Open Innovation: Symbiotic Network

IAMA PAPER

Open innovation: symbiotic network

Knowledge circulation and competencies for the benefit of innovation in the Horticulture delta

Presentation IAMA Chicago 2005

Doc: 7058 19 April 2005 W. Maijers, INHOLLAND University L. Vokurka, INHOLLAND University R. van Uffelen & P. Ravensbergen (Wageningen University Research Centre) 1. INTRODUCTION______4 Reason______4 Knowledge and innovation; starting points in thinking______4 Definitions with regard to knowledge______6 2. KNOWLEDGE REQUIREMENTS IN THE HORTICULTURE CLUSTER______7 Innovation tasks______7 New knowledge requirements______8 3. NEW MODELS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, DISSEMINATION AND______9 APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE______9 End of the linear diffusion model?______10 Non-linear model: open knowledge & innovation networks______10 Interactive knowledge development______11 Requirements for development route of the control model______13 4. CONSEQUENCES OF A NEW CONTROL MODEL______14 Demand articulation new form______14 5. DESIGN OF KNOWLEDGE & INNOVATION NETWORKS______16 Open organic knowledge and innovation networks: connect!______16 Developments with regard to knowledge circulation requirements for institutions______16 6. RESEARCH QUESTIONS______19 CONCLUSIONS______20 LITERATURE:______21 MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

The glasshouse horticulture cluster has developed greatly and undergone major changes in recent years. The business models are sharply differentiated and the product market combinations being served differ greatly. The existing knowledge and innovation model based on linear knowledge development and diffusion and controlled via programming is no longer adequate.

The innovation requirement demands a knowledge infrastructure that is capable of responding to innovation demands. Translating these innovation demands into knowledge is not an easy task. It is an interactive process whereby the entrepreneurs and members of the knowledge infrastructure work together on a reciprocal basis. Sending, communication and interaction are important components of the process. The innovation question can be resolved by combining knowledge and competencies in order to insure that the knowledge can be applied.

For the horticulture cluster a different knowledge and innovation control model will be used, depending on the demand. 1. If interaction between those demanding knowledge and those supplying knowledge needs to be stimulated because people do not find one another automatically, the network model is suitable. 2. If the core problem is the lack of research capacity or knowledge, the familiar programming model (thematic or via reallocation) can be useful. 3. For complex change tasks an effective mix must be found, hybrid model.

This new technique will have consequences for all participants. The public and private organisations will be given a different role. In the hybrid model participants will have different roles in the various control models. As yet the sector has had little experience with this new technique. Several initiatives in the horticulture delta are experimenting with various methods. Further control of these experiments must provide an answer to questions about the organisation of network control, the demand articulation process and knowledge circulation. 1. INTRODUCTION

Reason

In recent years the Dutch glasshouse horticulture cluster has undergone major changes within the development fields: market, society and technology. Traditionally the cluster has been supported by a powerful triptych of research, information and education. The removal of this triptych in the early 90's gave rise to the question of what is the most suitable knowledge & innovation network structure for innovation in the horticulture delta. This document contains proposals for the effective steering of knowledge development and for the opening up and transfer of this knowledge so that the horticulture delta can retain and further strengthen its worldwide renown. This document also looks at how the actors in the horticulture cluster can work with developers and translators of knowledge in order to realise this.

Knowledge and innovation; starting points in thinking

Within businesses innovation is a combination of technological innovation and innovation in the market and organisation. Innovation is only an innovation when it is applied, until then it is just an idea. The ‘drivers’ behind innovative processes are prompted by numerous aspects and can differ per business, place and time. In innovation getting from idea to application requires not only knowledge, but also a change in behaviour and attitude on the part of employees. The knowledge and innovation network - both in a public and private context - must therefore connect knowledge creation to knowledge application.

In businesses the process of innovation is changing from a closed to an open innovation system. Figure 1 shows that there has been a shift over time towards ever increasing cooperation in the area of innovations between businesses themselves, and between businesses and knowledge institutions. Figure 1. Changes of R&D out-sourcings (EIRMA, 2005)

The rules of play of innovation processes are entirely different to those of 50 or even 10 years ago. “Innovation no longer takes place within a vertically-integrated company with everything in-house. Instead of that an open cooperation between businesses themselves and between businesses, research centres and universities is regarded as the most favourable approach. In this new model different principles apply and open and interactive networks are essential” (Wijffels 2004). Open innovation systems mean that networks of organisations (private and public) are involved in the innovation (Chesbrough 2003).

The argument from the Dutch Innovation platform - set up by the government to stimulate the Dutch knowledge-intensive industry - concerning the Flower and Food-business is:

‘It is precisely the making of the connection between knowledge institutions and innovative suppliers, principal entrepreneurs and buyers that forms a challenge for horticulture’.

The guiding principle for strengthening the innovation must not be the optimisation of academic performances, or the optimisation of social performances; on the contrary, the integrated approach towards innovation is crucial. Actively controlling the connection between academic and social performances will increase the effectiveness of the innovation system. So institutional changes must be aimed at creating this integrated approach. In practice this means promoting an open infrastructure in which businesses and knowledge parties can interact accessibly around a specific innovation task. At present the Netherlands does not apply an integrated approach towards the innovation chain and/or network. (Zegveld, 2004). The process for achieving innovation must be controlled explicitly and consciously. The control of knowledge productivity is aimed at increasing the social impact of knowledge so that the horticulture delta will still be competitive in, say, 2015. This requires innovation on the main elements: business facilities, production processes, logistics, ICT, market and image, a good spatial territorial lay-out and infrastructure, etc. and innovations at various aggregation levels: 1) product, 2) process, 3) business/system 4) chain and market, and 5) society

The question is what is required to allow the actors in the horticulture delta to take the lead so that the knowledge development and circulation required for the necessary innovations can be demand-driven.

So the methodology must work in two directions. On the one hand the demand from industry is key. On the other hand, knowledge from the knowledge infrastructure, via thorough development and circulation, must play a stimulating (sometimes pulling, sometimes pushing), reflecting and considering role in innovation processes and competency development within the horticulture delta. This interactive approach proceeds from a well- understood own interest and complimentarity and specialisation are essential (Zegveld, 2004).

The way in which open knowledge & innovation networks can be designed is the core of this paper.

Definitions with regard to knowledge

Knowledge: Knowledge is not a commodity that you can trade. Knowledge is allocated by people via the processing of information based on their experience, skills and attitudes. This definition of knowledge is based on the flow model

Knowledge = I x f (E xV x A) Here knowledge is broadly described as Information processed by means of a function of the Experience, Skills and Attitude of the person possessing the information. (Leeuwis, 2004). Knowledge is only relevant if it connects with the perceived problem.

Knowledge circulation: Involve one another, learn from each other and combine and integrate one another's knowledge. Decisions are arrived at by combining different types of knowledge from various disciplines.

Knowledge development: The fact that knowledge is developed at universities and research centres, if necessary customised through education, consultancies, representatives, etc., is put to practical use.

Competency: The capacity of a person to deal with a particular problem, through possessing and being able to fully utilise specific knowledge, skills and attitudes.

Knowledge infrastructure: The entire body of parties (public and private) who possess knowledge, can develop this and who are able to bring this to the user in a form that relates to the question.

2. KNOWLEDGE REQUIREMENTS IN THE HORTICULTURE CLUSTER

Innovation tasks

If we look at the technological and institutional innovation tasks in (glasshouse) horticulture during the period 1945-2000, four successive periods can be identified (Buurma, 2001). Each period represents a specific development with specific knowledge requirements (see table 1).

Table 1 Characterisation of post-war periods (glasshouse horticulture)(Buurma, 2001)

Period Characterisation Key-words Knowledge aspects 1945 – 1965 Reconstruction & Soil productivity Research and information as Food safety Crop protection trouble-shooters Variety improvement Auctions increase sharply

1965- 1980 Mechanisation Heating Close cooperation between Climate control government and industry Plant material Development of the Mechanisation of agricultural knowledge system labour (OVO/Research, Information, Large-scale export education triptych) through liberalisation EU market

1980- 1993 Computerisation Introduction of The knowledge system computer boosts supports the introduction of hydroponic new technology. cultivation, Study groups for growers. trickle irrigation, CO2 Development of management fertilization, information systems. assimilation- Auctions develop data- clarification processing, as well as guidelines for environmentally aware cultivation.

1993 – 2000 Chain reversal Great changes in Emergence of chain-thinking, sales structure and growers' associations and knowledge system: brand strategy. Market changes from Social concerns play a greater supply-driven to role (e.g. environment) demand-driven. Licence to Produce Privatisation of information and Knowledge system breaks up research into individual parties.

2000 - …… Mobilisation & Multidisciplinary Knowledge circulation instead Integration approach of knowledge development: Combination of Networks, Communications or various types of Practice, Knowledge circles, knowledge

From “formula to Socio-technical Networks, concept” Knowledge groups, Demand- and supply- Horticultural academy; articulation Globalisation production and Chains and chain market. management Certification and quality assurance systems Supply chain management Licence to Deliver

New knowledge requirements Since 2000, during the period Mobilisation & Integration, a range of innovation tasks has developed, whereby customisation of knowledge development and utilisation is needed at individual company level, as well as in chains and clusters of companies.

The knowledge required for innovation not only relates more to cultivation technology, it is also diverse and context-dependent: technical know-how, management, HRM, economics, market, chain and social environment, etc. This makes the knowledge requirement or innovation task more multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary and makes the problem more difficult to define. In addition it was and is necessary to make the switch from formula information to developing the competencies of entrepreneurs, so that each entrepreneur can ask his own questions and can then work at finding his own solutions. So all of this requires that, instead of the entrepreneur being told what he must do and how he must do it, he will be provided with concepts that will enable him to get to work himself, in other words - from ‘formula to concept’. This requires a different type of control model from the knowledge & innovation network, so that parties can respond rapidly to demands from the market and developed knowledge can be customised and quickly put into practice. In this the form of the knowledge is no longer well-defined but responds to the needs of the party requiring knowledge: customised. In order to work in this way, flexibility must be at the forefront of both research and education.

Industry requires substantive knowledge and guidance in resolving innovation problems from the knowledge infrastructure, but also linked to that competency profiles at employee level. In innovation in businesses you will have to involve each employee at his own level (this has consequences for those who have to do that ).

Effective innovation can only be achieved with the backing of the entire company. Professionals active in the Horticulture delta must have a ‘life-long learning’ mentality. The interdisciplinary knowledge requirements and innovation tasks at the various levels must be able to count on a demand-driven knowledge infrastructure which must support the core tasks presented in the following diagram.

CORE TASK

INNOVATION AGRI&FOOD

COMPETENCY MANAGERS COMPETENCY EMPLOYEES FARMER

INNOVATION FARMER

Figure: 4 Core task for the demand-driven knowledge infrastructure is the realisation of the necessary interaction between the innovation and the corresponding competency problems among the various target groups (Maijers, 2004, press com.)

This complex and interdisciplinary whole requires that the research and education (the entire MBO-HBO-WO column) approaches practical training in a way that is progressive, responsive and pro-active. The professionals must be equipped with the appropriate knowledge and competencies. This also includes competencies relating to the ability to handle knowledge. The gathering of knowledge and its translation into operational management. Interaction between the education column, research and practical training is a two-sided process. The old linear 'serving-hatch' principle must be abandoned (VNO-NCW, 2004).

3. NEW MODELS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, DISSEMINATION AND APPLICATION OF KNOWLEDGE End of the linear diffusion model? The old paradigms are based on the assumption that knowledge is developed in universities and research centres. This knowledge often has no direct practical application. Consequently all sorts of parties work on applying this knowledge to the entrepreneurs on the ground.

According to the old paradigms, the knowledge column or knowledge infrastructure works on the principle of programmed knowledge development and dissemination. The assumption is that given the dynamics and the differentiation of present-day problems, with the existing company structure and development of entrepreneurs, the programmed model alone is no longer enough.

Following on from the programmed knowledge development model, Rogers developed the linear diffusion model in the seventies: Innovators develop knowledge which then circulates to Early Adopters, via Early Majority to Late Majority (see figure below). Rogers' assumption here was that people are in the same social system, they differ only in the moment at which they adopt an innovation. And there lies the criticism: this approach is too limited. There are different types of entrepreneurs and different contexts.

Non linear innovation

Supply demand

Government More applied More Academic More economic finances academic science and Knowledge growth research Technology

Fundamental practical Theory application

Sticking points:

• Cycle times of each step are vary • Each step has other groups of actors with different payment mechanisms • These groups also sometimes speak a different language • The model is insufficiently demand-driven • Academic knowledge on a pedestal: other knowledge disqualified

1/30 Bron: Vasbinder & Groen (2002)

Figure 6 Linear innovation: (2002, Vasbinder, Groen)

Non-linear model: open knowledge & innovation networks The shift to more multidisciplinary knowledge requirements and innovation tasks coming from the various influences (developments in market, society and policy) lead to the new non- linear organic open knowledge and innovation network based on knowledge circulation. non-lineair innovation

Demand Supply Demand Supply Practice Theory Practice Theory

Planning & implementing solution

Diagnose & Development Draft Selecting problem design sollution case definition kwoledge

Reflectingon results

Context Methods Solutions Knowledge

Figure 7. Non-Linear innovation (2004, Andriessen)

In contrast to the linear model, the non-linear draft model (figure 7) starts from a problem definition decided by the person(s) requiring knowledge (the question is at the centre) and develops immediately into an interactive building up of a knowledge base which accelerates the implementation and scaling-up of the innovation. As well as paying attention to knowledge, the network model also pays attention to the building up of skills and attitude (competency thinking). Industry in the horticulture delta demands substantial know-how in all forms of innovation, but linked to that are competency questions at employee level. Knowledge building and transfer involves the combination of vision, knowledge, content, behaviour and skills.

Interactive knowledge development Interactive knowledge development has consequences (Van Woerkum 1999): 1. from unilateral to reciprocal: this involves communication channels that permit two- way traffic; 2. from central to local: the “old” knowledge dissemination model will be replaced by a model which assumes that situations vary and that therefore different solutions must be sought, adapted to circumstances (technological, as well as economical, social and cultural) from programmed top down to the network model bottom up. 3. from static to dynamic; in the old approach innovation is fully developed and then communicated to the users. This static thinking about a completed innovation is receiving increasing criticism. The fact is, an innovation is never ‘finished’. Knowledge development is 'ongoing’, depending on the changes that constantly take place. The main thing is the knowledge in people's heads in operational form, ‘ready for use’. In a dynamic environment this knowledge changes constantly. According to the communication sciences, interaction means: sending, communicating, interacting.

Sending

communicating Interacting

Figure 8. Model for communication of knowledge (van Woerkum, press comm.)

- Sending: This component is the traditional supply-oriented knowledge model of information transfer, knowledge dissemination and development, investing the knowledge from a sender in a receiver. The informative significance of traditional knowledge providers will be less and less in the future. Rather the role will change to the reporting of tendencies, scenarios and orientations. This factor will also strengthen the leadership role.

- Communicating: This model has developed greatly in recent years with the advent of telephone and Internet. It involves making knowledge accessible and concrete and easy to find. This is usually a matter of ‘answering questions’ or ‘Information on demand': making knowledge accessible, question-specific, customer-oriented; adapting it to the situation. A helpdesk is an example of this.

- Interactive form of communication. Involving one another, learning from one another and combining and integrating one another's knowledge. Decisions about innovations are reached by combining different types of knowledge. Often knowledge from more than one discipline is required (This could be the market gardener with a problem ‘producing and selling new product’: sending all the required knowledge on a CD-rom is not the solution, it is better to arrive at problem- and situation-specific solutions with experts from various disciplines = ‘System integrative thinking'). This form of communication can also be called knowledge circulation.

The model's strength lies in the fact that each element has a function and value in the new knowledge model. One side of the triangle loses its value if the other 2 sides do not function. Requirements for development route of the control model

Past Future Response Anticipation Knowledge management as a means Knowledge management as ‘lifeblood’ of exercising power Knowledge infrastructure as a Knowledge infrastructure as a network hierarchy Vertical integration Virtual process integration Risk avoidance Risk(innovation)-seeking Self-supporting Interdependency (cooperation) Knowledge locked away on ‘islands’ Knowledge exchange Discipline-driven Innovation-driven Control > rules and hierarchy Control through vision and values Organisational stability Permanent flexibility.

Table 2: Knowledge infrastructure: past versus future (adapted from Giarte Publishing b.v., 1997; Development in science and technology, 1997)

The table presents a clear overview of the other method. This can be translated into a package of requirements for a knowledge infrastructure: 1. This knowledge is developed and translated into the actual requirement for the innovation needed to retain a competitive position; 2. Knowledge-intensive products and services are necessary for the long-term survival of the agribusiness; 3. Interdisciplinary (gamma and bèta) knowledge development is needed in order to resolve complex social and market problems and arrive at knowledge valorisation; 4. A good interaction: solidarity is needed between entrepreneurs, government, research and education; 5. The agribusiness complex is interwoven with strong international networks, but also with local spatial structures which also involve issues concerning environment, surroundings, rural developments etc. ; 6. Demand-driven knowledge development which works quickly, efficiently and is result-oriented; 7. Responsiveness, minimal bureaucracy through retrospective reporting, using trust and self-cleaning capacity of self-running networks. 8. Blur the boundaries between fundamental, applied and competency development (education), knowledge and innovation circles must converge; 9. Transparency and reporting possibilities for public application. 10. The management of the knowledge development agenda is a public and private responsibility; this requires an assignment of tasks between parties, regional, national and international. Depending on the question, a different knowledge and innovation control model will be used:

1. If interaction between those requiring knowledge and those supplying knowledge needs to be stimulated because people do not find one another automatically, the network model is suitable. 2. If the core problem is the lack of research capacity or knowledge, the familiar programming model (thematic or via reallocation) can be useful. 3. For complex change assignments an effective mix must be found, hybrid model (AWT, 2001).

As yet the Horticulture cluster has had little experience with the network approach and the hybrid model.

4. CONSEQUENCES OF A NEW CONTROL MODEL

Demand articulation new form With a demand-driven knowledge model a thorough process of demand articulation is required. It is also necessary to make the switch from formula information to competency development in which each entrepreneur can put his own questions and can work on solutions: from ‘formula to concept’.

Van Woerkum states (press comm.) that 2 conditions are necessary for arriving at a question: - realisation of the problem; - idea for a solution

v Woerkum (CIS):You can't just talk about a knowledge requirement. You can't 'draw off' questions. The question must develop. People do not ask themselves questions if they do not have a problem or if they cannot devise a route to a solution. People ask questions in the light of possible solutions.

And if they ask the question, there are four possible routes to finding answers: - The answer is there? 1) it can be found, 2) it cannot be found - The answer must be developed 3) research - You can only find answers if the actor participates (4)

v Woerkum (CIS): If you are looking at demand articulation in the light of innovation in the horticulture delta, then you need to arrive at future-oriented and integrated questions. To do this, you must make platforms of users of various sorts and disciplines 0) Is there a sense of urgency; if not people will not come together. 1) Bring parties together in the system 2) You will then gradually start to develop questions 3) Involve the knowledge that you need in this. 4) This method of working increases involvement.

Do not forget to include the supply articulation in the demand articulation! Otherwise people will not be able to go any further: e.g. helpdesk (“communication” part of new triangular knowledge model). The realisation aspect must come from the Send paradigm, like the sense of urgency or trend watchers, etc. It is also important to look at what knowledge is available.

So the mechanism is that (various) actors must be able to articulate their knowledge requirements. For this they must be able to reflect on strategy and results and decide which competencies they will need in the future.

System innovation requires a personal transformation on the part of entrepreneurs. The question is whether market gardeners only think static-continuously or whether it is possible for them to look at ideas of the future discontinuously. It is important to realise that this depends on the type of questions that you ask and the background against which they are asked (domain, horizon). Another important point for attention is the openness of the network. Open to newcomers, but also with attention to the self-cleaning capacity. New methods of reporting to the stakeholder are required. In addition a combination of process criteria and quantitative criteria must be found for the control. In practice there have been various initiatives in recent years aimed at bringing the function of the OVO triptych of yesteryear into a new setting

This diversity of initiatives aimed at giving a contemporary interpretation to the function which the OVO triptych had, need not necessarily be negative per se (van Woerkum, press Comm.). There is a great uncertainty at present, there is a lot of dynamism. Programmed works do not work. In an environment such as this differentiation and the existence of many initiatives is good; more chance clever combinations will be made as an answer to the situation. The learning curve will ensure further professionalisation. 5. DESIGN OF KNOWLEDGE & INNOVATION NETWORKS

Open organic knowledge and innovation networks: connect! The open organic network model is based on making connections. Control by self-control and reciprocity; the ability of entrepreneurs to supply knowledge (e.g. experience knowledge) to researchers or teachers or others, is important in the interaction model. For example, a fundamental researcher, application-oriented researcher, teacher, student, entrepreneur and civil servant will get around the table in the same innovation project. All of them experts with specific knowledge and experience which could be needed. The participants themselves must maintain their expertise and authority from their own role and background. Within the academic world the researchers must be world-class. So being published is a pre- requisite. Entrepreneurs develop and present themselves within the business network as top entrepreneurs with prestige. Teachers are characterised as excellent by the students. To this end the teachers constantly professionalise themselves.

Organisations must also adapt. Educational institutions within the green column will need to concentrate increasingly on forms of education other than regular education: for example part- time, dual and customised courses that are industry-oriented.

Developments with regard to knowledge circulation requirements for institutions

Examples of open knowledge & innovation networks realised in the US and Europe (e.g. IUCRC) show that the cooperation yields benefits for both parties and:  produces good science  results are published without unnecessary delays  contributes towards the education and training of new graduates  produces valuable knowledge, which supports innovations in the private sector

However developing cooperations is not easy due to factors such as:  a lack of professionalism on both sides, including poor project and knowledge management  diverse interests and cultures and transient relationships  problems concerning speed of negotiations, management of results and exclusivity  compensation for indirect costs and background knowledge  fair profit-sharing in the event of a commercial success.  dogmatic financing structures, which focus exclusively on expanding and broadening an academic knowledge base, but not take into account the need to respond to a requirement from the market or society.

Figure 9 presents guidelines for designing an open knowledge and innovation network.

Figure 9: Ten guidelines (EIRMA, 2005)

Stakeholders will be asked to change from demand-control in advance to confidence-control in the interaction between businesses and knowledge institutions and retrospective reporting on activities and results.

The role of actors in the Horticulture cluster is different for the various control models (programming, network and hybrid). This can be confusing if both models are applied simultaneously in the ideal mix, the hybrid control form: with characteristics of thematic programming and the network model. In order to survive, traditional knowledge providers will need to change their task package and since their traditional role as knowledge developer will change to trend watcher (sender), they will interpret either the role of initiator or implementing party in regional public-private- constructions (interaction). They will also play a role in making knowledge accessible (communication). In this system education will need to focus more on improving competencies of actors in the chain, in order to obtain in these types of public-private structures the knowledge that they need for their innovations. In addition education could target itself as a mediator for interactions in the region, precisely because of their decentralised locations. 6. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In this chapter research questions will be formulated that are relevant for the development of the open organic knowledge & innovation network. The questions, which can form a basis for projects, can be subdivided into three groups: 1) Research into new initiatives and organisational forms for the obtaining of knowledge for necessary innovations. Research question with regard to new institution a) Main question used. Does it offer added value for the quality, speed or application of innovation if this is taken up by an institution (public-private cooperation)?

Research question with regard to existing initiatives b) Question used: “From Collectivity to Individuality”. How can we ensure that questions from entrepreneurs are articulated and combined so that they can be handled in the knowledge column and/or people can go ‘shopping’ with the question within the knowledge infrastructure? c) Question used: How can the innovative thinking in (dissemination of knowledge from) the various types of practical networks be scaled up to the rest of the sector? d) Question used: How can the various types of practical networks be interesting for education? In which situations can teachers and students participate? How does education connect with science and practice? e) Question used:. How could ‘the regional approach’ to practical networks and demand articulation and ‘the international setting’ be aligned so that they can strengthen one another?’

2.) How can demand-control in the knowledge development of the Horticulture delta be used to benefit knowledge circulation and knowledge application? a) Fundamental/used question: Which types of questions should you ask, against which background (domain, time horizon, possible solutions), to which target group, and in what way in order to obtain, within the framework of process innovation in the horticulture delta, the right demand-control towards knowledge development and knowledge circulation for the benefit of innovation? b) Fundamental/used question: Entrepreneurs are not used to adopting a positive attitude in demand articulation for the medium term. However in order to retain the sector's competitive position, they will just have to learn how to do this. What will this require from entrepreneurs, researchers and teachers?

3) Fundamental questions with regard to knowledge circulation a) Fundamental question: How do you ensure knowledge integration: knowledge, experiences, mental images (dormant knowledge, implicit knowledge)? b) Fundamental question: How does demand articulation differ when it involves different types of innovations (product, process, system, chain, social innovations) or types of entrepreneurs (e.g. Rogers: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, laggards) Question used: How can you find and appeal to target groups (= responsiveness)? CONCLUSIONS Old knowledge model discarded, new network forms developing: The old OVO triptych based on linear knowledge development and knowledge diffusion, mono-disciplinary knowledge and programming, is no longer enough. The existing knowledge model will be augmented with the addition of the interactive network model, based on open organic knowledge & innovation networks, multi- and transdisciplinary.

Depending on the question, a different knowledge and innovation control model will be used: 4. If interaction between those asking for knowledge and those supplying knowledge needs to be stimulated because people do not find one another automatically, the network model is suitable. 5. If the core problem is the lack of research capacity or knowledge, the familiar programming model (thematic or via reallocation) can be useful. 6. For complex change tasks an effective mix must be found, hybrid model.

Requirements for the knowledge structure are:  from central to local: the “old” knowledge dissemination model will be replaced by a model based on the assumption that situations vary and that therefore different solutions must be sought, adapted to circumstances (technological, but also economic, social and cultural).  from unilateral to reciprocal: this involves communication channels that permit two- way traffic and interaction: sending, communicating and interacting;  from static to dynamic; in the old approach innovation was fully developed and then communicated to the users. However, the idea is that an innovation is never ‘finished’ since the environment constantly changes. This requires more dynamism in development and use of knowledge  Changes in position among stakeholders; the stakeholders of the glasshouse horticulture cluster will have a different role. If the hybrid model is used, that can lead to confusion about role division. Following experiments and learning from them; there are many experiments. These can be used to resolve knowledge issues relating to network organisation, demand-control and knowledge circulation. LITERATURE: Andriessen, Daan, lectorale rede Wat maakt uw organisatie uniek? Ondernemen met intelectual capital in de kenniseconomie, INHOLLAND, Diemen, 2004 Anomymus, Rapportage “Nieuwe arrangementen voor kenniscirculatie, vrijdag 10 september, ten kantore van Productschap Zuivel, Zoetermeer.

AWT, Verlangen naar een eindeloze zee, rapportage verkenningscommissie ‘Kennis voor de netwerkeconomie’, den Haag, 2001.

Buurma, J.S. Dutch agricultural development and its importance to China. Casestudy: the evolution of Dutch greenhouse horticulture. LEI, The Hague, 2001. Chesbrough, Henry, Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology Harvard Business School Press, 2003.

EIRMA, EUA, EARTO, ProTon Europe (2005) Responsible Partnering: A Guide to Better Practices for Collaborative Research and Knowledge Transfer between Secience and Industry, version 1.0 January 2005

Geerligs, Jos, W.G, Kiezen uit kennis, inventariseren en analyseren van publiek-private praktijknetwerken / academies, Stoas Onderzoek, Wageningen

Groen,Th.,Vasbinder J.W., Kennis, mensen en organisaties, Kemper Conseil Publishing 1999, Den Haag, Groot, S.A., Van OVO naar VOVI; Nieuwe institutionele arrangementen voor kennisverwerving en –ontwikkeling van agrarische ondernemers, LEI, Den Haag, 2003 Groot, S.A., Kennis in uitvoering; werkboek kennismanagement. Uitgeverij Essentials, 2003 Leeuwis, C., i.s.m. A. van den Ban, Communication for Rural Innovation, Blackwell Publicing 2004 Koolen, Koos, et al, Een marktgerichte benadering voor het groene onderwijs, RLG, Amersfoort, 2004 Stallen, M. et al. Kenniscirculatie en Innovatie, LEI, Den Haag, 2004 Veltman, B.P. (2001) Sturing binnen wetenschap- en technologiebeleid, programmeren of netwerken? Discussienota AWT, 20 juni 2001 Tienen, E.T., Simons, A.E., Stijnen, D.A.J.M, DLO-instuut voor Agrotechnologisch onderzoek (1997) Ontwikkelingen in wetenschap en technologie; Kansen voor verwerking en distributie, Nationale Raad voor Landbouwkundig Onderzoek, Den Haag, oktober 1997

VNO-NCW en HBO raad, Aan de slag met innovatie; versterking rol HBO in de kenniscirculatie met het MKB, den Haag, 2004. Vijverberg, A.J. Glastuinbouw in ontwikkeling, Uitgeverij Eburon, Delft, 1996