Food Protection Trends - September/October 2019 - 428

This study suggests that intermediaries and the networks
they build are critically important to innovation system
performance (Fig. 3). Managers need to understand and
function as intermediaries within the innovation system to
facilitate innovation outcomes.
APPLYING INNOVATION SYSTEMS TO FOOD
SAFETY
Innovation systems approaches have had a significant
impact on the development of innovation policy (particularly
national and regional innovation policy), but little attention
has been given to how innovation system approaches can
be applied at the level of projects. Innovation policy needs
to be focused not only on systems-level outcomes, but also
on the project-level outcomes that are critically important
to system-level success. Policy needs explicitly to take into
account the important role of researchers and intermediaries
in innovation success.
The case study presented here suggests that effective use
of funds occurs when they are applied to develop all of the
elements of the innovation system and when an intermediary
ensures that the system is operating effectively. Arguably,
funds need to be applied flexibly, so that, when innovation
system elements are found to be weak, funds can be applied
to strengthen the weak elements of the innovation system.
Many of the elements of the sectoral innovation system are
amenable to policy intervention. The competence of actors,
effectiveness of hard institutions, and adequacy of infrastructure
may all be addressed by policy. It is likely that other elements,
such as the presence of sufficient actors (21), cannot be directly
addressed by policy. However, if sufficient actors cannot be
induced to be involved in an innovation project, then it may
indicate that other elements, such as markets, are not sufficiently
strong to attract actors to the project (23).
The elements of the technological innovation system
may be addressed within the system, that is, by project
management. Funds must, however, be applied beyond the

usual areas of knowledge development and dissemination.
It is tempting for the intermediary and the researchers to
believe that funding and producing research, embodied in a
scientific paper or industry-oriented report, is sufficient. This
research presents a clear challenge to this belief and contends
that all elements of the innovation system are required if
investment is to be effective in leading to innovation.
Given the importance of the intermediary demonstrated
by this study (21), policy-makers should ask whether other
areas of technological development would benefit from a
designated intermediary organization.
Project managers should ensure that all of the elements
of both the sectoral and technological innovation systems
are operating sufficiently well such that they do not limit the
ability of their project to result in innovation. That is, project
managers must consider their role as an innovation system
intermediary. This research has not investigated how project
managers can gauge the strength of elements pre-emptively
or the strength of elements required. The interaction of
competent actors is probably the most important aspect of
the sectoral innovation system that can be managed within
the project; the other elements may be largely outside
the research aspect of the project. Many elements of the
technological innovation system may be best addressed at a
project level, by the actors involved in the system. Direction
of the search, knowledge development and dissemination,
acceptance, and entrepreneurial experimentation may all
be addressed by the decision of innovation system actors,
providing that sufficient actors have been involved.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I thank Dr. Richard Doyle, Professor Morgan P. Miles, and
Dr. Peat Leith for their guidance through the work described
in this article. Meat & Livestock Australia provided access to
internal records, study leave, and funds to allow this research
to be conducted. Dr. Kylie Hewson is thanked for her careful
reading of the manuscript and advice.

REFERENCES
1. Anonymous. 2005. Oslo Manual: Guidelines
for collecting and interpreting innovation
data. OECD Publishing.
2. Bagno, R. B., M. S. Salerno, and D. O.
da Silva. 2016. Models with graphical
representation for innovation management: a
literature review. Res. Dev. Mgt. 47: 637-653.
3. Balconi, M., S. Brusoni, and L. Orsenigo.
2010. In defence of the linear model: An
essay. Res. Policy 39:1-13.
4. Bergek, A., S. Jacobsson, B. Carlsson, S.
Lindmark, and A. Rickne. 2008. Analyzing
the functional dynamics of technological
innovation systems: A scheme of analysis.
Res. Policy 37:407-429.

428

5. Cagnin, C., E. Amanatidou, and M. Keenan.
2012. Orienting European innovation
systems towards grand challenges and the
roles that FTA can play. Sci. Publ. Policy
39:140-152.
6. Carlsson, B., and R. Stankiewicz. 1991.
On the nature, function and composition
of technological systems. J. Evol. Econ.
1:93-118.
7. Caswell, J. A. 1998. Valuing the benefits and
costs of improved food safety and nutrition.
Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 42:409-424.
8. Desmarchelier, P. M., and E. A. Szabo. 2008.
Innovation, food safety and regulation.
Innovation 10:121-131.

Food Protection Trends September/October

9. Dhanaraj, C., and A. Parkhe. 2006.
Orchestrating innovation networks.
Acad. Mgt. Rev. 31:659-669.
10. Edler, J., and J. Yeow. 2016. Connecting
demand and supply: The role of intermediation in public procurement of innovation.
Res. Pol. 45:414-426.
11. Edquist, C. 1997. Systems of innovation
approaches - their emergence and
characteristics, p. 1-35. In C. Edquist
(ed.), Systems of Innovation: technologies,
institutions and organizations. Pinter
Publishers, London.
Food Protection Trends - September/October 2019

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - September/October 2019
