From ideas to impact A revitalised collaborative innovation model for Australian agriculture
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
From ideas to impact A revitalised collaborative innovation model for Australian agriculture by Andy Lamb, Cameron Turner and Jack Andrews August 2021
3
Contents
Section 1 Executive summary 10
2 An introduction to innovation and collaboration 14
3 The key impediments to innovation in Australian agriculture 18
4 Design principles for a revitalised agriculture innovation model 28
5 What is open innovation? 30
© 2021 AgriFutures Australia
6 The dangers of ‘innovation theatre’ 32
All rights reserved.
The information contained in this publication is intended for general
use to assist public knowledge and discussion and to help improve 7 Open innovation model scan and case studies 34
the development of sustainable regions. You must not rely on any
information contained in this publication without taking specialist
advice relevant to your particular circumstances.
While reasonable care has been taken in preparing this publication
8 The proposed open innovation methodology 44
to ensure that information is true and correct, the Commonwealth of
Australia gives no assurance as to the accuracy of any information in
this publication.
9 Next steps 48
The Commonwealth of Australia, AgriFutures Australia, the authors
or contributors expressly disclaim, to the maximum extent permitted
by law, all responsibility and liability to any person, arising directly
or indirectly from any act or omission, or for any consequences of
any such act or omission, made in reliance on the contents of this
10 Conclusion 49
publication, whether or not caused by any negligence on the part of
the Commonwealth of Australia, AgriFutures Australia, the authors or
contributors.
References 50
The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the views
in this publication.
This publication is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under Appendices 51
the Copyright Act 1968, all other rights are reserved. However, wide
dissemination is encouraged. Requests and inquiries concerning
reproduction and rights should be addressed to AgriFutures Australia
Communications Team on 02 6923 6900.
Author contact details
Andy Lamb
Founder and Director
Innovation Studios
0416 299 132
getintouch@innovationstudios.com.au
In submitting this report, the author has agreed to AgriFutures Australia
publishing this material in its edited form. ISBN 978-1-76053-188-1
Electronically published by AgriFutures Australia at ISSN 1440-6845
www.agrifutures.com.au in August 2021 From ideas to impact: A revitalised collaborative
AgriFutures Australia is the trading name for Rural Industries Research innovation model for Australian agriculture
& Development Corporation (RIRDC), a statutory authority of the Federal
Publication No. 21-081
Government established by the Primary Industries Research and
Development Act 1989. Project No. PRO-012933 AgriFutures Australia
From ideas to impact August 2021 4
Foreword “ As the world becomes more connected,
challenge-led and open innovation is being
Australian agriculture is well-served by highly regarded researchers increasingly used to ensure research
and innovators working on ways to make the sector more profitable delivers impactful results for industry.”
and sustainable amid ever-increasing challenges.
Michael Beer
Methods to improve yields and water-use efficiency in the As part of the project, a workshop was held with RDCs
face of climate change, technology that enables on-farm to showcase the proposed methodology. RDCs remain in
automation, and strategies to detect devastating pests and a unique position to advance this concept, which could
diseases have the potential to be transformative. radically increase the translation of research findings into
innovations and enable Australian agriculture to grow in a
But while producers understand the problems they face, sustainable and collaborative way.
the solutions they require can be harder to come by. Key
impediments along the agriculture innovation journey This report has been produced under AgriFutures
have historically prevented a ground-breaking idea from Australia’s National Rural Issues (NRI) Program, which
becoming a product available on the market. is part of the National Challenges and Opportunities
Arena. NRI focuses on thought-provoking and horizon-
Change, however, might be on the horizon. As the world scanning research to inform debate and policy on issues
becomes more connected, challenge-led and open of importance across rural industries.
innovation is being increasingly used to ensure research
delivers impactful results for industry. The need to have Most of AgriFutures Australia’s publications are available
solutions at our fingertips, as Australian agriculture builds for viewing, free download or purchase online at www.
towards being a $100 billion industry by 2030, cannot be agrifutures.com.au.
understated.
With this in mind, AgriFutures Australia engaged Innovation
Studios to develop a best practice methodology for Michael Beer
challenge-led and open innovation for rural industries in General Manager, Business Development
Australia. A global scan of innovation models and insights AgriFutures Australia
from successful case studies, such as v2food’s plant-
based burger patty, informed the suggested approach,
which will help Research & Development Corporations
(RDCs) bridge the idea-to-innovation chasm. As RDCs
continue to work together, there are real benefits in
having a thorough understanding of the open innovation
methodology to ensure the research they invest in delivers
real-world results and value.
Aussie Wine Group, SA.
AgriFutures Australia Photo: Rachael Lenehan Photography
From ideas to impact August 2021 6 7
About the authors
Who is this report for? Key objective
Andy Lamb is the Founder and Over the past 30 years, Cameron Jack Andrews has experience as This report has been prepared for the 15 Australian The key objective of this project is the design of a
Director of Innovation Studios and Turner has been an applied and a senior innovation consultant, agriculture Research & Development Corporations (RDCs). collaborative open innovation model that leverages the
one of Australia’s leading voices on basic researcher, entrepreneur, CEO, innovation manager, entrepreneur/ Specifically, it was commissioned by AgriFutures Australia, unique strengths of different types of organisations to take
entrepreneurship, innovation and inventor, management consultant and founder, and senior qualitative a multi-industry RDC with a vision to “grow the long-term ideas through to value and impact.
creativity. Andy delivers coaching, academic. He has commercialised researcher. He has significant prosperity of Australian rural industries” (AgriFutures
education and consulting in multiple agricultural technologies, experience in designing and deploying Australia, 2020). The RDCs facilitate agriculture R&D co-
everything from design thinking, to developed extensive research large-scale innovation programs investment between government and primary producers.
strategy, to deep tech and corporate partnerships with RDCs, corporates within some of Australia’s largest
accelerators. He has previously been and industry bodies, and has raised organisations and regularly mentors The industry engagement that underpins this report was
an Honorary Fellow of Innovation at more than $10m in capital with early-stage teams from initial idea to necessarily broader than the 15 RDCs, and the proposed
The University of Western Australia, four food and agricultural startup market entry. innovation methodology is collaborative and multi-
Deputy Chair of Perth Angels and an companies, one of which he remains stakeholder. A holistic innovation model that translates
Entrepreneur in Residence at Tech the CEO (Progel). He is the current Australia’s world-class research into game-changing
Hub. He is a member of the Minerals Entrepreneur in Residence at the products, services and businesses must leverage the unique
Research Institute of WA College and University of Queensland Business capabilities of researchers and research organisations,
is a regular keynote speaker. School. government, venture capital, industry, and startups.
Representatives from each of these groups provided
support, feedback and guidance to this project.
If you would like further information about anything contained in this report, This report is therefore relevant across the agriculture
or would like to speak about deploying the methodology in your organisation, industry, and especially to those who want to see more of
Australia’s world-class research delivering real-world value
you can contact our team at getintouch@innovationstudios.com.au
and impact.
AgriFutures Australia
From ideas to impact August 2021 8 Oli Madgett, Platfarm.
Photo: Fragment Films
Project methodology
1 2 3 4
Execution
Design
Engage Review strategy
and iterate
mapped
500+ views of project Global model scan Draft model presented Next steps developed,
landing page and refined at a and critical success
Scientific and Canberra workshop factors identified
53 survey responses management literature
review
37 interviewees
Innovation Studios’
30-person web forum experience deploying
open innovation
To design an innovation An international open The first draft of the open The models’ critical
model that works for innovation model scan along innovation model was then success factors and
Australian agriculture, it with a review of relevant designed, incorporating implementation runway
was first requisite to form scientific and management global best practice and were then developed,
an understanding of how literature revealed global accounting for the contextual along with an articulation
the industry operates best practice for the design nuances particular to of short-term, medium-
today – the factors that and implementation of Australian agriculture. This term and long-term
encourage and impede collaborative innovation. draft methodology was visions for its use within
innovation, instructive presented at a Canberra Australian agriculture.
examples of success and workshop, where key
failure, and the structural stakeholders were asked
and cultural features to provide feedback on
that guide and shape the model and assess its
behaviours. Responses to a feasibility. This feedback
survey, in-depth qualitative informed subsequent
interviews and open web iterations.
forums provided the
contextual base.
AgriFutures Australia
From ideas to impact August 2021 10 Section 1 11
Section 1
Executive summary
Of course, the imperative to innovate is not only economic Through extensive engagement with RDCs, industry,
For 200 years, Australia’s economic prosperity but also environmental and social. Shifting societal
expectations around sustainability, environmental impact
government, researchers, investors and startups, this
has been built on the back of food, fibre and
project uncovered three key impediments to innovation
and animal welfare are redefining the social license to within Australian agriculture. Two of these are industry-wide,
resources. Australian agriculture’s willingness
operate. These are systems-level challenges that require while the third is specific to the R&D investment stewarded
system-wide responses, and the agriculture industry, like by the RDCs. They are:
to adapt and to innovate has allowed it to
many others, will need to transcend parochial concerns to
tackle complexity through the value chain. Collaboration
consistently and profitably generate world- must also be a hallmark of Australian agriculture’s future.
1. The commercialisation Valley of Death
class produce in one of the harshest and most In commissioning this work, AgriFutures Australia has
asked an elegantly simple question: How might we design
Idea-generating organisations (research providers and
higher education institutions) will typically take an idea only
resource-constrained environments on Earth. a collaborative open innovation model that leverages the
unique strengths of different types of organisations to
to the ‘invention’ stage. Industry, on the other hand, won’t
engage until technical, scale-up and market risks have been
take ideas through to value and impact? Answering this removed. This discontinuity creates a ‘Valley of Death’ that is
question is the focus of this report. exceptionally difficult for discoveries to traverse.
However, for Australian agriculture to reach The term innovation, despite its widespread use (or
its ambition of becoming a $100 billion perhaps because of it), is often misunderstood. An idea
is not an innovation (Kastelle and Steen, 2011); instead 2. An overemphasis on technological solutions
industry by 2030, it needs a paradigm shift. As ‘ideas’ and ‘innovations’ bookend a complicated and multi-
step process. Ideas must first be ‘made real’ (be proven R&D projects are adept at identifying and solving technical
ABARES Executive Director Dr Steve Hatfield- technically) to be rendered an invention. Inventions must
then ‘unlock value’ (be proven commercially) to become an
problems, but this alone is not sufficient to deliver value and
impact. Technology in isolation fails to adequately account
Dodds told the 2020 Outlook Conference, innovation. The ultimate value and return from innovation
investment (for both organisations and society) is realised
for how a solution creates, captures and delivers value, and
neglects entirely the human behavioural changes required to
“The future will not be like the past. We will only at the end of this process. The theory of innovation
and collaboration within and across organisations is
drive and scale adoption.
need to anticipate, innovate and collaborate presented in Section 2.
3. Structural short-termism (RDC-specific)
to stay ahead of the curve” (Department of To design a collaborative innovation model that works for
The requirement to return immediate value to today’s levy
Agriculture, 2020). While operational and
Australian agriculture, it was first requisite to understand
how the industry operates today; the factors that payers results in a focus on near-term production problems
(for example yield, productivity and pests and diseases). This
incremental pre-farmgate improvements encourage and impede innovation, instructive examples
of success and failure, and the structural and cultural structural short-termism curbs the scope, ambition, risk
profile and acceptable time-to-payoff of funded projects
will continue to play a role in agriculture features that guide and shape behaviours.
and makes it difficult for the RDCs to embrace longer-term
transformational projects. This isn’t a commentary on
innovation, they won’t deliver the step- whether this structural feature is right or wrong, but instead
changes necessary for a $100 billion industry.
an observation on the impacts it has on innovation, as
relayed to us by industry stakeholders.
AgriFutures Australia
From ideas to impact August 2021 12
Executive summary
A full accounting of impediments is provided in Section 3, While components of the proposed methodology have
while an extended list of innovation enablers and disablers been used extensively around the world in best practice
is offered in Appendix 1. innovation programs, their integration and execution in
Australian agriculture R&D remains largely untested. Until
Though these impediments present significant challenges, the model has been piloted, refined and scaled, it will
their effects can be largely offset without the need for inevitably contain hidden assumptions. Though parts of the
legislative or structural reform. This report presents the methodology can be managed discretely and bottom-up,
design principles for a revitalised innovation model in execution of the ideas (bringing them to life) will require top-
Section 4. Chief among the design principles is the need down directives. Success will be directly proportional to firm
for any new model to span the gamut from idea to impact. leadership, a collective will to change, and a belief that this
Such a model would have execution expertise ‘baked in’, change is necessary. Short, medium and long-term visions
and would consider technical and market risk in parallel – for the methodology are offered in Section 9.
building not only products and technologies, but also their
accompanying business models. The RDCs, sitting at the cross-section of government,
researchers and producers, are uniquely positioned to
Building on a broad understanding of innovation and its pilot this model, to refine it, and to drive its adoption at
impediments, the discussion turns to ‘open innovation’ scale. Doing so will markedly increase the translation of
specifically, an area of increasing interest to AgriFutures research into game-changing innovations, and will allow
Australia and to organisations globally. In an open Australian agriculture to respond to this decade’s economic,
innovation program, organisations collaborate with environmental and social imperatives.
external parties (for example other organisations, startups,
researchers, government or even individuals) to create
greater value than they could on their own. An introduction
to open innovation comprises Section 5, while Section 7
provides a global model scan and case study analysis.
Section 8 presents the revitalised collaborative innovation
methodology for Australian agriculture. The methodology
has been designed to offset the most pernicious
impediments to innovation, draws on global best practice
for the commercialisation of scientific research, and
incorporates the learnings from the early successes of
CSIRO and Main Sequence Ventures’ ‘venture science’
model. The open innovation methodology underwent
several iterations after being presented to key RDC
stakeholders in an open web forum, and in a Canberra
workshop in March 2021.
Zetifi, NSW.
AgriFutures Australia Photo: Jack of Hearts Studio
From ideas to impact August 2021 14 Section 2 15
Section 2
An introduction to innovation
and collaboration
The key objective of this project is the design of a 1. Ideas ≠ innovation
collaborative open innovation model that leverages the
So what? Collaboration
unique strengths of different types of organisations to Ideas have to be made real or they remain ideas. Ideas
take ideas through to value and impact. Given this starting
Both collaboration and Inter-organisational collaboration is intuitively understood
aren’t ‘worthless’, but they aren’t worth much if they aren’t
but, as we will see, difficult to execute. We define inter-
point, two words are going to recur throughout this report: innovation present challenges organisational collaboration as two or more organisations
translated into something tangible (often a product, service
‘collaboration’ and ‘innovation’. Open innovation intersects or business model).
the two, but of course there are ways of innovating without
to organisations. Open innovation entering into a mutually beneficial relationship, usually
working towards a pre-defined object or goal. Inter-
collaborating, and ways to collaborate without innovating. requires organisations to organisational (across/between organisations) collaboration 2. Inventions ≠ innovation
Collaborative innovation programs present two sets of overcome two sets of barriers: is contrasted with intra-organisational collaboration (within
organisations). When we say ‘organisational collaboration’ or Even an idea made real (an invention) isn’t innovation.
challenges simultaneously. An organisation must be barriers to collaboration and ‘collaboration’ we are referring to the former. If the invention is going to have a ‘life’ (and hence create
‘innovative’, which is counterintuitive, counter-cultural and
uncomfortable. At the same time, it must be ‘collaborative’, barriers to innovation. sustainable impact), it needs to unlock value.
which represents a posture shift for organisations that are
typically internally preoccupied and outwardly competitive. 3. Innovation requires execution
Impactful open innovation requires cultural, systematic and
Innovation
process-level shifts on two continuums simultaneously: the This relates to 1. and 2. A lot of well-meaning innovation
The term innovation, despite its widespread use (or perhaps
‘business-as-usual to innovation’ continuum, and the ‘not programs end before execution takes place. Without
because of it), is often misunderstood. The consequences
invented here to collaboration’ continuum. execution, we don’t consider these programs to be
of this misunderstanding aren’t purely semantic; if we want
‘innovative’ or to be producers of innovation.
to realise the potential benefits of innovation, we need to
understand what it is that creates these benefits.
Another advantage of this definition is that it allows one to
A robust definition of innovation is given by The University of conceptually plot the ‘journey’ of an idea to an innovation.
Queensland’s Director of Entrepreneurship Tim Kastelle and First, the idea is purely conceptual or theoretical, it is then
Associate Professor John Steen in their 2011 article ‘Ideas applied or ‘made real’ as technical possibility is proven
are not innovations’. (becoming an invention), and then, hopefully, it is executed in
a sustainable, scalable and repeatable manner (becoming
Innovation Collaboration
examples examples “Innovation is the execution an innovation).
Internal programs Collaborative Partnerships of new ideas to create value”
Innovation innovation Collaboration
Some new product Joint ventures (Kastelle and Steen, 2011)
development Collaborative
Some acquisitions research This tripartite definition addresses some of the most
common misconceptions in innovation practice.
Collaborative innovation
Open innovations
Challenge-led innovation
Some venture models
Some accelerator models
AgriFutures Australia
From ideas to impact August 2021 16
An introduction to innovation
and collaboration
Journey
from ‘idea’ to Ideas Inventions Innovations
‘innovation’ Make it real Unlock value
Prove technical possibility Prove commercial viability
Different types of organisations claim expertise at different
parts of this journey, and few attempt to implement internal
processes that cover the full gamut from idea to innovation
and impact. This is not surprising given the capabilities
required to do world-class research are profoundly different
from those required to construct a sustainable and
profitable business model around the fruits of that research.
Journey
from ‘idea’ to Ideas Inventions Innovations
‘innovation’ Make it real Unlock value
Prove technical possibility Prove commercial viability
Organisational
Universities Research providers R&D organisations Corporations
expertise
So what?
Ideas made technically possible
become inventions, inventions
made commercially viable become
innovations. Different types of
organisations claim expertise at
different parts of the journey from
‘idea’ to ‘innovation’.
Zetifi, NSW.
AgriFutures Australia Photo: Jack of Hearts Studio
From ideas to impact August 2021 18 Section 3 19
Section 3
The key impediments to innovation
in Australian agriculture
The impediments presented in this section were NASA/DOD Technology Readiness Levels
formulated after the ‘Engage’ stage of the project,
and are therefore a summarised rearticulation of the
System test, launch
System/subsystem
and operations
development
TRL 9
perceptions of key agriculture stakeholders. Through a TRL 8
Actual system ‘flight proven’ through successful mission operations
survey, in-depth qualitative interviews, open webinars TRL 7
Actual system completed and ‘flight qualified’ through test and demonstration (ground or flight)
demonstration
System prototype demonstration in a space environment
and workshops, the project team were able to capture the
Technology
TRL 6
Technology development
System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment (ground or space)
views of RDC employees, government, industry, startups, TRL 5
Component and/or breadboard validation in relevant environment
research providers and venture capital. TRL 4
Research to prove
Component and/or breadboard validation in laboratory environment
feasibility
TRL 3
Basic technology
Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof-of-concept
TRL 2
research
Technology concept and/or application formulated
TRL 1
Basic principles observed and reported
Key impediment to agriculture
innovation 1: The Valley of Death Source: NASA.gov
collaborators or investors to find technology at the right
While the idea → invention → innovation model is a useful
‘stage’ for them. The more an industry engages with novel
high-level conceptual framework, it doesn’t describe how
scientific research and technologies, the more useful the
an idea is rendered an invention, nor does it allow one to
TRLs are.
pinpoint exactly where this typically goes awry. In order to
do this, and to properly describe the first key innovation
The Valley of Death
While researchers typically progress an idea to TRL 3 or 4,
impediment, we need to introduce a further model: the
commercial organisations, when looking to adopt a new
Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs).
technology, are looking for technologies around TRL 8 or 9.
Technology transfer
This disconnect creates a ‘technology chasm’ or ‘Valley of
The TRLs were developed by NASA in the 1970s to estimate Success as
Death’ that is exceptionally difficult for ideas to traverse. Product launch
the maturity (i.e. ‘readiness’ for deployment) of technology. a business
Success as a
The TRLs are prescriptive – they let an inventor know the
Transformational ideas that are ‘reduced to practice’ or new product
Cumulative profit/loss
current maturity of their technology and what needs to be
‘made real’ by research providers consistently fail to cross
done next to mature it. In addition to their use at NASA, the
the valley and become game-changing innovations. This Research Development Time
TRLs have been adopted and deployed at the US Department
is largely because the idea generator/research provider’s
of Defense, the European Association of Research and
job ‘finished’ at invention, while industry won’t engage until
Technology Organisations (EARTO), and the European Space
technical, scale-up and market risks have been removed. Commercialisation
Agency. In Australia, CSIRO uses the TRLs to organise its
The result is that transformational ideas, inventions and
Commercialisation Marketplace, thus allowing potential
discoveries languish as orphans in the Valley of Death.
Valley
of Death
Development curve
AgriFutures Australia Source: Osawa and Miyazaki, 2006 via Forbes.comFrom ideas to impact August 2021 20 Section 3 21
While the TRLs give us a framework for answering the ‘could’
What we heard So what? Key impediment to agriculture question, they do not speak to the ‘should’. One of the most
Interview: Why do we struggle with research translation?
The lack of overlap (or continuity) innovation 2: Poor integration profound changes in best practice commercialisation over
the past 10 years has been a maturing understanding of
“For commercialisation to be successful it needs to be built in the concerns and interests of between technological innovation the inseparability of technical readiness with investment or
into the life of the project – otherwise the researchers move
research institutions/organisations and business model innovation market readiness. Steve Blank from Stanford developed the
on and won’t give you any time, and it’s too underdeveloped Investment Readiness Levels (IRLs) to provide a framework
While the first key impediment identified a perilous disconnect
to go to market ... the idea is dead in the water.” (whose interest wanes at TRL 3 or in the journey from idea to invention, the second speaks to a
for researchers and entrepreneurs to mature the market
readiness of their ideas. Technical readiness (can we do
Interview: What’s your biggest frustration with R&D in
4) and commercial organisations tendency to overemphasise the technical development and
it?) helps us make ideas real, while investment readiness
maturation of ideas without paying due consideration to how
Australia? (whose interest begins at TRL 8 or a proposed technology will deploy commercially. In other
(should we do it?) gives us confidence that we are solving
the right problem, with the right solution, and that enough
“Test tubes to tonnes. We have no problem spending millions 9) creates a chasm furnished by words, we focus on the path from idea to invention without
people care to make the business model sustainable. When
considering how (or even if) this invention can unlock value and
sorting things out in a test tube, when it comes to scaling technologies that are too mature for become an innovation.
developing new products, services or businesses, best
everyone runs for the hills. Pilot to mid-scale manufacturing practice commercialisation dictates that we consider the
we really have a problem with.” novel research and too immature This tendency can (and does) lead to the creation and IRLs and TRLs in tandem.
for commercial adoption. production of research, technologies, products, services and
There are multiple strategies to ensure that the ‘should’
Survey: When conducting research, what outcomes (if any) even businesses that don’t address a commercial need (or, to
question receives attention, and these are canvassed within
are you seeking that consistently aren’t achieved? put it simply, that don’t solve a compelling customer problem).
the discussion of global innovation methodologies and
This issue is so entrenched across industries that entire
frameworks, as well as in the presentation of case studies.
“I would like to see good ideas implemented. Instead of lots Implications for methodology design disciplines have emerged to attempt to counteract it. Eric Ries,
All such strategies involve sense-checking that there exists
of research being done and things being trialled that all stop a founder of one such discipline (the Lean Startup), describes
(or is likely to exist) a compelling market need for any new
at the 95% mark, the good research and innovation projects Frameworks and methodologies need to be its central concern as follows: “The big question of our time is
research, product, service or business.
need to be enabled for implementation.”
able to span the idea -> invention -> innovation not could it be built? But should it be built? ... And can we build
a sustainable business model around [it]?” (Ries, 2011).
Survey: When it comes to working with RDCs and/or research journey to ensure research and technologies
providers, what outcomes (if any) are you seeking that make it to the marketplace.
consistently aren’t achieved?
Investment Readiness Levels
“Research groups are often affiliated with universities that
are profit-driven. Research results are sometimes focused IRL 9
on continuation of research rather than practical outcomes Identify and validate metrics that matter
IRL 8
that can provide diversification.” Validate value delivery (left side of canvas)
IRL 7
Interview: Why do we struggle with research translation? Prototype high-fidelity min. viable product
IRL 6
Validate revenue model (right side of canvas)
“The classic issue of the RDCs – we get to the point where IRL 5
we’ve done case studies and the ecosystem for investment Validate product/market fit
falls over because it’s no longer classified as research and IRL 4
Prototype low-fidelity min. viable product
development. We, if we want to take the idea further, need a IRL 3
new research question at this point.” Problem/solution validation
IRL 2
Market size/competitive analysis
IRL 1
Complete first-pass business model canvas
Source: steveblank.com
AgriFutures AustraliaFrom ideas to impact August 2021 22 Section 3 23
Survey: Is there a game-changing piece of research that
Technology Readiness + Investment Readiness What we heard
you believe could create a massive impact that is yet to be
Levels Levels Interview: How well does Australian agriculture innovate? addressed or commercialised? If so, what is it?
“If you’re not asking questions around customer desirability “I don’t think this exists. Irrespective of how good a piece
and business viability early on in the research/ideas stage, of research or IP is, it’s the systems and process that sit
you’re doing the wrong thing by your investments.” around the IP that will enable it to be game-changing.
This is the hard part.”
System test, launch
System/subsystem
and operations
Interview: What have you learned from taking
development
TRL 9 IRL 9 technology to producers?
Identify and validate metrics that matter
TRL 8 IRL 8 So what?
“No farmer or producer gives a rat’s about the technology
Validate value delivery (left side of canvas)
we’ve got. They want to understand how it fits into solving
TRL 7 IRL 7
their life and into solving their problems. I think there’s
R&D projects are adept at
demonstration
Prototype high-fidelity min. viable product
identifying and solving technical
Technology
TRL 6 IRL 6 a disconnect in agriculture between the innovator and
the producer where we don’t know quite how to speak to
Technology development
Validate revenue model (right side of canvas)
each other. The part of the puzzle that I think is ignored
problems, but this alone is not
TRL 5 IRL 5
Validate product/market fit almost completely is the relationship between the sufficient to deliver value and
TRL 4 IRL 4 innovator and the grower.”
impact. If Australia’s world-class
Research to prove
Prototype low-fidelity min. viable product
research is to be translated into
feasibility
TRL 3 IRL 3 Interview: How well does Australian agriculture innovate?
Basic technology
Problem/solution validation
TRL 2 IRL 2 “We need to go fork to farm, rather than farm to fork. We game-changing innovations,
research
Market size/competitive analysis need to find out what tastes and textures are appealing to we need to construct the
TRL 1 IRL 1 people, start from there and move backwards. People come
Complete first-pass business model canvas from a grower’s end rather than from the consumer end – accompanying business models,
they look at what they’ve grown and see who they can sell it and in doing so consider fully the
to. This is the wrong way around.”
human behaviours that must
Interview: How well does Australian agriculture innovate? change to drive adoption.
“We don’t do enough thinking and planning up front for what
the theory of change is for a project, or consider what the
value proposition is for the change – we need to build that in Implications for methodology design
upfront, but we focus on the technical problem instead.”
Frameworks and methodologies need to
Interview: Why do we struggle with research translation? address both the technological ‘can we?’
“Tell me the day in the life of the farmer and show how it’s question and the commercial ‘should we?’
[the new technology] actually going to affect their day- question. Ideally, these questions are answered
to-day. At the moment, the toys don’t link to real-world not sequentially but in tandem.
impact. Don’t worry about the tech, show me the persona
or the early adopter and then show me how their life and
decision-making, and productivity changes.”
AgriFutures AustraliaFrom ideas to impact August 2021 24 Section 3 25
Interview: What frustrates you most about your job? So what?
Key impediment to agriculture What we heard
innovation 3: Structural short- Survey: What’s the biggest barrier to innovation? “I don’t think we’re answering the right questions – the
Operational and incremental
process that we use asks people to identify problems that
termism “[The need to] demonstrate return on investment and time to they know they know (for example fuel, yield, pests). The pre-farmgate improvements will
the farmer rather than the post-farmgate agri sector.” system leads us to focus on the things that are predictable,
Innovation requires established organisations to
front of mind.”
continue to play a role in agriculture
simultaneously extend and defend their core business while
also preparing for a future where the conditions for success Survey: What’s the most frustrating thing for you personally innovation, but they won’t deliver
about working in Australian agriculture? Interview: Is there a tension between RDCs and industry?
may look very different. This requirement for ‘ambidexterity’ the step-changes required for a
is put by James G. March like this: “The basic problem
confronting an organisation is to engage in sufficient
“The research that the industry wants is for an immediate “We have to be strongly responsive to the declared needs $100 billion industry or move the
issue, rather than things that take time and may solve bigger of stakeholders – if they’re not saying they want x, we can’t
exploitation to ensure its current viability, and, at the same
issues.” focus on x, even if x is going to affect them in the future.” needle on systems-level issues like
time, devote enough energy to exploration to ensure its
future viability” (March, 1994). Managing across multiple sustainability or animal welfare. The
Interview: At an industry level, how well do you think Interview: What is wrong with the way we do R&D in
time horizons is exceptionally difficult, and the RDCs have a
agriculture does innovation? agriculture today? RDCs, and the agriculture industry
certain structural feature that makes this more pronounced.
as a whole, need mechanisms for
“If you want to make step-changes you need to look at “Something the RDCs can help with is to allow the system
The requirement to return immediate value to today’s levy
non-traditional stuff. That’s where academics can really to emerge rather than protecting their own terrain. The tackling more strategic challenges.
payers imbues a structural short-termism into the operation
help. At the moment, it’s all about incremental things – new Australian meat industry could be twice as big as it is today
of the RDCs. It should be noted that this isn’t a commentary
pesticides, new herbicides, the same old things … There’s a if it opened up its mind to what ‘meat’ is. But it can’t really,
on whether this structural feature is right or wrong, but
bit of miscommunication around the industry problems as as there’s different RDCs for the different commodities (e.g.
instead an observation on the impacts it has on innovation,
as relayed to us by industry stakeholders.
well – this is where the RDCs could come in.” MLA, Australian Pork Limited, AgriFutures Australia).” Implications for methodology design
Interview: At an industry level, how well do you think Frameworks and methodologies need
agriculture does innovation? to be designed to offset short-termism,
“Trying to find a supply chain that shares the brunt of a
incentivising both industry and RDCs
problem can be tricky. We are always having to invest in to tackle more complex, valuable and
innovation that’s going to have a [short-term] return – we’re transformational challenges.
not able to do innovation to ‘learn’. In other countries, there
seem to be ideas and networks where you’re trying to learn –
it’s risky, may not deliver a long-term return. We always have
to ask people if they’re willing to invest in projects.”
AgriFutures AustraliaFrom ideas to impact August 2021 26 Tegan Nock, Soil Carbon Co.
Photo: Pip Farquharson
Additional impediments
These three impediments are by no means an exhaustive list. In our
interviews, in workshops, and in the analysis of survey results, we came up
against other factors that are likely to hamper innovation efforts. As with
previous impediments, these are not fatal but need to be accounted for in the
design of frameworks and methodologies.
It will be beneficial for any agriculture organisation designing an innovation
program (and especially for RDCs) to consider the effects of the following:
Lack of system-wide IP restrictions and Additional structural
leadership and vision collaboration friction elements
The ‘National Approach to Grow One commercialisation expert While the need to return immediate
Australia’s Future’ report (EY, 2019) described his experience working value to today’s levy payers imbues
had as its first recommendation with research and development short-termism into RDC operations,
‘Strengthening ecosystem leadership, organisations and cooperative there are other systems and
cohesion and culture’. The need for research centres across multiple processes that RDC staff have
stronger leadership was repeatedly industries as follows: “From our identified as impeding innovation
highlighted by survey respondents, point of view, [they] are generally efforts. Specifically, they identified the
interviewees and workshop too hard to work with. If you want to strategy, budgeting and procurement
participants. spin something out or start a new cycles as largely inflexible and
company, you have to go through 12 intolerant of uncertainty and risk.
While certain parts of the months of incredible pain dealing
collaborative innovation process can with different bodies all claiming Some verbatim commentary from
be managed discretely and bottom- governance and oversight. Rarely do RDC employees: “If we are going to
up (namely idea generation and you see people go through that and be serious about open innovation, we
prioritisation), execution of the ideas say ‘that was fun, let’s do that again’.” need to change the architecture of the
(bringing them to life) requires firm business to be able to do this.”; “We
top-down directives. love the idea of innovation programs
and systems – but how on Earth are
we supposed to contract for that
when we need to be explicit about
milestones and what’s being delivered
when?”
AgriFutures AustraliaFrom ideas to impact August 2021 28 Section 4 29
Section 4
Design principles for a revitalised
agriculture innovation model
The interviews, surveys and workshops The eight design principles are:
unearthed impediments to innovation 01 o ensure ideas get to market, the frameworks and
T
in Australian agriculture. methodologies need to span the idea → invention → innovation
journey, with execution expertise ‘baked in’ from the beginning.
02 o ensure ideas have the best chance of success in the ‘real
T
world’, the frameworks and methodologies need to address
While presenting undeniable challenges, the both the ‘can we?’ and ‘should we?’ questions in tandem.
effects of these impediments can be largely 03 o ensure frameworks and methodologies don’t fall victim to
T
offset without the need for structural or short-termism, funding and success metrics should not be
legislative reform. To this end, each impediment dictated solely by levy payers.
was converted into a ‘design principle’. These
04 o ensure collaborative innovation efforts are able to
T
design principles underpinned the development
transcend instinctual patch protection and competition, the
of the open innovation methodology. cultural and behavioural change implications of any program
must be strongly considered.
05 To ensure organisational agility through execution,
sponsorship of the program should come from the highest-
possible leadership level.
06 o avoid duplication and fragmentation, as many of the RDCs
T
as possible should place their energy and efforts into a single
framework/methodology.
07 To reduce the IP friction in collaborative efforts, the
methodology should make use of creative incentive and equity
structures to propel research towards the marketplace.
08 To ensure innovation doesn’t fall prey to business-as-usual
systems and processes, a compelling case needs to be made
as to why it should operate independently of them.
AgriFutures AustraliaFrom ideas to impact August 2021 30 Nick Hazell, v2Food.
Photo: Socialise Photography
Section 5
What is open innovation?
Open innovation, sometimes called
collaborative innovation, is “a distributed
innovation process based on purposively
managed knowledge flows across
organisational boundaries”
(Chesbrough and Bogers, 2014).
At a very basic level, the difference between ‘open’ innovation
and ‘closed’ innovation is represented below:
Boundary Boundary New
of the firm of the firm market
The Current
Research market Research market
projects projects
Research Development Research Development
The closed innovation model The open innovation model
Source: ‘The Era of Open Innovation’ in MIT Sloan Management Review, spring 2003.
The potential benefits of open innovation are broad: “Open respondents expected more than a quarter of revenues to be
innovation has the potential to widen the space for value generated through collaborative innovation by 2030” (World
creation: It allows for many more ways to create value, be Economic Forum, 2015). In Australia, 2014-15 analysis
it through new partners with complementary skills or by revealed that businesses collaborating on innovation were
unlocking hidden potential in long-lasting relationships” twice as likely to produce 10 or more innovations than those
(Chesbrough and Bogers, 2014). A recent A. T. Kearney survey organisations that went it alone (Department of Industry,
on collaborative innovation in Europe revealed that “71% of Science, Energy and Resources, 2016).
AgriFutures AustraliaFrom ideas to impact August 2021 32 Section 6 33
Section 6
The dangers of ‘innovation theatre’
The last 15 years has seen an explosion of what are Open innovation platforms are excellent at processes that
can be systemised, scaled and managed by technology.
In his Harvard Business Review article on innovation
theatre, Steve Blank writes: “Companies and government
sometimes called open innovation platforms. Readers Namely: agencies typically adopt innovation activities (hackathons,
design-thinking classes, innovation workshops, et al) that
of this report will likely have used Brightidea, Spigit, • Crowdsourcing ideas/responses to challenges from result in innovation theatre. While these activities shape
Idea Scale, or another open innovation platform. These geographically dispersed participants who can be
employees, externals, or a mixture of the two.
and build culture, they don’t win wars, and they rarely
deliver shippable/deployable product[s]” (Blank, 2019). As
platforms offer ‘white label’ customisation that allows innovation practitioners, the authors of this report have
• Allowing participants to comment and vote on ideas, and observed that while there may be short-term cultural
users to create their own branded interface, so it’s possible to work together to refine them. benefits to such activities, the long-term effect (once staff
to use one of these platforms without being aware of it. • Offering a preliminary prioritisation mechanism that
perceive the activities to be shallow) is harmful.
enables administrators to sort and prioritise ideas and to Rita McGrath, Professor of Management at the Columbia
identify those with the most hypothetical promise. Business School, describes innovation theatre as “an
excessive focus on ideation (and all that goes with that),
What open innovation platforms can’t do is systematise and with little capability or commitment to follow the process
productise the steps required to turn ideas into inventions, through to actual results” (McGrath, 2019). While the ‘idea’
and inventions into innovations. This is for the very simple phase of the innovation process is necessary, it is not in itself
The rise of open innovation platforms has led to a they’ve purchased is a small part of the innovation puzzle
reason that it is not clear that such a thing is possible. At the sufficient to deliver value and impact.
phenomenon we define as ‘platform-centric open (and by far the simplest piece of this puzzle). As we know,
conclusion of a platform-centric open innovation challenge,
innovation’. This is the tendency for well-intentioned innovation is a complicated and multi-step process, with
the outcome is invariably a report; taking this report and
organisations to believe that simply deploying an open value and return from investments delivered only at the end.
converting its contents into value-creating impact is beyond
innovation platform will allow them to realise the full
the remit of these platforms.
promises of innovation. At this point, it’s worth unpacking exactly what open
innovation platforms can (and can’t) do against our
At its worst, platform-centric open innovation is an exercise
This belief leads to disappointment as organisations realise understanding of innovation:
of ‘innovation theatre’, a term coined by Steve Blank to
(often at the conclusion of a deployment cycle) that what
describe activities that are highly visible, espoused using
flashy rhetoric, and that may even generate an initial
groundswell of enthusiasm, but that ultimately fail to deliver
any value to the organisation (and, by extension, to society).
If idea management platforms are used in isolation, and are
Journey
relied upon as an organisation’s only innovation lever, they
from ‘idea’ to Ideas Inventions Innovations inevitably fail to deliver impact and value.
‘innovation’ Make it real Unlock value
Prove technical possibility Prove commercial viability
Idea management
Though can’t systematise the steps required to turn
platforms are excellent at
ideas into inventions or innovations
managing ideas
AgriFutures AustraliaFrom ideas to impact August 2021 34 Section 7 35
Section 7
Open innovation model scan
and case studies
For now, it will be useful to leave behind the discussion of idea management platforms to
consider various open innovation models. Here we look at the various ways that organisations
structure holistic open innovation programs that go beyond idea management to execution,
and hence create value and impact for the organisation and for society.
Global model scan
OI model Description Examples Key steps/activities Necessary ingredients
Fishing expedition Using externally facing idea Unilever has an ambition to “achieve €1 billion Trend analysis and organisational strategy identify areas Fishing expeditions work only when the company
generation platforms to crowdsource annual sales of plant-based meat and dairy of future growth → fishing expedition is conducted to fill doing the fishing has strong (often market-leading)
alternatives within the next five to seven years”. gaps in the organisation’s portfolio → organisation uses execution capabilities (i.e. they have best-in-class
specific technologies that plug an
They are conducting a fishing expedition world-class execution capability to take to market. commercialisation, marketing and distribution, and
identified capability gap. for technologies that improve taste, texture, access to capital).
sustainability and affordability of alternatives
(https://futurefoodtechsf.com/innovation-
challenge-2021/).
Plug and Play A Silicon Valley-based platform Colgate-Palmolive uses Plug and Play to fill Trend analysis and organisational strategy identify areas of Critical to Plug and Play’s success is its meticulous
that connects the world’s largest product technology gaps, and to modernise future growth → Plug and Play used to identify startups with curation of both problem statements and the relevant
[Explored in case
their market research, sales, and marketing technology that fills gaps → organisation uses world-class startups, organisations, or researchers to address the
studies] companies with technology startups.
capabilities (https://youtu.be/QlWqmtlsvf4). execution capability to commercialise and scale. problem.
Innovation-led joint Two or more organisations form PepsiCo and Beyond Meat combined for the Trend analysis and organisational strategy identify Combined, the organisations need to have all
a partnership to explore a new PLANeT partnership, a joint venture that areas of future growth → mutually beneficial the requisite capabilities to both innovate and to
venture (JV) “unites the tremendous depth and breadth partnerships are identified that leverage partners’ core execute, i.e. to bring the innovation to market and
[Explored in case product, service or business model,
of [PepsiCo’s] distribution and marketing competencies → partnership terms established and to scale.
studies] with each contributing their core capabilities with [Beyond Meat’s] innovation in agreed → partnership commences.
competencies. plant-based protein”.
Venture science A partnership between venture V2food, a collaboration between CSIRO, Hungry Venture identifies a high-growth area → curated team Capital is injected upfront by venture to de-risk the
capital, researchers and a corporate Jack’s and Main Sequence Ventures, went from marries research expertise with commercialisation/ engagement for the corporate partner, corporate
[Explored in case
zero to half-a-million plant-based burgers in distribution capability → new company created to bring partner has market leading execution capability.
studies] distribution partner, formalised in the
18 months. This is explored in detail in the case a new product to market.
creation of a new entity. study section.
Moonshot An open and well-advertised call Elon Musk’s sponsorship of a US$100m prize Identification of a global and existential technology need → Eye-watering and headline-grabbing capital, and the
for transformational technology purse for carbon removal technology (https:// define challenge parameters → global marketing and public involvement of parties with legendary execution track
bit.ly/3tQb6e9). relations campaign. It remains to be seen what the next steps records, such as Elon Musk.
without a firmly defined execution
are, and whether or not this approach will be successful.
strategy.
‘Hacking for...’ and A multidisciplinary team (usually Hacking for Defense (http://h4d.stanford.edu/), Multidisciplinary team interviews humans to uncover Lean LaunchPad methodological expertise, a
externals with an internal Hacking for Oceans (http://h4oceans.ucsd. ‘pain points’ and customer problems → team rapidly viable pathway for validated or semi-validated
I-Corp programs edu/), CSIRO ON Prime (https://www.csiro.au/ prototypes minimum viable product solutions to address business models to be executed and scaled.
[Explored in case subject matter expert) uses
en/work-with-us/funding-programs/programs/ this problem → team develops a desirable, viable and
studies] Lean LaunchPad methodology Innovation-programs/ON-Prime). feasible business model to bring solution to life.
to rapidly validate a problem and
potential solution.
AgriFutures AustraliaYou can also read
