role conflicts. The main conclusion is that an oversimplified notion of innovation communities as a unified team of champions should be avoided: innovation communities themselves need a form of orchestration. & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Innovation champions, defined as “individuals who informally emerge in an organization and make a decisive contribution to the innovation by actively and enthusiastically promoting its progress through the critical stages” (Howell et al., 2005, p. 642), are seen as key in removing several barriers that emerge in innovation processes, such as lack of resources, missing linkages and deficient coordination between actors, and opposition of incumbent actors (Fichter, 2009; Hauschildt and Kirchmann, 2001). Champions thus fulfill an important coordinating role (Pittaway et al., 2004; Markham et al., 2010). Following approaches such as innovation systems and open innovation, the notion that innovation takes place through networks of heterogeneous actors implies that beyond the intra-firm context the role of innovation champion is played out in several parts of multi-organizational innovation networks (Ferneley and Bell, 2006; Gupta et al., 2006; Fichter, 2009). It hence involves actors that actively contribute to ‘producing’ the innovation in a functional role of supplier, manu- facturer, or lead user (Fichter, 2009)—so-called input–output stakeholders (Van Woerkum and Aarts, 2008). It also involves actors that have a stake from a policy, regulatory, or advocacy perspective—so-called enabling and constraining stakeholders (e. g. government, civil society organizations). Lastly, it involves intermediary organizations that catalyze innovation in a facilitat- ing capacity (Gupta et al., 2006; Fichter, 2009) and hence can be considered as facilitating stakeholders (Van Woerkum and Aarts, 2008). Noting the complementarities between the different kinds of champions in broader innovation networks, Fichter (2009) coined the construct of ‘innovation communities’. These are defined as “an informal network of likeminded individuals, acting as uni- versal or specialized champions, often from more than one company and different organizations that team up in a project related fashion, and commonly promote a specific innovation, either on one or across different levels of an innovation system” (see Fig. 1—definition adapted from Fichter, 2009, p. 360, who actually uses the term ‘promotor’, which is equivalent to the term ‘champion’ used in this paper). An innovation community can thus be considered, in the terms of earlier work on this topic in the intra-firm context (Hauschildt and Kirchmann, 2001), as a ‘team’ Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/technovation Technovation 0166-4972/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2013.03.002 * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ31 317 484694; fax: þ31 317 486094. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (L. Klerkx), [email protected] (N. Aarts). 1 Tel.: þ31 317 484904; fax: þ31 317 486094. Technovation 33 (2013) 193–210
Transcript
Technovation 33 (2013) 193–210
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
The interaction of multiple champions in orchestrating innovation networks:Conflicts and complementarities
Laurens Klerkx a,*, Noelle Aarts b,1
a Knowledge, Technology and Innovation Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlandsb Strategic Communication Group, Wageningen University/ASCOR, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
In networked or open innovation processes, so-called innovation communities have been identified inthe innovation champion literature, in which innovation champions from different levels in theinnovation system supposedly act as a team. It has however not been studied in detail to what extentand how different champions in innovation communities complement each other and act as a team.Applying the concept of innovation network orchestration to analyze the role and position of differentkinds of champions as brokers in innovation networks, the purpose of this paper is to unravel theinteraction between champions and what this entails in terms of role complementarities and conflicts asregards innovation network orchestration. This is done by using an explorative multiple case studyapproach in which three innovation journeys are analyzed. The results indicate that a distinction can bemade between primary innovation communities, who act as aggregated orchestrators of the overallinnovation network, and who in turn orchestrate secondary innovation communities in certain sub-networks. Here different kinds of champions complement each other and act as a team, but thesecomplementarities are not a given: they are negotiated over time in interaction, and lack of reflection oneach other’s roles may result in role conflicts. The main conclusion is that an oversimplified notion ofinnovation communities as a unified team of champions should be avoided: innovation communitiesthemselves need a form of orchestration.
& 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Innovation champions, defined as “individuals who informallyemerge in an organization and make a decisive contribution to theinnovation by actively and enthusiastically promoting its progressthrough the critical stages” (Howell et al., 2005, p. 642), are seen askey in removing several barriers that emerge in innovationprocesses, such as lack of resources, missing linkages and deficientcoordination between actors, and opposition of incumbent actors(Fichter, 2009; Hauschildt and Kirchmann, 2001). Champions thusfulfill an important coordinating role (Pittaway et al., 2004;Markham et al., 2010). Following approaches such as innovationsystems and open innovation, the notion that innovation takesplace through networks of heterogeneous actors implies thatbeyond the intra-firm context the role of innovation champion isplayed out in several parts of multi-organizational innovationnetworks (Ferneley and Bell, 2006; Gupta et al., 2006; Fichter,2009). It hence involves actors that actively contribute to
ll rights reserved.
þ31 317 486094.x),
‘producing’ the innovation in a functional role of supplier, manu-facturer, or lead user (Fichter, 2009)—so-called input–outputstakeholders (Van Woerkum and Aarts, 2008). It also involvesactors that have a stake from a policy, regulatory, or advocacyperspective—so-called enabling and constraining stakeholders (e.g. government, civil society organizations). Lastly, it involvesintermediary organizations that catalyze innovation in a facilitat-ing capacity (Gupta et al., 2006; Fichter, 2009) and hence can beconsidered as facilitating stakeholders (Van Woerkum and Aarts,2008).
Noting the complementarities between the different kinds ofchampions in broader innovation networks, Fichter (2009) coinedthe construct of ‘innovation communities’. These are defined as“an informal network of likeminded individuals, acting as uni-versal or specialized champions, often from more than onecompany and different organizations that team up in a projectrelated fashion, and commonly promote a specific innovation,either on one or across different levels of an innovation system”
(see Fig. 1—definition adapted from Fichter, 2009, p. 360, whoactually uses the term ‘promotor’, which is equivalent to the term‘champion’ used in this paper). An innovation community can thusbe considered, in the terms of earlier work on this topic in theintra-firm context (Hauschildt and Kirchmann, 2001), as a ‘team’
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of an innovation community with different kinds of champions at different system levels (slightly adapted from Fichter, 2009).Organizations to which these champions belong at the value chain and policy and innovation support system level constitute the innovation network.
L. Klerkx, N. Aarts / Technovation 33 (2013) 193–210194
of champions within a much broader innovation network, whichcontribute to the orchestration of the innovation network(Hauschildt and Kirchmann, 2001; Markham et al., 2010;Pittaway et al., 2004; Mansfeld et al., 2010). Clear complementa-rities arise from having champions with different organizationalbackgrounds forming such an innovation community, such asbetter access to a more diverse set of additional resources,know-how, and decision makers/resource controllers, and mutualsupport and motivation in the event of strong opposition bysharing a common belief, vision, or goal (Fichter, 2009).
Given these complementarities, Fichter (2009) recommendsstimulating innovation community development and assuringquality of interaction (e.g. team spirit, cohesion, common under-standing, coordination). However, the construct of innovationcommunities appears to neglect the difficulties, paradoxes, anddilemmas in innovation network orchestration (Gilsing andDuysters, 2008; Håkansson and Ford, 2002), as well as the notionthat multi-organizational innovation networks are politicizednegotiation arenas (Koch, 2004), which most likely affects thecollaboration of champions. Overall, there has been limited criticalanalysis of the construct of innovation community (except, e.g.,Muhdi and Boutellier, 2011). Adequate champion interaction isconsidered a key determinant of innovation success or failure(Markham et al., 2010), but questions coined earlier in thechampions literature as to how a good fit is achieved betweendifferent kinds of champions, and whether different cooperatingchampions always appear as a team (coined earlier by Hauschildtand Kirchmann, 2001) are still unanswered. The increased com-plexity of multi-organizational innovation networks adds to theneed to closely examine this (Gupta et al., 2006). The paper thusaims to make a contribution to theory on champion roles andchampion interaction in multi-organizational innovation networksby addressing two questions: (1) how do different champions from
different organizations interact in their effort to orchestrate multi-organizational innovation networks? (2) How are complementa-rities between different kinds of champions with different orga-nizational affiliations and stakes in the innovation shaped ininteraction? To provide an analytical lens, the paper continuesby presenting a theoretical framework that explores the implica-tions of broadening the champion perspective to multi-organizational innovation networks, and connecting the literatureon champions with the literature on innovation network orches-tration. Then, data from three case studies are used to analyze theinterplay between different kinds of innovation champions in theinnovation networks surrounding these cases. Results from thecase studies are then reflected against the construct of innovationcommunities thereby refining the concept.
2. Theoretical framework: championing in relation toorchestration of innovation networks
2.1. Innovation networking and the challenges therein
Innovation networking implies a voluntaristic view onnetworks, i.e. how organizations dynamically create and shapestrategic alliances and mobilize resource and support networks(Gilsing et al., 2007; Pittaway et al., 2004). A network is definedhere as “groups of three or more legally autonomous organizationsthat work together to achieve not only their own goals but also acollective goal” Provan and Kenis (2008, p. 231), and in the case ofinnovation networks these are often ‘loosely coupled organiza-tions’ that are responsive to each other but also retain separate-ness and identity (Dhanaraj and Parkhe, 2006; Freeman, 1991).Voluntaristic innovation networks have been found to be self-organizing (Håkansson and Ford, 2002; Rycroft and Kash, 2004):
L. Klerkx, N. Aarts / Technovation 33 (2013) 193–210 195
no organization can develop its goals independently of others, andneed to adapt constantly to the aims and requirements of differentpartners and the broader environment. Operating in innovationnetworks is thus not easy, and several challenges, dilemmas, andparadoxes exist in this respect (Gilsing and Duysters, 2008;Håkansson and Ford, 2002; Pittaway et al., 2004). These concern:
•
Balancing new relationships and existing relationships, i.e.balancing openness (exploiting weak ties) and closure of thenetwork (fostering strong ties). The paradox here is that “thenetwork as a resource constellation creates inertia that limitsinnovation, but it also creates a firm basis from which devel-opments can take place” (Håkansson and Ford, 2002, p. 138).Hence, there needs to be a form of ‘dynamic stability’ (Dhanarajand Parkhe, 2006).
•
Determining the most appropriate way of interacting withother organizations. Understanding and managing perspectivesof other parties are key in networks (Håkansson and Ford,2002; De Bruijn and ten Heuvelhof, 2008). Very differentperspectives of different network partners on the nature andform of the cooperation may lead to conflicts that, if notproperly addressed, may result in network failure (Pittawayet al., 2004).
•
Balancing informal and formal relationships. Often, innovationnetworks combine both formal (hierarchy, contractual agree-ments) and informal interaction mechanisms (such as trust),often in a cyclical pattern (Pittaway et al., 2004; Ring and Vande Ven, 1994). Organizations need to manage the paradox thatthey need to develop their position in the network to reap thebenefits, but that total control of the network by one firm maybe counterproductive as it undermines the informal basis ofnetwork cooperation.
2.2. Innovation network orchestration
Given the several challenges, dilemmas, and paradoxesdescribed in Section 2.1, the main implication for innovationnetwork management is networks that do not have a centraldesigner and that total control is not possible (Håkansson andFord, 2002). Adaptive innovation network management is required(Rycroft and Kash, 2004). This has been described as ‘networkgovernance’ (Pittaway et al., 2004; Provan and Kenis, 2008) and‘network orchestration’, (Dhanaraj and Parkhe, 2006) the latterterm being adopted in this paper. Three basic and reiterativeelements of innovation network orchestration which have beendiscussed in the literature are (Pittaway et al., 2004; Gray, 2008;Batterink et al., 2010):
1)
demand articulation: continuous vision development andarticulation of related technology, knowledge, and otherresource needs;
2)
innovation network composition: scanning, filtering, andmatchmaking of new network partners for accessing certainresources;
3)
innovation process management: innovation network coordi-nation, enhancing transparency, fostering reciprocity andbuilding trust, monitoring progress of the innovation processand identifying problems, promoting mutual learning, ensuringinnovation appropriability (e.g. IP rights management), andconflict resolution to maintain network stability.
On the basis of a broad review of the generic networkorchestration literature, Provan and Kenis (2008) distinguish threebasic modalities of network orchestration: it may either beparticipant governed, without an actor clearly taking the lead
and acting as a central network broker, or brokered by a firm in thenetwork that acts as a ‘lead organization’ or ‘hub firm’(Dhanarajand Parkhe, 2006; Baglieri et al., 2012) that initiates and channelsmost interactions. The third modality is that the role of networkbroker can be given to a separate, independent and more impartialnetwork administrative organization (NAO) (Provan and Kenis,2008). The identified modalities are not mutually exclusive; theremay also be several governance mechanisms within a broadernetwork, for example in subsets of the network. There arecontrasting views on what modality connects to what type ofnetwork: while some argue that shared governance by partici-pants works for smaller networks, larger and more complexnetworks with many members would benefit from a centralbroker model (lead organization/hub firm or NAO) (Dhanaraj andParkhe, 2006; Provan and Kenis, 2008), others argue that smallnetworks would benefit from a single central broker and thatlarger networks would have many brokers who need to coordinatetheir actions (Gray, 2008). Network orchestration is not static andevolves with increasing size and more complex network struc-tures. It is hypothesized that it is often a strategic choice to movefrom participant-governed to brokered forms, but that the reverseof this is unlikely, since lead organization and especially NAOorchestration formalizes interaction (Provan and Kenis, 2008).
Several studies indicate that actors that act as champions oftentake up such network orchestration roles and act as networkbrokers (Hauschildt and Kirchmann, 2001; Gray, 2008; Markhamet al., 2010; Pittaway et al., 2004). The following section examinesinsights from the literature on the different types of innovationchampions and conceptualizes how these relate to orchestration ofinnovation networks.
2.3. Networked innovation broadens the range of champions: thegrowing importance of the network/process champion as aninnovation network broker
A distinction can be made between four types of championstackling different kinds of barriers in the innovation process: thepower champion, the technology champion, the process cham-pion, and the network or relationship champion (see Table 1).These champion roles can sometimes also be unified in one personwho combines different champion roles (Fichter, 2009). Technol-ogy, power, and process champions have been studied predomi-nantly within the intra-organizational context (Gupta et al., 2006),although it is recognized that their role also includes ‘selling’ theinnovation outside the organization (Howell and Boies, 2004).Firm external technology and power champions, such as forexample university researchers (Perkmann and Walsh, 2008;Swan et al., 2007) and government officials (Caerteling et al.,2011) also fulfill these roles.
Also, new types of champions are emerging that are specificallytailored to networked innovation and that specifically connect tothe concept of brokered innovation network orchestration.Recently, the role of network champion has been specificallyidentified in the context of the increasing complexity of innovationprocesses in large firms or in networks of firms (Gupta et al., 2006;Gray, 2008; Fichter, 2009), corresponding with the value chainlevel and the policy and innovation support system level (seeFig. 1). A broadened notion of a combined network/processchampion as a process facilitator beyond the context of the singlefirm resonates with the role of a firm in the network as a leadorganization (Provan and Kenis, 2008) or hub firm (Dhanaraj andParkhe, 2006) that acts as a broker and orchestrates the innovationnetwork.
Whereas a lead organization or hub firm orientation typicallyconnects to an innovation producing input–output stakeholder(Dhanaraj and Parkhe, 2006; Baglieri et al., 2012), a separate,
Table 1Different types of champions. Adapted from Fichter (2009) using Hauschildt and Kirchmann (2001), Gupta et al. (2006), Smith (2007), Markham et al. (2010), Kelley and Lee(2010), and Kelley et al. (2011).
Inventor of technology or an expert who wishes to advance a technology andadvocates it
Ignorance,opposition,resources
Hierarchical potential,control of resources
Power champion (sometimes calledgodfather of innovation or manager ofchampions)
Sponsor and supporter of the innovation by exerting social and political effort tomobilize support. The godfather is a very high level person with limitedinvolvement but who is very powerful (e.g. a CEO) and also connected to agatekeeper role concerning project approval
Administrative,bureaucratic
Organizational knowhow, communicationskills
Process champion Fulfills a key role in creating a receptive environment within the firm by linkingthe technology champion and the power champion by translating ‘technologylanguage’ into ‘business language’, turning an idea into a plan of action
Fulfills a bridging and brokering role between already connected and previouslydisconnected organizations
L. Klerkx, N. Aarts / Technovation 33 (2013) 193–210196
independent and impartial NAO acting as a broker (Provan andKenis, 2008) connects to the notion of an innovation intermediary(Fichter, 2009; Batterink et al., 2010; Gassmann et al., 2011). Aninnovation intermediary is defined by Howells (2006, p. 720) as“an organization or body that acts as an agent or broker in anyaspect of the innovation process between two or more parties”.Intermediation in terms of being a broker, mediator, and facilitator(i.e. an NAO) may be a side-activity of organizations that primarilyprovide substantive services such as technical advice or R&D(Howells, 2006). It may also be the core identity of an organiza-tion. According to Winch and Courtney (2007, p. 750): “suchbrokers represent an additional type of intermediary in innovationnetworks from those reviewed by Howells because their solepurpose is to act as a broker, rather than brokering being aby-product of their principal activity.” The growing literature onsuch specialized innovation brokers emphasizes their importantcatalyzing role in the formation and maintenance of innovationnetworks (e.g. Winch and Courtney, 2007; Klerkx and Leeuwis,2009; Clausen and Rasmussen, 2011; Gredel et al., 2012). In thispaper, the terms ‘specialized innovation broker’ and ‘non-specia-lized innovation broker’ are used to distinguish brokers whosecore activity is brokerage and mediation from brokers whoprimarily provide technical advice or R&D (i.e. innovation inter-mediaries who do brokerage and mediation as a side-activity).
2.4. Critical issues relevant for champions’ positions and functions inrelation to innovation network orchestration
The literature on network orchestration reveals a number ofcritical issues relevant for champions’ positions and functions inrelation to innovation network orchestration (Håkansson and Ford,2002; Provan and Kenis, 2008): (1) ensuring legitimacy of theorchestration mechanism (e.g. a NAO model), (2) ability of theorchestration mechanism for balancing openness/flexibility andclosure/stability of the network, (3) efficiency of the orchestrationmechanism in enhancing cooperation the network. The first issuerelates to the organizational affiliation of champions vis-à-vis theirposition in the innovation network. For example, Pittaway et al.(2004) note in their systematic review of innovation networkingthat several authors found that third parties which act as neutralbrokers have a positive impact on the development of inter-organizational networks and innovation. Given that innovationchampions act as brokers in innovation networks, but not allchampions in innovation communities have such a neutral posi-tion, it is important to see how this affects their functioning inorchestration. The latter two issues relate to the functionality ofdifferent champions in the innovation network. Given the differentresources that different champions employ to promote the inno-vation (see Table 1), they can make different and complementary
contributions in terms of orchestration. However, following obser-vations of Hauschildt and Kirchmann (2001) that it is not clearhow they complement, looking at functionality is a key issue. Wenow discuss the issues of position and functionality more in detail.
2.4.1. The influence of affiliation on the role of network orchestratorson their (perceived) position: the ‘tertius gaudens’ and ‘tertiusiungens’ perspective
The organizational affiliation of innovation champions influ-ences how they are positioned in the innovation network and actas a broker, since it affects their interests and opportunities(Kirkels and Duysters, 2010; Sapsed et al., 2007). From networkanalysis on boundary spanning positions in networks (e.g. Ahuja,2000; Burt, 2004; Obstfeld, 2005), it has become clear that brokerscan have different strategic orientations, depending on the issuessuch as their centrality and status in the network. The tertiusgaudens position (the third who enjoys) relates to calculating andpolitically and strategically operating actors positioned betweentwo disconnected parties (Fleming and Waguespack, 2007). Thetertius iungens orientation (the third who unites) relates to acoordinating, mediating ‘honest broker’ (Obstfeld, 2005).
Although these concepts cannot be translated one-on-one tochampioning, as championing entails more than brokering, theydo bear clear relevance for championing. In this regard, it can benoted that network/process champions may either act as brokersin the network (i.e. as lead organization or hub firm) because theyhave a certain natural broker position in the structure (in the caseof innovation producing input–output and enabling and constrain-ing stakeholders), or position themselves as brokers in the net-work because they have a mandate or service orientation as anNAO (i.e. as innovation broker). A number of problems can bedistilled from the literature for the different sorts of champions inrelation their organizational affiliation and positioning as a brokerin network orchestration.
Those champions that form part of the producers of innovationin their capacity as input–output stakeholders, as well as thosefrom the enabling and constraining stakeholder group, eitherstrongly advocate their own interest or act as representatives fortheir organization. When they act on behalf of a lead organization/hub firm, being highly centralized and having asymmetrical power(cf. Provan and Kenis, 2008), this implies that to some degree theymay need to act as a tertius gaudens. This representative role maythus give rise to tensions, because champions in their capacity asboundary spanning agents and brokers are confronted with multi-ple accountabilities within the multi-actor environment of aninnovation network (Provan and Kenis, 2008). i.e. to their organi-zation and the network. Maintaining credibility and legitimacy as
L. Klerkx, N. Aarts / Technovation 33 (2013) 193–210 197
a broker is thus not an easy task (Weick, 1977; Williams, 2002;Pollock et al., 2004; Fleming and Waguespack, 2007).
Whereas innovation producing actors and enabling and con-straining stakeholders are inherently non-neutral, the role ofinnovation brokers acting as network/process champion is gen-erally associated with an impartial tertius iungens position(Pittaway et al., 2004; Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009). The added valueof specialized innovation brokers vis-à-vis innovation producingchampions as network/process champions is that they generallyhave a better developed skill set for network orchestration as theyhave more experience in doing this (Pittaway et al., 2004; Provanand Kenis, 2008). For demand articulation and network composi-tion, they generally are able to provide exposure to a wider andpreviously unknown network of ideas and contacts (Sapsed et al.,2007; Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008), i.e. better bridge ‘structuralholes’ (Burt, 2004). Furthermore, as they are typically not aninput–output stakeholder working in the same industry, theycan mediate and facilitate (i.e. innovation process management)from a more impartial stance that enhances trust building andconflict resolution (Pittaway et al., 2004; Klerkx and Leeuwis,2009; Katzy et al., 2013). Both kinds of innovation broker (specia-lized/non-specialized) need to continuously balance between(Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2008) a distanced facilitator role or a moreactive change agent role. Innovation brokers sometimes need toact as change agent to ‘creatively destruct’ existing networks thatinhibit change (Smits and Kuhlmann, 2004) and intervene toenhance efficiency of the network. In innovation process manage-ment, they should however not totally take over managementissues and decision making, as they take away ownership from theother innovation network partners (Kuada and Sørensen, 2005;Pittaway et al., 2004) and may be perceived as ‘noise’ (Candemirand Van Lente, 2007), or a ‘separator’ in relationships (Hanssonet al., 2005). Sometimes they should take the position of ‘briefiungens’ (Obstfeld, 2005) and withdraw when networks functionautonomously.
2.4.2. The functionality of different champions in the innovationnetwork
It is a challenge in network orchestration to balance interac-tional openness and flexibility – i.e. maintain variety as regards thekinds of different actors in the innovation network and the rolesthey play – with the stabilizing of these roles and an optimal roledivision and decision-making structure in order to maximize theefficiency of networks (Dhanaraj and Parkhe, 2006; Håkanssonand Ford, 2002; Pittaway et al., 2004; Provan and Kenis, 2008).As discussed in Section 2.2, there may be an evolution over time interms of the most apt orchestration modality. In terms of network/process champions, this implies that the importance of somechampioning roles may vary according to the nature of thenetwork or its evolution over time, e.g. that an external innovationbroker acting as an NAO becomes more important. It has beenfound that the functionality and complementarity of championsare dependent in particular on the obstacles encountered in theinnovation process and the degree to which certain championingroles and capacity are present (Hauschildt and Kirchmann, 2001).Markham et al. (2010) found in this regard that technologychampion activity was most important at the start of the innova-tion process, followed by power champion activity to createsupport, followed by gatekeeper activity on project approval ordismissal. Having different champions also enhances flexibility ofthe network in terms of accessing diverse resources and persons(Fichter, 2009). However, because championing roles may beunified in one person (Fichter, 2009) or actors may change theirrole and position (Markham et al., 2010; Håkansson and Ford,
2002), function overlaps between different champions may engen-der confusion as to the role division between champions.
From the theoretical framework it has emerged that there aredifferent modalities for orchestration of innovation networks, andthat network/process champions act as innovation network bro-kers. Furthermore, although there appear to be complementaritiesin teamwork of different champions, depending on the identity ofthe champion also several tensions may emerge in relation tohaving a legitimate position and function in the innovationnetwork.
3. Research methods
3.1. Research approach and data collection
A qualitative, explorative and inductive research approach wasfollowed (following Strauss and Corbin, 1998), in which thetheoretical framework (section 2) provided an analytical lens forunraveling champion interaction in different innovation processesand their contribution to network orchestration (see researchquestions in Section 1). Acquired through interviews, observation,and secondary data analysis, the data for this paper are derivedfrom case studies that describe three ‘innovation journeys’ interms of crucial events and underlying actions of actors in theinnovation networks (Van de Ven et al., 1999). This aproach allowsfor a focus on whole networks instead of dyadic relationshipswithin networks as units of analysis, as advocated for studiestaking a governance perspective on networks (Provan and Kenis,2008). Three cases were selected in the Dutch agri-food sector(Rondeel, Sjalon, – see also Klerkx et al., 2010, for extensivedescriptions of these two cases and Greenport Shanghai – seealso Steuten et al., for an extensive description of this case),because they all comprise multi-organizational innovation net-works involving heterogeneous (public and private) actors but arelocated in a similar sector (hence working under a similar valuechain configuration, similar market conditions, and a similar policyenvironment), thus enhancing their comparability. Furthermore,although they comprise separate innovation trajectories, they havein common that all at some stage were supported by the sameinnovation program, TransForum. This program comprises innova-tion brokering support as well as funding for innovation process-related R&D and consultancy activities, and thus also allowed forstudying a similar brokering approach in different projects.
Data were derived through semi-structured interviews thatwere recorded and fully transcribed. Purposive sampling using asnowball approach was used to obtain a variety of respondentswith different positions in the three innovation projects, whichwere the unit of analysis. The interviews focused on actors’perceptions of the progress of the innovation process, observedobstacles, strategies to overcome obstacles and the role of catalyz-ing persons acting as champions therein, and the overall function-ing of the innovation network and the orchestration efforts.Interviews varied in length, from half an hour to 2 h, with anaverage duration of an hour. Complementarily, secondary datasources such as meeting minutes of the innovation networks,business plans, and media expressions such as news articles wereanalyzed. Table 2 displays the data gathering methods andapproach for each case.
The data were coded using Atlas 5.0 software, codes beingderived from the theoretical framework as well as emergingduring the analysis (following Strauss and Corbin, 1998), focusingon issues such as championing roles taken (see Table 1 and Section2.3), coordination within the innovation network and innovationcommunity in relation to orchestration roles ( see Section 2.2),
Six with Vencomatic/Rondeel Ltd. staffOne with Kwetters staffFive with civil servants (Barneveld/LNVa)Four with interested farmersSeven with service providers (architect,environmental consultant, ASG researchers)Four with facilitators (Transforum/Transitionand Society)Three with funding agencies (Oost NV/GelderseVallei)Two with representatives (ZLTOb/APSc)
Three with brainstorm-group membersFour with participating farmersTwo with non-participating farmersFour with civil servants (Province/Municipality/LNVa)Two with banksFour with service providers (accountants andresearchers)Four with facilitators (TransForum/Oreillonfacilitator/facilitating researchers)One with TDd
Thirteen with project leaders/facilitators(Alterra, TransForum, KnowHouse, GreenportsNetherlands,)Two with Dutch consulate officers (consulgeneral, agricultural officer)One with Chinese interpreterOne with supervisory group presidentTwo entrepreneurs from Limburg provinceTwo consultants (international lawyer, businessdeveloper)Two policy makers (ministry of agriculture,Limburg province)
Observation of actorinteraction
At eight meetings (three project monitoringworkshops and five steering committeemeetings) in the period from March 2008 toSeptember 2009
At two meetings (one planning meeting andone group dynamics monitoring workshop) inrespectively January and March 2008
No observation
Document analysis Analysis of meeting minutes over 3 years(2006–2009), newsarticle articles over 4 years(2005–2009), communication with LNVa
Analysis of meeting minutes over 7 years(2001–2008), newsarticle articles over 6 years(2002–2008), communication with TDd
Business plans, memoranda ofunderstanding, communication betweenTransForum and SICe
Data gatheringapproach
Thirty-two interviews in the period fromNovember 2007 to January 2009: most of theinterviews (28) were concentrated in March toOctober 2008, with a retrospective character(ranging frommonths to years). In a monitoringworkshop, the actors reflected upon, validatedand complemented the interview data. Furtherdynamics captured by attending the steeringgroup meetings and interviewing key network/process champions from Rondeel Ltd (3),TransForum (1), and Transition and Society (1)
Twenty-four interviews in the period fromFebruary to April 2008: all the interviews had aretrospective character (generally going backseveral years), focusing on perspectives on, androles of, actors in certain episodes of theinnovation process. The group dynamicsmonitoring workshop was used in this case toreflect on and validate with the actors theearlier findings from the interviews
Twenty-two interviews in the period fromNovember 2007 to December 2009: Accessfor the researchers was first restricted due tosensivity of the process, but some interviewscould be conducted during the process withkey actors: Alterra researchers (2),KnowHouse Staff (1), and TransForum staff(3), Chinese translator (1) in the periodbetween November 2007 and March 2009. Atthe end, when the project had failed, theother actors were interviewed about thewhole project, thus looking back severalyears.
a Ministry of Agriculture, Nature, and Food Quality.b Southern Farmers' Organization.c Animal Protection Society.d Treasury Department.e Shanghai Investment Corporation.
L. Klerkx, N. Aarts / Technovation 33 (2013) 193–210198
conflicts between actors in the network, functions in the network,and function overlaps (see Section 2.4).
3.2. Critical observations on the validity of the research
The multi-stranded data gathering approach was used toincrease internal validity: focusing on interviews with differentrespondents with different positions in, and different views on, thenetwork, as well as the use of secondary data sources, permittedtriangulation. A number of limitations need to be mentioned: afirst limitation concerns generalization of the findings. Given theexploratory character of the research and the limited number ofcases, external validity is not derived from statistical general-ization but from analytical generalization in which “previouslydeveloped theory is used as a template with which to compare theempirical results of the case study” (Yin, 2003, pp. 32 and 33) andhence contribute to cumulative evidence building. A limitation inthis sense is that, although the selected cases can be consideredrepresentative within their sector, they may only reflect orches-tration dynamics in that particular sector. A second limitationconcerns the Greenport Shanghai case, in that actors’ views mainlyrepresent the Dutch parties in the network; this may introducea bias. However, some of the actors interviewed (the Dutchconsulate officers, the Chinese interpreter, the international law-yer) reflected an overview of the thinking of the Chinese parties.A third limitation is that, although we took whole networks as theunit of analysis, there is always a degree of zooming in on some
parts of the networks, and some network interactions cannot beeasily grasped through periodic interviews and observations.A fourth limitation is that bias may be suspected because thisresearch was funded by TransForum, being also the subject ofstudy. However, TransForum has not exercised any influence onresearch design, execution, and reporting of results.
4. Findings
4.1. Introduction to the cases
Given that championing is aimed at overcoming barriers andtackling challenges, first a short description of the innovationprojects in question and the main challenges they faced is given. Inorder to give an overview, a timeline with the main events towhich these challenges were related for each case is presented inFigs. 2–4. The innovations studied are concerned with:
(a)
Establishing a new kind of poultry husbandry system (calledRondeel) in The Netherlands, based on a revolutionary designof a round hen housing system ensuring high animal welfareand environmental performance. This design was made in apublicly funded research project by the Animal Sciences Group(ASG) of Wageningen University and Research Centre (seeGroot Koerkamp and Bos, 2008). This system produces anegg with added ‘animal welfare’ value. The main challenges in
2004 2009
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
2005Egg packing firm Kwetters
acquires trademark for name ‘Rondeel’
2004End project ‘Caring for Hens’ yielding
Rondeel visualization andbrief of design requirements
2006Cooperation agreementKwetters (egg packer)
and ASG (research institute) fails
2006Kwetters (egg packer) andVencomatic (system builder)start cooperating in Rondeeldevelopment process -
set-up ‘technical committee’
2007Technical committee
becomes‘steering groupRondeel’after getting
innovation brokerTransForum’sfunding
and facilitation
2007Kwettersleaves
consortium
2008Welfare certificationawarded by APS2007
MeetingRondeelconsortiumwith AnimalProtection
Society (APS)2008
Rondeel Ltd.installed
2008Building and
environmental compliancepermits are givenfor two farms
because Rondeelfits existing norms
2008Workshops strengthensense of multi-actorco-development andenable breaking outof lock-in on marketingof Rondeel eggs
2004First talks with Treasury Department(owner land which are in leasehold)
2006Brainstorm group
dissolved
2004 - 2007Ongoing negotiation over leasehold terms
20072 participantswithdraw
2007Treasury Department
communicates conditionsfor acceptance Sjalon
2008Participantwithdraws
2001First talkswith bank
2008Bank provides fundingon basis of 100 ha farm
2008Formal kick-off
Sjalon on 14 march 2008
2001 - 2008Negotiation over financing: bank is enthusiastic on basis of 600 ha vision,but becomes increasingly critical and needs ‘hard figures’ on returns
2001‘Brainstorm group’ formed to guide concept development
2006 - 2008Recruitment of Sjalon particpants
Fig. 3. Timeline Sjalon with critical events and challenges Adapted from Klerkx et al. (2010).
L. Klerkx, N. Aarts / Technovation 33 (2013) 193–210 199
this project were (see Fig. 2): developing a functioning devel-opment consortium for the prototype; getting permits to buildthe first system; getting risk funding or a state guarantee to
finance the building of the first system; and getting societalapproval by means of ‘animal welfare certification’ by theAnimal Protection Society (APS); this meant that the concept
Table 3Championing roles of actors in the studied cases.
Case Actors Organizational background/function Role
Transition & Society (T&S) consultant Independent consultant advising on animalwelfare issues, international retail, and socialcorporate responsibility
Input/output stakeholderFacilitating stakeholderInnovation broker as network and process champion
TransForum Innovation broker and innovation program(including project funding) aimed atstimulating Triple P innovation in TheNetherlands agri-food sector. Accepting projectfunding also implies accepting facilitation
Input/output stakeholderInnovation broker as network and process champion
Retail consultants Independent consultants advising on specificissues relating to marketing products withhigher animal welfare value and egg marketing
Input/output stakeholderInnovation intermediaries as network champion
ZLTO officials Farmers’ organizations stimulating sustainabledevelopments in agri-food
Input/output stakeholderFacilitating stakeholderInnovation intermediary as network champion
Rondeel Ltd. manager 2 Rondeel Ltd. manager responsible for thetechnical development of Rondeel
PPO researchers 1 and 2 Researchers that functioned as project leadersof the research projects on cost-effectivenessand management issues (funded byTransForum) that supported the developmentof Sjalon, PPO researcher 1 was succeeded byresearcher 2
Input/output stakeholderFacilitating stakeholderInnovation intermediaries as network/process champion
L. Klerkx, N. Aarts / Technovation 33 (2013) 193–210200
Table 3 (continued )
Case Actors Organizational background/function Role
Minister of Agriculture Minister of agriculture in the period 2002–2007
Greenport Shanghai supervisory committee Meta-level coordination body aiming tocoordinate activities of the different innovationbrokers
Facilitating stakeholderProcess champion
L. Klerkx, N. Aarts / Technovation 33 (2013) 193–210 201
had to be assessed and approved according to its criteria. Formore details on this project, see Klerkx et al. (2010).
(b)
Setting up a collective farm (called Sjalon) in the form of alimited liability company, formally pooling resources such aslands, machines, labor, with the goal of establishing economiesof scale. This is an exception to the normal family farmsituation in the Netherlands. The main challenges that had tobe addressed in this social innovation were (see Fig. 3):designing organization forms for a collective farm that incor-porated several previously independent farms; assessing whatwould be the ideal management set-up for the new farm andhow it could be financed; ascertaining where produce shouldgo; accommodating collective leasehold within the traditionalland tenure arrangements favoring individual leasehold;attracting enough farmers to have sufficient size and produc-tion volume to realize the economies of scale. For more detailson this project, see Klerkx et al. (2010).
(c)
Establishing a closed nutrient and energy cycle, ‘cradle-to-cradle’ type ‘agropark’ (see Smeets, 2009) in Shanghai, China(called Greenport Shanghai), in which plant, animal, andenergy production are fully integrated. The main challengesin this project were (see Fig. 4).: getting the development
consortium established to build the prototype; getting a clearvision of what the prototype would need to look like inpractice and what the contributions of different networkparties would be; and maintaining the integrity of the networkof parties contributing to the development of the prototype.
Table 3 summarizes the different actors involved in thedifferent cases as regards their institutional identity and cham-pion roles. As the table shows, and in line with the notion thatchampion roles are sometimes unified in one person (Fichter,2009), most of the technology and power champions also actedas network/process champions, which is quite common giventheir proficiency in networking (Howell and Boies, 2004). Tostructure the analysis of champion complementarities andconflicts, we follow the various innovation network orchestra-tion activities defined by Batterink et al. (2010), which arerelated to the several challenges in the innovation processesstudied. In line with the goal of the paper to assess to whatextent different champions act as a team (Hauschildt andKirchmann, 2001) we describe the complementarities and con-flicts separately, for which we draw from all three cases.
2006 2010
2007 2008 2009
2006Alterra researcher,KnowHouse CEO,
and TransForum CEOwork in a project in Changzouon the Wujin Holland Agro Park,
where they meet an official from SIIC.The idea for Greenport Shanghai is born.
2006KnowHouse organizes mission to Shanghaifor interested firms from their network.
Firms are enthusiastic.
2007Joint design
session in Shanghai forfinishing
masterplan and animation forGreenport Shanghai –Chinese partners
2007Mission Dutch parties to openingby ministers of agriculture ofSino Dutch Agricultural
Innovation Promotion Centre –signing memorandumof understandingand letter of intent
on Greenport Shanghai.Greenport Shanghai used as showcase
2007Steering committee is installed
to coordinate different innovation brokers –KnowHouse to focus on gathering
network of investing firms,TransForum on agro-park managementand promoting overall agro-park concept
2007KnowHouse and Limburg indicate
they now take chargeand put TransForum aside –
focus on contribution Limburg SMEsIn developing Greenport Shanghai –engenders confusion among Chinese
on who is their counterpart
2007Attempt TransForum to
found a Greenport Shanghaidevelopment
spin-off firm meetsfierce resistance
other Dutch partners
2008Meeting on GreenPort Shanghai
concept operationalization again becomesnegotation on investment –different promises are made
by KnowHouse and TransForum
2008KnowHouse composesDevelopment consortium
of Limburg SMEs
2008Dutch discover what are realdesires and intentions of SIC
(investment only)
2008Limburg SMEdevelopment
consortium falls apart
2008Greenport Netherlands
gets involved with other concept of AgroParkUndertakes own visit to Chinawhich causes friction amongother innovation brokers
2008TransForum makes
Other (failed) attempt to composedevelopment consortium with larger firms
2006 - 2007Masterplan designand finetuning
2007 - 2009Continuous ambiguity among SIIC and Dutch about contribution Dutch partners
(Dutch want to deliver services and goods– SIIC wants mere investment)
2007 - 2008Continuous struggle on Dutch side toget coherent development consortium
2009Clarity to SIIC is requestedon their investment –
as no clear answer is givenDutch parties decide to end the project
2009Evaluation GreenportShanghai process –
formulation business case
Fig. 4. Timeline Greenport Shanghai with critical events and challenges.
L. Klerkx, N. Aarts / Technovation 33 (2013) 193–210202
4.2. Complementarities in the process of demand articulation: adiverse set of champions both broadens and narrows the scope of theproject
As Batterink et al. (2010) state, innovation benefits from beingfirm-driven as opposed to research-driven or subsidy-driven,because the latter two deliver solutions without real marketpotential. In relation to this issue of increasing the marketpotential, in the case of Rondeel a clear complementarity couldbe observed: the leader (ASG researcher 1, who first acted as atechnology champion) of the research project from which theRondeel prototype design resulted was supported by championsfrom the business sector in bringing the idea ‘down-to-earth’. Theother champions involved (Kwetters sales manager, Kwetters CEO,Vencomatic CEO) initially regarded the concept prototype as crazyand unfeasible. However, their growing belief in, and support of,the concept and their involvement led to the formation of atechnical committee. In this committee, the concept prototypewas further shaped (i.e. vision development and demand articula-tion) and refined with practical experience as regards husbandrysystem building and egg-market development. In turn, ASGresearcher 1 constantly provided reflection from a critical scien-tific stance, now as an innovation intermediary delivering addi-tional services to the firms that adopted the Rondeel concept. So inthis sense a synergic champion interaction can be observed.
In a similar vein, in the Sjalon network the prime-movingfarmer formed a brainstorming group of non-agricultural entre-preneurs. These became technology and network championsbecause they were enthusiastic about the idea and provided theirspecific background experience to develop the Sjalon conceptfurther. Thus, different potential development directions wereexplored. However, given that the prime-mover was extremelymotivated and extremely pro-active, he individually kept onexploring sidetracks to the established development direction
throughout the project (when it was in its developmental stageand implementation stage). This continuous initiation of side-tracks was detrimental to the commitment of others, such as thepotential participants:
“He has also been too enthusiastic, that's why things haven't beenworking that well in the group. Because [prime-moving farmer]always does things by himself. Of which the group says ‘why didyou do that?’ He has become a bit calmer the last months, in thatsense. Because he now sees that everything he does has its con-sequences for the whole group. We made it clear to him that thatshouldn't be that way.”
What can be observed is that the Oreillon facilitator and PPOresearchers 1 and 2 in particular acted as buffers to such side-tracking activities. From their position as process facilitators, theymitigated such activity to maintain a sense of shared directionwithin the core network of innovating farmers that had gatheredaround the prime-moving farmer.
4.3. Conflicts in the process of demand articulation: different andchanging visions on the nature and goal of the project affectchampions’ identities and position in the process
A conflict visible in the Rondeel case was that position changesof champions over time may lead to conflict. The Rondeel projectcan be regarded as having two initiation points: one when theprototyping project started, and one when the project becamefirm-driven as opposed to research-driven. The role change of ASGresearcher 1 from technology champion during the prototypingproject to having a shared championing role with others in thefunction of innovation intermediary in the firm-driven project wasindicated by several respondents to be initially uneasy. This waspartially caused by conflicts over the attribution of intellectualproperty rights from the prototype, for which egg-packing firmKwetters had registered the trademark when a joint venture with
L. Klerkx, N. Aarts / Technovation 33 (2013) 193–210 203
ASG failed. Here the difficulty manifested of having combinedsubstantive (i.e. being a technology champion) and businessinterests (the desire to remain involved and have ownership ofthe concept) in addition to the facilitating role of an innovationintermediary.
In the Greenport Shanghai project, similar observations can bemade: the agropark started out as a research-driven technicaldesign by Alterra researcher 1, acting as a technology champion.However, when it became a firm-driven project, other champion-ing parties (most notably the innovation brokers KnowHouse andTransForum) emphasized the economic feasibility and manage-ment aspects much more, including the need to achieve a soundbusiness plan. They stated that this had been mostly ignored,despite the facilitation of joint and comprehensive vision formula-tion by Alterra researcher 2 in earlier stages of the project. Somuch of the work of KnowHouse and TransForum was on explor-ing how to achieve a sound business plan. A quote from a memberof the supervisory board illustrates this difficulty:
“I don't have the impression that we succeeded in coming from themaster plan to a viable business plan, I think this was completelyunderestimated. We didn’t have the people with the right compe-tences involved, it was amateur work to get to a business plan. Thathappens more often, that research make up a nice plan and then theythrow it over the fence and the business sector has to sort it out. Well,then it goes down the drain.”
Although this in a way shows the complementarities ofdifferent kinds of champions, it was felt by Alterra researchers1 and 2 as an undeserved reproach of their Greenport Shanghaidesign being incomplete. It caused annoyance and discomfortamong the different champions. Another incoherency in visionfor Greenport Shanghai was that KnowHouse, TransForum, andGreenports Netherlands, although all acting as network/relation-ship champions at the value chain level, had a different vision onhow this business plan should be shaped. KnowHouse saw it asway for local entrepreneurs to sell specific technology andknowledge about agropark components. TransForum saw it as aconcept in which larger companies (e.g. energy companies)would contribute to park infrastructure building and agroparkmanagement, as the following quote from a TransForumfacilitator shows:
“Do you start from the integrated, sustainable perspective? Then youfirst think about the performance of the park and what is needed torealize that. That in turn then gives direction to entrepreneurs that willhave to make it work. Conversely you can also say, no, it is important toinvest and entrepreneurs then will make a lot of money, that becomesyour departure point. And then recently you start to think, what can theyoffer to maximize or optimize the sustainability performance?”
The third organization that came in to facilitate the project onthe Dutch side, Greenports Netherlands, basically saw it as anopportunity to build a large greenhouse facility (thus having adifferent understanding of agropark than that envisioned in theGreenport concept). The most striking incoherence, as especiallyindicated by the respondents that mediated between the Dutchand Chinese parties, is that, from project initiation onwards, theDutch and Chinese championing parties acting at the policy andinnovation support system level had differing ideas about theDutch contribution to the project. The Dutch thought they couldsell technology, consultancy, and facility management services,whereas the Chinese merely wanted investors. Only after almost 3years did this contradiction become clear when the project wasended because of a lack of commitment on the Chinese side asperceived by the Dutch. Despite early warning by the Dutchconsulate representative on this difference in vision about theDutch role, the main championing actors (KnowHouse, Trans-Forum) stuck blindly to their preconceived idea of a real jointventure. As several respondents from the Greenport Shanghai case
indicated, they only recognized in hindsight that this had led todeadlock.
4.4. Complementarities in the process of network formation: formaland informal champion interaction produces an emergent and acatalyzing effect on the innovation process
The complementarity of different kinds of champions in shap-ing the innovation network and enhancing its effectiveness forachieving the goals of the main innovating firms could be clearlyobserved in the different cases. Not only communities of cham-pions, but also what may be called ‘chains of championing’emerged. In the Rondeel project, such a chain of championingwas built up in the obtainment of permits for the building of thefirst systems in the Barneveld municipality. The Kwetters salesmanager acted as a network champion forging contacts with theBarneveld municipality, assisted by ASG researcher 1 whosescientific background raised the status of the project (and whothus also in a way acted as a power champion), as illustrated bythe following quote from this researcher:
“You see that they use you, because they want to keep youinvolved, as ‘You are the one that invented the concept, and we needyou to tell the story, because they won't believe us’.”
Furthermore, the CEOs of Kwetters and Vencomatic acted aspower champions, emphasizing that other municipalities werealso interested in having the first Rondeel system, so Barneveldhad better take action. Barneveld, profiling itself as a poultrycenter, was eager to have the first; this resulted in the head of theeconomic department acting as technology and process champion,pushing the civil servants of the different technical departments tospeed up the process. This is shown by the following quote:
“I think we have a good view of the bigger picture, the technicaldepartments are specialists that look at it more narrowly. We said:the choice has been made to realize a Rondeel system here. Thisimplies that you have to step over those small problems, convincesomebody to prioritize this issue. Especially in the environmentaldepartment we had to stimulate, to get it going. But in my view atsome point that started to work well.”
So here there appeared to be a clear link between the policyand innovation support system level and the value chain level onthe one hand, and the company level on the other hand (in termsof Fichter's innovation community). Not only was there a cham-pioning chain at the company level of the municipality workingfrom inside the municipality towards speeding up the permitprocess, but also from the value chain level several innovationintermediaries were used for this purpose. Given their existingrelationships with many civil servants, the architect and theenvironmental consultancy agency could act as network andprocess champions, hence speeding up the process.
In the Sjalon case, the importance of having several effectivenetwork/relationship champions also showed. When the projectstagnated because of a lack of development funds, contact wassought with the Ministry of Agriculture, which was said to supportinnovative developments in the agri-food sector. However, theSjalon core network of innovators felt that they were not takenseriously by the ministry officials. Through an action of PPOresearcher 1 who acted both as technology and as networkchampion, direct contact was made with the then minister ofagriculture (an uncle of the researcher). The minister then acted asa ‘godfather of innovation’ by ordering that the request should betaken seriously. As a result, ministry officials took up the case andforged contact with innovation broker TransForum, which besidesoffering facilitation also had a development fund at its disposal.Overall, the presence of TransForum in all three cases shows aform of complementarity between champions from an input–output or an enabling and constraining stakeholder group and
L. Klerkx, N. Aarts / Technovation 33 (2013) 193–210204
those from a facilitating group. Whereas most of the championsfrom the first two stakeholder groups were proficient in network-ing, the added value of the facilitating group (the innovationbroker and innovation intermediary organizations that acted froma relatively impartial third-party position) was that:
(a)
they were able to broker access to radically different projectsthat input–output group (innovation producing) championswould disregard as being outside their direct scope of atten-tion. For example, in the Rondeel case, TransForum organizedvisits to other projects and organized workshops to whichthey invited other organizations (e.g. Southern Farmers’ Orga-nization [ZLTO] and their consultants); this brought a freshlook to the project, overcoming a deadlock over the egg-marketing strategy. As the T&S consultant said as regardsTransForum:
TransForum also was an important impetus to reinforcecooperation and get more focus on the process. And to guidethe process onto the right track, that it progressed again. Atthat time, progress was quite slow.
(b)
they were able to make connections that input–output groupchampions could not make because of their particular inter-ests, business or political sensitivities, and failed earlierattempts. For example, in the Rondeel case, ASG researcher2 and the T&S consultant were instrumental in maintainingproductive contacts with the ministry on risk funding, as thefollowing quotes by Vencomatic staff show:
Their relationships and independence are strong points. Look,Vencomatic is a business, it is never impartial, and [the T&Sconsultant] and [researcher 2] do possess this.” and “[The T&Sconsultant], we call him here ‘the crowbar for opening closeddoors’.
4.5. Conflicts in the process of network formation: role coordinationand role demarcation problems between champions and adverseinformality
4.5.1. Role coordination problemsWhereas the communities of champions and chains of cham-
pioning have beneficial aspects, they also have negative aspects.One such aspect is the lack of coordination between differentchampions on their specific responsibilities. As mentioned inSection 4.2, the pro-activeness of the prime-moving farmer as aproficient technology and network champion in the Sjalon casemeant that he continuously looked for network expansion.Throughout the value chain and the policy and innovation supportsystem levels within the innovation community, this causedconfusion and sometimes annoyance about the lack of clearnetwork coordination. For example, a civil servant at provinciallevel in Sjalon indicated stated that:
“The internal task division was not always clear to me, this onlybecame clear later, that [the prime-moving farmer] was the presidentof the initiative, that [PPO researcher 1] acted as a kind of secretaryand that [Oriellon facilitator] was an external facilitator. At the start,that fluctuated quite a lot, and then also [the accountant] got inbetween, additionally.”
In the Rondeel case, several respondents indicated that at thestart of the process they lost track of who was the principal contactperson for Rondeel: was this the Kwetters sales manager, the T&Sconsultant, ASG researcher 1, the Vencomatic CEO? This issuereflected noise in inter-organizational relationships and wasresolved when eventually Rondeel Ltd. was established as thespin-off firm that led the further development. Furthermore,
especially in the early networking efforts, there was a certaindegree of opportunism. The Kwetters sales manager approachedseveral organizations for support (e.g. other innovation brokerageand funding agencies such as the Gelderse Vallei Foundation), butthese contacts were not followed up, and so these organizationswere unsure about their future role. In the Greenport Shanghaicase also, there was considerable confusion as to the role distribu-tion among two leading network/process champions: the innova-tion brokers KnowHouse and TransForum. Their roles were evenunclear within the Dutch network, but the Chinese side inparticular was unclear about the mandates of both organizations.But similar uncertainties emerged as regards the position ofchampioning actors on the Chinese side. Coordination problemsbetween the project leader on the Chinese side, who acted asprocess champion, and the CEO of SIC, who acted as a powerchampion, were counterproductive. Because of strong hierarchicalrelationships, the project leader had an insufficient mandate andmaneuvering space to effectively negotiate with the Dutch coun-terparts. Furthermore, as became clear to the Dutch actors in alater stage, the innovation intermediary on the Chinese side (SIC)was not the appropriate partner with whom to cooperate todevelop Greenport Shanghai. The Dutch thought that they weredealing with a spatial planning and development organizationwith an adequate development mandate, but SIC's mandate waslimited to stimulating foreign investment.
4.5.2. Role demarcation problemsBesides initial coordination problems, in the Rondeel case, role
demarcation problems arose. At a later stage, several innovationintermediaries were added (through ZLTO) to the network, relatingto issues of egg-marketing and retail contacts. Here, the doubleidentity of the T&S consultant as a substantive expert in animalwelfare and retail contact issues and as a process facilitator andmediator between Rondeel Ltd and APS came into play and mani-fested itself as function ambiguity. From the observations and inter-views it became clear that the T&S consultant had problems acceptingthe new retail experts and the role of ZLTO. He saw their role asoverlapping with his own, and also threatening to his position aswelfare innovation/international retail expert, as he felt more con-fident in creating retail organizations’ commitment to work with aconcept like Rondeel in light of their Corporate Social Responsibilitypolicies, instead of just seeing it as getting another product on theshelves. But this was a difficult position, as the following quote shows:
“My role changed all of a sudden when ZLTO put this guy in as anexpert […] at that moment I felt as if I had two hats. On the one hand,I thought I could do better because I was dealing with another side ofretail […] but I know this sounds strange, because I have an interestin getting as much work for my own company as possible, that'ssimple. […] at some point then a compromise was reached […] as[Rondeel Ltd. manager] proposed to divide the tasks.”
This thus required a reordering of network champion positions.To avoid such coordination problems and conflicts, role demarca-tions were set both informally and formally. The problem wasresolved informally in the Rondeel case between the T&S con-sultant, who focused more on establishing connections withnational and international retailers, and the ZLTO consultants,who used their experience in marketing products with an addedanimal welfare factor from earlier projects. In contrast to whathappened in the Rondeel case, in the Sjalon case a formaldemarcation was set in an early stage between the differentinnovation intermediaries: here it was decided that the Oreillonfacilitator and PPO researcher 1 and later PPO researcher 2 wouldeach focus on different aspects, the former on overall processfacilitation of group dynamics and the others more as
L. Klerkx, N. Aarts / Technovation 33 (2013) 193–210 205
intermediaries between the Sjalon group and the differentresearch projects that supported the process.
4.5.3. Adverse informalityDespite the fact that informal interaction has benefits and can
lead to synergy as discussed in Section 4.4, it can also bedetrimental. In the case of Rondeel, using ASG researcher 2 toinformally approach the ministry to re-open talks on the issue ofrisk funding was seen as undesired behind-the-scenes lobbying.Nonetheless, it served its purpose, because later on more formalcontacts with the ministry were again established, this timefacilitated by the T&S facilitator. Furthermore, sometimes it wasthe intention – especially of the innovation producing actors(input–output stakeholders) – to employ informal network cham-pions, but was precluded by conflicts of interest. The Sjaloninnovators (mainly the prime-moving farmer and the Oreillonfacilitator) implicitly expected their accountant to recruit potentialparticipants from among its clientele. However, despite being verysympathetic to the project, the accountant could not take up sucha championing role as this would harm its position of neutralservice provider vis-à-vis its other clients:
“On the one hand you're advisor to Sjalon; on the other, there areother individual clients that want to participate. So in fact we weartwo hats, so you have to be careful, you're impartial. […] so you haveto look at the situation of the individual client, if they can participate.[..] we cannot say to Sjalon, we are going to push all clients toparticipate.”
4.6. Complementarities in innovation process management: thecatalyzing, buffering, and mitigating role of having innovationintermediaries and brokers as external process/network champions
As Kuada and Sørensen (2005) state, both specialized and non-specialized innovation brokers (i.e. innovation intermediaries whobroker as a side-activity) in the role of network/process championsshould not take away ownership of the innovation producingactors, among which there are also several network/processchampions. However, the cases display several examples in whichthere was complementarity in this sense within the broaderinnovation community of champions. For example in the Rondeelcase, TransForum assumed the role of project monitor after initialproblems with the coordination of the innovation project/networkhad been sorted out by the establishment of Rondeel Ltd. Thismeant that, as they were not involved in day-to-day networkorchestration, they aimed to create greater awareness on impor-tant issues from a more distanced position. This involved, forexample, creating awareness and knowledge on tailoring the‘Rondeel egg’ to consumer preferences and ensuring societalacceptance of the novel husbandry system design, by fundingsome specific research projects relevant to these issues. Further-more, because they also provided funding, they had the power tooblige Rondeel Ltd. to have monitoring workshops on the net-work's performance. Although initially looked uponwith suspicionas regards the added value, the Rondeel Ltd. managers who actedas technology and network champions came to see the benefit ofsuch workshops for better network performance. Another form ofcomplementarity arising from the interaction of facilitating inno-vation intermediaries with innovation producing champions canbe seen in Rondeel Ltd.'s dealings with the animal protectionsociety to get societal approval for this animal welfare innovation.Although Vencomatic's CEO, proficient in networking, had con-tacts with APS, his being also a power champion had the potentialto negatively influence the negotiations on the welfare certifica-tion. Conflicts in other projects with APS were bound to influence
the Rondeel project, and the Vencomatic CEO lacked the subtletyto resolve this, as a quote from the T&S consultant highlights:
“When [Vencomatic's CEO] comes in, he has such drive that hemesses it up. He says ‘you should just do it, nonsense, and if you don'tI'll have nothing more to do with you'. [ …]. I mean than you get suchan atmosphere and that does not help resolve the issues.”
In this case, the T&S consultant acted as mediator between aninnovation producing power champion (from an input–outputstakeholder group) and a process champion (from an enablingand constraining stakeholder group), mitigating the conflict bycautiously explaining the different viewpoints. Remarkably, thiswas perceived by many as him being a separator, preventing directinteraction. However, this was an explicit strategy on the part ofthe T&S consultant to prevent escalation of the conflict.
In the Sjalon case, a similar complementarity can be observedin the conflict (Section 4.1) over the land tenure issue. Thefacilitators closer to the innovation core network (the Oreillonfacilitator and PPO researchers 1 and 2) became so aligned withthe core network's view and position that they were unable toprovide a fresh look at the matter from an impartial stance. TheTransForum facilitator was still able to do this, as the followingquote illustrates:
“Through the eyes of Sjalon one gets the image of the TreasuryDepartment as a bureaucratic hindering force, blocking participationin Sjalon, whereas the talk with the director of the TD gave me theimpression of an organization that within its own limits is willing togo very far in supporting Sjalon, to the limit and even a bit further, butthat has to operate within the complex tenure situation in the North-Eastpolder.”
4.7. Conflicts in innovation process management: the risk ofinnovation intermediaries and brokers identifying themselves toomuch with the projects they facilitate
A clear conflict apparent in the Greenport Shanghai case is thatinnovation brokers started out as impartial brokers and mediatorsbut gradually developed their own agenda and became represen-tatives of certain parties within the broader Greenport Shanghainetwork. Given that the Greenport Shanghai agropark concept wasvery much aligned with TransForum's vision of realizing ‘metro-politan agriculture’, TransForum started to behave as a technologychampion with a very strong substantive influence on projectvision and daily project organization. This was opposed to theideas of the regional network – for which KnowHouse was thebroker – that strongly represented the regional interest of theprovince of Limburg. As a result, TransForum began to lose itscredibility as an impartial broker, but at the same time it alsoinduced a more political stance on the part of KnowHouse, alsoluring it into a more partial position. This created friction andfragmentation and even competition within the Dutch network.This is strikingly illustrated by a quote from a member ofTransForum's staff:
“Our friends from Limburg did a kind of coup d’état there […] Theprovince deputy said something like ‘all amateurs have to leave thefield now’ – obviously pointing at us – ‘and now the star players comein and we will organize the whole thing well’.”
This friction and fragmentation not only caused de-synchronization in the pace and direction of development withinthe different parts of the Dutch network, but, as mentioned inSection 4.3, was also detrimental to the contacts with the Chinesecounterparts. To mitigate these conflicts and incoherenciesbetween the different championing innovation brokers and theirconstituencies in the innovation network, the supervisory com-mittee was installed as ‘meta-facilitator’. However, it never gainedenough influence to become effective.
L. Klerkx, N. Aarts / Technovation 33 (2013) 193–210206
In the other cases, the influence of TransForum's vision wasmuch less noticeable, or less strictly imposed. The only nuisancereported was that TransForum's financial support entailed a lot ofbureaucracy, but this did not have an overly negative influence oninteraction in projects. In both the Rondeel and Sjalon projects,innovating firms had the freedom to stick to their business-drivenline, as opposed to being heavily steered by TransForum. Further-more, in the case of Rondeel the TransForum facilitator graduallyplaced herself at greater distance after Rondeel Ltd. was estab-lished and the innovation network became more coordinated. Adanger of this for TransForum was that network participantssometimes questioned the need for its involvement as it did nothave the status of expert but rather of jack of all trades and masterof none. But even when the latter role was accepted, no addedvalue was seen in it as others already fulfilled such a role. Thissometimes happened in the Sjalon network also, which was usingthe services of the Oreillon facilitator, and did not always seeadded value in TransForum. But as shown in Section 4.4, this couldalso be complementary. Other facilitators also always had to thinkcarefully about how they positioned themselves, such as the T&Sfacilitator who was mandated to act as go-between between theRondeel developers and APS, as documented in the minutes of asteering group held in June 2008:
“At this moment [T&S facilitator] is going back and forth betweenthe project and APS, later these parties will be brought together.”
When at the beginning of 2009 the parties were still divided,the Rondeel people started to feel that the T&S facilitator wasnoise in a direct relationship with APS. However, as shown inSection 4.6, his reason for maintaining this separation was toprevent the risk of escalating conflict.
5. Analysis and discussion
In this section, we distill and analyze the major findings of thestudy and mirror these to the existing champion and orchestrationtheory, thereby refining the insights on the construct of theinnovation community as a unified team of champions who havekey roles in orchestrating the broader innovation network.
5.1. Overall complementarities and conflicts in innovationcommunities’ orchestration efforts
The aim of this paper is to provide deeper insights on theinteraction between different kinds of champions that supposedlyact as a team in orchestrating the innovation network. The centralresearch questions which guided the analysis were: (1) how dodifferent champions interact in their effort to orchestrate multi-organizational innovation networks? (2) How are complementa-rities between different kinds of champions with different orga-nizational affiliations and stakes in the innovation shaped ininteraction? For the different orchestration activities (Pittawayet al. 2004; Batterink et al., 2010), the main complementarities ininnovation communities observed in the cases are:
•
As regards demand articulation, complementarity of differentchampions is in that their diversity enables constructing abroader vision (e.g. through contributions of researchers), butchampions from firms make sure these are grounded in realbusiness circumstances and do no remain too vague. Innova-tion brokers as facilitators thereby assist the other championsin achieving more focus in the vision they aim to realize.
•
In terms of network composition, complementarity betweenchampions is evident from the support provided to the net-work/process champions (amongst both the innovation produ-cing and facilitating actors) in the Rondeel and Sjalon cases by
several power champions (or even godfathers of innovation), orin the role of TransForum or other innovation brokers in forgingcontacts outside the known networks of the firms.
•
In terms of innovation process management, complementarityis shown especially by innovation brokers acting as mediatorsand facilitators from a tertius iungens position on certaininterfaces. Innovation producing actors (input–output andenabling and constraining stakeholders) champion with acertain interest in mind and may hence act as tertius gaudens,and in doing so they usually create tensions and resistance (cf.Markham and Aiman-Smith, 2001). As the Sjalon and Rondeelcases show, where there are escalating conflicts and dead-locks, the value of the relatively impartial position of specia-lized and non-specialized innovation brokers can be seen.Overall, an added value of innovation brokers is that theymore specifically focus on helping the innovation networkthrough critical moments of impetus and stagnation by pro-actively seeking to stimulate dynamic stability, aiming tocontrol the paradox that a stable basis is needed but can alsocause inertia (Håkansson and Ford, 2002). The results alsopoint at the complementarity between network/processchampions in the innovation community who focus more onthe micro level, who either are concerned with day-to-dayorchestration or focus on specific interfaces at the value chainlevel, and network/process champions who act as meta-facilitators, overseeing the bigger whole and principally mak-ing linkages at the policy and innovation support system levelof the innovation system (see Fig. 1).While these complemen-tarities largely confirm Fichters' (2009) findings on comple-mentary resources, networks and mutual support, there arealso problematic aspects of multiple champion interactions.Although the results do not contradict Fichter's (2009) find-ings on the importance of informal interaction, an in factinformality is key in innovation networking (Pittaway et al.2004). However, in line with ideas on dynamic stability andbalancing informal and formal relationships (Håkanssonand Ford, 2002; Dhanaraj and Parkhe, 2006) a theoreticalimplication that can be derived from the case studies whichnuances Fichter's (2009) findings is that too much informalityin innovation communities appears to be counterproductivefor the innovation process. Informality appears to beessential to the art of championing, which is about pushingin different ways against obstacles that seem immovable, but aresultant lack of coordination among champions may becounterproductive:• In terms of demand articulation, by disturbing the forma-tion of a sense of shared direction within the innovationcommunity and the innovation network in which it func-tions and thereby undermining its own purpose. This wasan initial problem in the Rondeel case and strongly con-tributed to failure in the Greenport Shanghai case.
• In terms of network composition, by engendering confusionabout who is the legitimate spokesperson amongst thoseactors with whom the group of innovators (or the innova-tion community) wishes to start new relationships. Forexample, the uncoordinated network formation actions ofthe Sjalon prime-moving farmer fall into this category. It canalso be seen as a trick to circumvent or overthrow formalpathways that should be followed in establishing contactswith network partners and doing business with them (thisresults in annoyance that may inhibit further interaction).For example, ASG researcher 2's lobbying at the ministry inthe Rondeel case relates to this issue. In another way, theposition of the accountants in the Sjalon case also relates tothis. Although sympathetic to the innovation, when theywere informally urged to take up a championing role they
L. Klerkx, N. Aarts / Technovation 33 (2013) 193–210 207
did not do this in order to maintain a legitimate position inthe service market.
• In terms of innovation process management, by engender-ing confusion about what certain actors do in their cham-pioning role (i.e. function ambiguity) and why they act as abroker at a certain interface. For example, when there isopacity about the usefulness of a role as go-between inbilateral relationships (e.g. suspecting that the T&S consul-tant acted as a tertius gaudens as a result of a hybrididentity) or what is the contribution of a meta-facilitatorsuch as TransForum.
As the results of the three case studies show, common belief,vision and goal, team spirit, and mutual support between indivi-dual champions can indeed enhance innovation network perfor-mance (cf. Hauschildt and Kirchmann, 2001; Fichter, 2009).However, a unified innovation community as a coordinated teamof champions may not form fully, or may even disintegrate. Theanalysis has a number of theoretical implications: that the con-struct of innovation community needs to be seen as an inherentlydynamic and layered concept (Section 5.2), that the innovationcommunity as aggregated innovation network orchestrator mayalso need orchestration (Section 5.3), and that innovation brokersas a new type of network/process champion are complementarybut also may contradict their very purpose (Section 5.4).
5.2. The relativity of common vision, team spirit, and mutual supportin innovation communities: teams of champions are dynamic andconstantly redefined
Although champions may benefit from mutual support andteam spirit, the results indicate that innovation communities,consisting of different champions, constantly and interactivelyredefine their activities in interaction. Conflicts relating to a lackof common belief and vision, a lack of coordination, or uncertaintyamongst champions as to how they are positioned vis-à-vis oneanother, often emerge under the influence of specific changes inthe context in which the innovation is taking place (in terms ofinnovation process events such as emerging technology needs andthe broadening of the network with new partners, networkcomposition changes such as the withdrawal of a participant).When then there is no realignment of champion interaction andcommon vision, these conflicts may mean the end of the innova-tion community and the innovation process, as happened in thecase of Greenport Shanghai.
However, following Marcus (2006), conflicts may also be atemporary state and induce readjustments of individual cham-pions’ contributions to help overcome barriers in the innovationprocess. A pattern of interchanging innovation community stabi-lity and reconfiguration can be observed. A new rebalancing ofchampioning roles is required each time the innovation processchanges direction because of internal dynamics within the net-work, or changes in the networks environment, in relation to thenetwork's need to become more closed (e.g. building trust) oropen again (e.g. in response to the need to engage in newrelationships to tackle emerging challenges) (cf. Håkansson andFord, 2002; Gilsing and Duysters, 2008). Adaptation of vision,resource needs, and network composition implies that newchampions arrive and existing champions may leave, inducing aperiod of temporary function ambiguity in which there is uncer-tainty about roles, position and functionality (cf. Koch, 2004;Barlow et al. 2006; Klerkx and Leeuwis 2008). In such a periodof turbulence (for example shown in the case of ASG researcher1 vs. Kwetters, the T&S consultant vs. the ZLTO consultants, andPPO facilitators and the Oreillon facilitator), champions need torenegotiate their relationships and rebuild trust. Some champions
function only for a determined period, as for example in the caseof the Barneveld officials, architect, and environmental consul-tancy who championed within that specific setting within theRondeel case.
A theoretical implication of these findings is that innovationcommunities, rather than being a single clearly defined and ratherstatic network, are in fact dynamic multi-layered or stratifiedentities. In line with ideas on the fluidity of boundaries ofinnovation networks (Håkansson and Ford, 2002), the boundariesof innovation communities are also dynamic. However, thereappears to be (although not always explicitly formalized) a certainordering depending on the developments in the innovationprocess of some actors that can be characterized as core actorsand others as peripheral (which has also be found elsewhere in theinnovation network literature, but not specifically applied tochampions—see Harrisson and Laberge, 2002; Knoben et al.,2006; Meeus and Faber, 2006). As schematized in Fig. 5, thosechampions that form part of this core network (overseeing andorchestrating the overall innovation network and process) belongto what could be called the primary innovation community, andactors that act as orchestrating network/process champions incertain sub-trajectories can be considered secondary innovationcommunities. Here, the primary innovation community, throughone or more champions in it, induces and oversees (i.e. orches-trates) actions in the secondary innovation communities, whichare often temporary (for example, the chain of championing in theRondeel permit procedures). On the other hand, certain cham-pions present in the secondary community may strongly influencethe composition and actions of champions in the primary innova-tion community, as the example of the T&S consultant vis-à-visthe ZLTO consultants indicates. The primary innovation commu-nity may also change endogenously, e.g. by the departure of adominant firm (e.g. Kwetters in the case of Rondeel).
5.3. The innovation community orchestrates—and needs to beorchestrated
Given that the innovation community is a layered and dynamicentity, a second issue relates to the coordination of the differentchampions in their capacity as network/process champion (either astheir core identity or in their role as technology or power champion)in orchestrating the broader innovation network. All the innovationnetworks in the studied cases essentially started quite small (e.g. withthe Sjalon brainstorming group and the technical committee atRondeel) but, as the networks grew over time and became complex,they shifted to forms of brokered orchestration. This confirms the ideaof evolution in orchestration proposed by Provan and Kenis (2008),and relates to the paradox of managing informality and flexibility ofnetworks versus more formal strucured relationships and efficiency(cf. Håkansson and Ford, 2002; Provan and Kenis, 2008). However, theorchestrating entity appears to be less centralized than indicated byDhanaraj and Parkhe, 2006 and Provan and Kenis, 2008, but appearsto follow the ideas of Gray (2008) on that there are several actorswhich have a central broker role in parts of the network. What can beseen is that instead of having a central and organizationally distinctlead/hub firm or NAO that acts as a network broker, the primaryinnovation community as a team often acts as an ‘aggregatedorchestrator’ consisting of several cooperating champions acting asnetwork brokers. Given its nature of dynamic network, the primaryinnovation community acting as an aggregated orchestrator needs toachieve a certain task division in orchestrating the broader innovationnetwork in which the complementarities of the different network/process champions are optimally made use of. Given the severalincoherencies such as (temporary) function ambiguities and divergingvisions (see Section 5.2), the theoretical implication is that a primaryinnovation community as an informal team of champions thus needs a
C
C
Innovation community supervisory board (optional)
Supervisory
board may
orchestrate
innovation
community as
overarching
NAO
Innovation
community
can be
orchestrated
by participants
or one of the
members acts
as lead
organization
or NAO, or
this may also
be done by an
external body
(supervisory
board)
Actor/
organization
from main
innovation
community
orchestrates
actions at
lower levels
(subnetworks/
subtrajectories
within overall
innovation) Actors-organization
from secondary
innovation
communities may
grow out of (part of )
main innovation
community or start to
form part of primary
innovation community
Primary innovation community across different levels
(firm, chain, policy/innovation support system level)
Examples: technical committee and later steering group in
Rondeel project , brainstorm group and later TransForum project
group in Sjalon project
Non-
specialized
innovation
brokers
Specialized
innovation
brokers
Hub firm b
C C
C C
Hub firm a
C C
C C
Secondary
innovation
community
Example:
‘chain of
champions’
Barneveld in
Rondeel project
C
C
C
C
CSecondary
innovation
community
Example:
ZLTO people
and their
consultants in
Rondeel
project around
marketing egg
C
C
CC
Overall innovation network (multi-actor and multi-organization)
Fig. 5. Schematized representation of the stratification within innovation communities. Primary innovation communities act here as orchestrators of secondary innovationcommunities which are connected to specific sub-trajectories within the overall innovation. Dotted lines and text boxes give supplementary information on relationships. Cstands for champion.
L. Klerkx, N. Aarts / Technovation 33 (2013) 193–210208
certain degree of orchestration itself and needs to formalize. Fichter(2009) found that informality was especially relevant in the ‘fuzzyfront end’ of the innovation process, but as our results showsinnovation network consolidation also implies innovation communityformalization. If champions from the different organizations at thefirm, chain, and policy and innovation support system level (seeFigs. 1 and 5) do not interact properly, i.e. if a primary innovationcommunity does not function as a coordinated team, overall innova-tion network performance may be threatened. In the Shanghai case, asthe primary innovation community did not succeed to orchestrateitself and none of the organizations in it was able to do it as leadorganization/hub firm or NAO, a higher level structure was (unsuc-cessfully) called into being to act as a NAO for this innovationcommunity.
5.4. The positioning of innovation brokers vis-à-vis the othernetwork/process champions: the importance of safeguarding theirtertius iungens position
As the results show, innovation brokers do not necessarily actas stand-alone NAO's, but complement innovation networkorchestrating capacity of input–output stakeholders, by enhancingdynamic stability. From their tertius iungens position they cancounteract possible tertius gaudens behavior of other process/network champions and thus increase the legitimacy and effec-tiveness of the innovation community as an aggregated orches-trator. However, their tertius iungens position is constantlychallenged. Some of the challenges seen in the cases are havebeen reported earlier, such as the need to avoid becoming an over-
L. Klerkx, N. Aarts / Technovation 33 (2013) 193–210 209
bureaucratizing and over-managing entity (cf. Kuada andSørensen, 2005; Provan and Kenis, 2008), or avoid that hybrididentities as both facilitating and input–output stakeholders influ-ence honesty in searching, scoping, and matchmaking networkpartners (cf. Klerkx and Leeuwis, 2009).
However, the cases also highlight the problem that in expres-sing a too strong substantive interest innovation brokers becomean innovation producing actor instead of a facilitator (as happenedwith PPO researcher 1 and the Oreillon facilitator in the Sjaloncase, and with KnowHouse in the Greenport Shanghai andTransForum in the Greenport Shanghai case). Thus they lose theirlegitimacy and effectiveness as honest broker and facilitatorwithin the innovation community, in the broader innovationnetwork, or in both. This then leads to the contradiction thatthose that intend, and are specifically appointed, to fulfill animportant innovation network orchestrating role from a tertiusiungens position undermine the effectiveness of the innovationcommunity as a whole by not sufficiently supporting overall goalalignment or by even acting as tertius gaudens. This nuances thelargely positive connotation that is often given in the literature tospecialized innovation brokers (e.g. Batterink et al., 2010; Provanand Kenis, 2008; Katzy et al., 2013). However, in light of the needto sometimes ‘creatively destruct’ the existing innovation net-works, as a key task of innovation brokers is managing dynamicstability, so this appears to be a dilemmawhich innovation brokerswill continuously have to deal with. If they not succeed to managethis dilemma, to safeguard the coherence of the innovationcommunity and innovation brokers’ effectiveness in the broaderinnovation network, the innovation community calls for measuressuch as replacement of the innovation broker in question ororchestration of innovation brokers by a supervisory board (seeSection 4.7 and Fig. 5).
6. Conclusion
In terms of its contribution to innovation champion theory, thisstudy has confirmed that the construct of an innovation commu-nity as a distributed team of innovation champions is useful asboth an analytical and a managerial concept. Complementaritieslie in different champions reinforcing each others’ actions, orsupplementing these with additional actions, or, in the event ofcounterproductive behavior, buffering and counteracting suchbehavior. An over-simplified notion of innovation communitiesas unified champions of innovation, as coined by Fichter (2009),should be avoided however. Complementarities are negotiated ininteraction, and lack of reflection on each others’ roles may alsoresult in role conflicts. These conflicts may again lead to newcomplementarities but also to innovation community and subse-quently innovation network failure. Thus, in terms of the questionwhether different cooperating champions always appear as a teamHauschildt and Kirchmann, 2001 it can be concluded that (a)innovation communities as teams of champions are not stable butdynamic entities, which may also have subdivisions, and (b)although essential to the innovation process, they are not auto-matically beneficial. A managerial implication is that innovationcommunities as teams of champions are also subject to thedilemma’s and paradoxes of network management and they needactive reflection on role divisions and coordination between thedifferent kinds of champions and hence need some form oforchestration themselves, to balance innovation community open-ness, flexibility and informality with closure and more formalworking procedures. In contrast with the idea of them beinginformal, innovation communities may thus also formalize, andmay need to build capacity (in terms of champion selection and
support—see Kelley et al., 2011) to optimize the different cham-pions’ effectiveness.
Given the generalizability limitations of our explorative study,further enquiry is needed to see whether the findings reportedhere can be observed in other innovation networks. The idea ofstratification and orchestration of innovation communities as ateam of champions in a broader innovation network needs furthersubstantiation, and may benefit from further integration of theliteratures on innovation champions and innovation networkorchestration. In terms of managerial questions, key issues includethe optimal moments to actively address the coordination multi-ple innovation champion interaction and strategically choose aparticular orchestration form (for both the innovation networkand the innovation community). Determining the optimal degreeof involvement and role demarcation of innovation brokers asdedicated external providers of network/process championingservices for orchestrating the innovation network remains anotherkey challenge.
Acknowledgements
The constructive comments of two anonymous reviewers werevery helpful in improving the article. We gratefully acknowledgethe financial support of TransForum which enabled this study.
References
Ahuja, G., 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a long-itudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly 45, 425–455.
Baglieri, D., Cinici, M.C., Mangematin, V., 2012. Rejuvenating clusters with ‘sleepinganchors’: the case of nanoclusters. Technovation 32, 245–256.
Barlow, J., Bayer, S., Curry, R., 2006. Implementing complex innovations in fluid multi-stakeholder environments: experiences of ‘telecare'. Technovation 26, 396–406.
Batterink, M.H., Wubben, E.F.M., Klerkx, L., Omta, S.W.F., 2010. Orchestratinginnovation networks: the case of innovation brokers in the agri-food sector.Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 22, 47–76.
Burt, R.S., 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology 110,349–399.
Caerteling, J.S., Di Benedetto, C.A., Dorée, A.G., Halman, J.I.M., Song, M., 2011.Technology development projects in road infrastructure: the relevance ofgovernment championing behavior. Technovation 31, 270–283.
Candemir, B., Van Lente, H., 2007. Intermediary organisations: Bridges, Catalyst, orNoise? An analysis of Agricultural Biotechnology in the Netherlands. In: TripleHelix 6 Conference. School of Engineering, National University of Singapore.
Clausen, T., Rasmussen, E., 2011. Open innovation policy through intermediaries:the industry incubator programme in Norway. Technology Analysis andStrategic Management 23, 75–85.
De Bruijn, H., ten Heuvelhof, E., 2008. Management in Networks: On Multi-actorDecision Making. Routledge, London.
Dhanaraj, C., Parkhe, A., 2006. Orchestrating innovation networks. The Academy ofManagement Review 31, 659–669.
Ferneley, E., Bell, F., 2006. Using bricolage to integrate business and informationtechnology innovation in SMEs. Technovation 26, 232–241.
Fichter, K., 2009. Innovation communities: the role of networks of promotors inOpen Innovation. R&D Management 39, 357–371.
Fleming, L., Waguespack, D.M., 2007. Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leader-ship in open innovation communities. Organization Science 18, 165–180.
Freeman, C., 1991. Networks of innovators: a synthesis of research issues. ResearchPolicy 20, 499–514.
Gassmann, O., Daiber, M., Enkel, E., 2011. The role of intermediaries in cross-industry innovation processes. R&D Management 41, 457–469.
Gilsing, V.A., Duysters, G.M., 2008. Understanding novelty creation in explorationnetworks—structural and relational embeddedness jointly considered. Techno-vation 28, 693–708.
Gilsing, V.A., Lemmens, C.E.A.V., Duysters, G., 2007. Strategic alliance networks andinnovation: a deterministic and voluntaristic view combined. TechnologyAnalysis and Strategic Management 19, 227–249.
Gray, B., 2008. Enhancing transdisciplinary research through collaborative leader-ship. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35, S124–S132.
Gredel, D., Kramer, M., Bend, B., 2012. Patent-based investment funds as innovationintermediaries for SMEs: in-depth analysis of reciprocal interactions, motivesand fallacies. Technovation 32, 536–549.
Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Bos, A.P., 2008. Designing complex and sustainableagricultural production systems: an integrated and reflexive approach for thecase of table egg production in the Netherlands. NJAS—Wageningen Journal ofLife Sciences 55, 113–138.
L. Klerkx, N. Aarts / Technovation 33 (2013) 193–210210
Gupta, S., Cadeaux, J., Dubelaar, C., 2006. Uncovering multiple champion roles inimplementing new-technology ventures. Journal of Business Research 59,549–563.
Håkansson, H., Ford, D., 2002. How should companies interact in businessnetworks? Journal of Business Research 55, 133–139.
Hansson, F., Husted, K., Vestergaard, J., 2005. Second generation science parks: fromstructural holes jockeys to social capital catalysts of the knowledge society.Technovation 25, 1039–1049.
Harrisson, D., Laberge, M., 2002. Innovation, identities and resistance: the socialconstruction of an innovation network. Journal of Management Studies 39,497–521.
Hauschildt, J., Kirchmann, E., 2001. Teamwork for innovation—the ‘troika’ ofpromotors. R&D Management 31, 41–49.
Howell, J.M., Boies, K., 2004. Champions of technological innovation: the influenceof contextual knowledge, role orientation, idea generation, and idea promotionon champion emergence. Leadership Quarterly 15, 123–143.
Howell, J.M., Shea, C.M., Higgins, C.A., 2005. Champions of product innovations:defining, developing, and validating a measure of champion behavior. Journalof Business Venturing 20, 641–661.
Howells, J., 2006. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation.Research Policy 35, 715–728.
Katzy, B., Turgut, E., Holzmann, T., Sailer, K., 2013. Innovation intermediaries: aprocess view on open innovation coordination. Technology Analysis & StrategicManagement 25, 295–309.
Kelley, D., Lee, H., 2010. Managing innovation champions: the impact of projectcharacteristics on the direct manager role. Journal of Product InnovationManagement 27, 1007–1019.
Kelley, D.J., O'Connor, G.C., Neck, H., Peters, L., 2011. Building an organizationalcapability for radical innovation: the direct managerial role. Journal of Engi-neering and Technology Management 28, 249–267.
Kirkels, Y., Duysters, G., 2010. Brokerage in SME networks. Research Policy 39, 375–385.Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., 2008. Balancing multiple interests: embedding innovation
intermediation in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure. Technovation 28,364–378.
Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., 2009. The emergence and embedding of innovation brokersat different innovation system levels: insights from the Dutch agriculturalsector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76, 849–860.
Klerkx, L., Aarts, N., Leeuwis, C., 2010. Adaptive management in agriculturalinnovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and theirenvironment. Agricultural Systems 103, 390–400.
Knoben, J., Oerlemans, L.A.G., Rutten, R.P.J.H., 2006. Radical changes in inter-organizational network structures: the longitudinal gap. Technological Fore-casting and Social Change 73, 390–404.
Koch, C., 2004. Innovation networking between stability and political dynamics.Technovation 24, 729–739.
Kuada, J., Sørensen, O.J., 2005. Facilitated inter-firm collaboration in Ghana: the caseof Danida's private-sector development projects. Development in Practice 15,475–489.
Mansfeld, M.N., Hölzle, K., Gemünden, H.G., 2010. Personal characteristics ofinnovators—an empirical study of roles in innovation management. Interna-tional Journal of Innovation Management 14, 1129–1147.
Marcus, E.C., 2006. Change and conflict. Motivation, resistance and commitment.In: Deutch, M., Coleman, P.T., Marcus, E.C. (Eds.), The Handbook of ConflictResolution. Theory and Practice. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, pp. 436–455.
Markham, S.K., Ward, S.J., Aiman-Smith, L., Kingon, A.I., 2010. The valley of death ascontext for role theory in product innovation. Journal of Product InnovationManagement 27, 402–417.
Meeus, M., Faber, J., 2006. Interorganization relations and innovation: a review andtheoretical extension. In: Hage, J., Meeus, M. (Eds.), Innovation, Science andInstitutional Change. A Research Handbook. Oxford University Press, Oxford,pp. 68–87.
Muhdi, L., Boutellier, R., 2011. Motivational factors affecting participation andcontribution of members in two different swiss innovation communities.International Journal of Innovation Management 15, 543–562.
Obstfeld, D., 2005. Social Networks, the Tertius Iungens Orientation, and Involve-ment in Innovation Administrative Science Quarterly 50, 100–130.
Perkmann, M., Walsh, K., 2008. Engaging the scholar: three types of academicconsulting and their impact on universities and industry. Research Policy 37,1884–1891.
Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., Neely, A., 2004. Networking andinnovation: a systematic review of the evidence. International Journal ofManagement Reviews 5–6, 137–168.
Pollock, T.G., Porac, J.F., Wade, J.B., 2004. Constructing deal networks: brokers asnetwork “architects“in the U.S. IPO market and other examples. Academy ofManagement Review 29, 50–72.
Provan, K.G., Kenis, P., 2008. Modes of network governance: structure, manage-ment, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory18, 229–252.
Ring, P.S., Van de Ven, A., 1994. Developmental processes of cooperative inter-organizational networks. Academy of Management Review 19, 90–118.
Sapsed, J., Grantham, A., DeFillippi, R., 2007. A bridge over troubled waters:bridging organisations and entrepreneurial opportunities in emerging sectors.Research Policy 36, 1314–1334.
Smeets, P.J.A.M., 2009. Expeditie agroparken: ontwerpend onderzoek naar metro-politane landbouw en duurzame ontwikkeling. Alterra, Wageningen UR,Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Smith, D.J., 2007. The politics of innovation: why innovations need a godfather.Technovation 27, 95–104.
Smits, R., Kuhlmann, S., 2004. The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy.International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 1, 4–30.
Swan, J., Goussevskaia, A., Newell, S., Robertson, M., Bresnen, M., Obembe, A., 2007.Modes of organizing biomedical innovation in the UK and US and the role ofintegrative and relational capabilities. Research Policy 36, 529–547.
Strauss, A., Corbin, C., 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques andProcedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications, ThousandOaks.
Steuten, C.D.M., Van Bommel, S., Klerkx, L., Aarts, N., 2011. Greenport Shanghai:tussen droom en werkelijkheid. Wageningen University, Sub-departmentCommunication Science, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Van de Ven, A.H., Polley, D.E., Garud, R., Venkatamaran, S., 1999. The InnovationJourney. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Van Woerkum, C., Aarts, N., 2008. Staying connected: the communication betweenorganizations and their environment. Corporate Communications 13, 197–211.
Weick, K.E., 1977. Laboratory experimentation with organization: a reappraisal.The Academy of Management Review 2, 123–128.
Winch, G.M., Courtney, R., 2007. The organization of innovation brokers: aninternational review. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 19,747–763.
Williams, P., 2002. The competent boundary spanner. Public Administration 80,103–124.
Yin, R.K., 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks,California.
