Strategic management (STM) is recognized as an important element for firms’ success; however, small firms, especially in agribusiness, have widely been overlooked because it is often thought that a systematic STM is exclusively for large corporate firms. Firms engage in STM practices such as environmental analysis, formulation of mission and vision statements, strategic planning, implementation, evaluation, etc., regardless of their size.
Accountability pressure to demonstrate how research for development projects will bridge the ‘output - outcome gap’ and achieve impacts ‘at scale’ has increased. Consequently, efforts to develop ‘Theory of Change’ (ToC) and impact pathways that steer programs and projects to outcomes have grown within Australia’s Official Development Assistance (ODA) strategy. In response, the cross agency Food Systems Innovation (FSI) initiative piloted the use of ToC thinking within Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR).
This report brings a review about the CTA activities in 2018 based on three intervention areas. One is promoting youth entrepreneurship and creating employment for young people, particularly through the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs). The second, digitalisation, cuts across all intervention areas and focuses on the application of digital technologies to transform business models and provide new revenue throughout agricultural value chains.
In this paper four mini-case studies are presented which demonstrate the breadth of past collective actions that have been undertaken by a substantial proportion of businesses in food value chains, two in Europe and two in Australia. These are (1) the Euro Pool System, (2) Global Standards certification in Europe and globally,
In this paper its argued that when flexibly applied and adapted to capture dynamics typical in systems innovation projects, the Log Frame Approach (LFA) ( and logical frameworks have considerable utility to support evaluation for both learning and accountability, and for identifying and addressing institutional logics, which leads to system innovation.
This paper is an inquiry into the process of setting up a national, multi-stakeholder project collaboration aimed at stimulating the role of the private sector in the Australian agricultural extension and innovation systems.
The policy implications of cumulative innovation are essential to consider in order to mitigate risk and capitalise on opportunities as digitalisation transforms agriculture. One project that involves imagining the future of the sector and aims to develop the necessary tools and infrastructure is the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Digiscape Future Science Platform (FSP). This paper explores the policy framework encompassing these tools and elucidates considerations for future governance in Australia.
This paper presents results from an action research intervention aimed at strengthening the role of private sector advisers in the Australian agricultural extension system. Private sector advisers participating in the research identified a number of barriers to their effective inclusion in this system.
This study identifies systemic problems in the New Zealand Agricultural Innovation System (AIS) that affect the ability of participants in the agricultural sectors to co-develop technologies. We integrate structural and functional streams of innovation system enquiry, gathering data through 30 semi-structured interviews with individuals in Government, industry and research. Interviews explored perceptions of the influence of actors, interactions, institutions, infrastructure, and market structure on the effectiveness of AIS functions.
In this article it is analysed the results of applying a co-innovation approach to five research projects in the New Zealand primary sector. The projects varied in depth and breadth of stakeholder engagement, availability of ready-made solutions, and prevalence of interests and conflicts. The projects show how and why co-innovation approaches in some cases contributed to a shared understanding of complex problems. Our results confirm the context-specificity of co-innovation practices