Project Management For Successful Product Innovation

Livestock Production Science 72 (2001) 37–42 www.elsevier.com / locate / livprodsci

Impact of technological innovation in animal nutrition C.T. Whittemore* Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3 JG, UK

Abstract Nutritional science serves both animal agriculture and the public consuming animal products. A past failure to demonstrate the relevance of work to the consumer has led in the UK to a reduction in unrestricted funding which now threatens scientific independence. The risk which innovation sometimes brings can be managed through cost / benefit appraisal and the precautionary principle. The process of risk assessment requires the involvement of the risk-taker, and is not a sole responsibility of the scientific community. The likelihood of innovations from nutrition research being put to good use will depend upon the quality of the science and its relevance to need. Scientific quality is assisted by funders giving preferential support to research centers which can provide the critical mass of scientists necessary to ensure experimental scale, scientific quality control, and the bringing together of different disciplines to focus upon a single problem. Priorities for nutritional research are suggested to be: the understanding and control of response (and failure to respond) to nutrients, the relationship between nutrition and animal wellbeing, the relationship between nutrition and the protection of the environment, and the relationship between nutrition and the quality of animal product (especially meat). The efficiency of technology transfer is suggested to be positively associated with the presence of simple and automatic means for the implementation of an innovation, or with a need to comply with Farm Quality Assurance Standards. The need for an intermediate extension step between the innovator and the end-user, together with a need for on-going managerial judgement seems to be unhelpful to effective technology transfer.  2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Nutrition; Innovation; Technology transfer; Research funding

1. Introduction Being no exception amongst sciences, the purpose of nutrition science is to serve society at large. Innovation in the nutrition of animals impacts upon three sorts of communities; those who produce the commodity (farmers), those who consume the commodity (consumers), and those who have rights and choices in relation to the utilization of new tech*Tel.: 1 44-131-6671-041; fax: 1 44-131-6672-601. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.T. Whittemore).

nologies (citizens). The implementation of new technology requires the participation of all three communities. The innovation process may be described as scientists and technologists having new ideas and testing them, followed by practitioners implementing those new ideas. But first, the act of being innovative is a quality in scarce supply and therefore worth caring for. It cannot be generated on demand. Effective research management recognizes that the enjoyment scientists get from originating new ideas is an essential part of the process. In serving the

0301-6226 / 01 / $ – see front matter  2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S0301-6226( 01 )00264-0

38

C.T. Whittemore / Livestock Production Science 72 (2001) 37 – 42

industry and the public, innovators benefit from the time and space to be imaginative and creative, and the opportunity to take risks and (sometimes) to be wrong. The funding environment for agricultural research should be sure to encourage these qualities (Whittemore, 2000). Most research funding comes from one or both of two sources; industry and government. Industry will be most ready to fund research when there is evidence of future profit through sales of new or improved product. Government funding offers independence from the profit motive, but this freedom has become progressively threatened by the introduction of schemes that link government funding to industrial support. Government may also place research contracts through the process of tendering for specific programmes of work. In this way science can be used to progress the political agenda. It is however proper that industry funds the science that it needs for the pursuit of profit. It is also proper that government funds science that is in the interests of the society that pays its taxes. It is further the case that joint government / industry funding increases the likelihood of beneficial interaction between science and practice. But when science (like art) becomes overly dependent upon the agenda of its sponsors it is in danger of becoming compromised. The scientific progression of hypothesis, observation, analysis and conclusion is spoilt if its objective is to ask only friendly questions and to support propositions favourable to its sponsors (see also; Miflin, 1997; Lewis, 1997; Whittemore, 1998, 2000).

2. New nutritional ideas and risk The risk taken by research sponsors is not only that of project failure or of unhelpful conclusions. There is the additional risk that the end-user might see no or little benefit in putting the new ideas into practice. The user requires the benefit to have a margin over the risk. The size of the margin between the risk and the benefit that is needed to secure the use of a new idea is dependent upon the circumstances of the potential user. For example, the use of organic grain in feedstuffs will have a greater

perceived margin of benefit where there is a demand for high-value meat. The benefit of in-feed antibiotics lies entirely with the farmer; while the risks lie entirely with the consumer. Risk as an actuality can be managed according to the principles of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points. But the consuming public is also concerned with the perception of risk. Scientists may consider that a concern for what is perceived rather than what is actual is illogical. However, perceived risk allows for unpredictable non-linear systems, unknowable long term effects and the fallibility of science. While examples such as the ‘improved’ heat treatment procedures for meat and bone meal, and the contamination of animal feeds with toxins are few, they are impressive in their impact upon the way that society sees animal nutrition scientists. The precautionary principle can address risk. Precaution is not cessation, but taking protective steps proportional to the risk. Where the risk is actual and quantifiable, it can be managed to the level of comfort defined by the risk-taker, and that level will be proportional to the benefit. Where the risk is perceived, it is necessary to determine whether the perceived risk is possible or imaginary. If possible, then precaution demands a transparent system for its on-going investigation and the presence of a system for the management of the risk, in case what is merely possible becomes actual. This would be appropriate for the utilization of a novel feed ingredient, or the continued inclusion of product derived from one animal species in the feed of another. If imagined, then precaution demands that the risk is monitored in such a way as to allow rapid action if what is imagined becomes what is possible (such as an encephalopathy jumping the species barrier). Dealing with risk through the medium of the precautionary principle is not the responsibility of the innovator, but of the prospective user and risktaker, and of society at large. Unfortunately, scientists who believe that it is the scientific view of degree of risk and need for precaution that should prevail, often miss this rather obvious point. This is unhelpful. The user’s participation in the process of research innovation and its risk assessment is essential (Haug, 1999). In the case of innovation in animal nutrition the users are both the agricultural communi-

C.T. Whittemore / Livestock Production Science 72 (2001) 37 – 42

ty and the consuming public (Whittemore, 1995). Scientists should not be dismayed when society demands that their hard-won knowledge be put aside.

3. Conditions for the likely successful impact of innovations from nutrition research

3.1. Quality of science High quality science does not necessarily lead to useful innovation (Edwards and Farrington, 1993). However, low quality science surely leads to unsafe application. Quality science comes more readily from independent and imaginative scientists educated in an enlightened and research-based education system that encourages revolution of thought, as well as logic, objectivity and analysis (Whittemore, 1998). The utilization of the human resource will be optimized when research aims are clear, the scale of experimentation adequate for purpose, and objectivity of interpretation of results ensured by peer review and critical appraisal. These qualities come most readily from centers employing excellent scientists in a well resourced environment. These centers need to be large in scale, allowing a critical mass of staff, equipment, livestock numbers, laboratories and field facilities. Interdisciplinarity, so essential to the solution of contemporary problems, can (by definition) only come from the formation of large groups. A consequence of concentration of resource into ‘Centers of Excellence’ is the need also to concentrate the financial support. Responsible allocation of funds from research sponsors will necessarily be unequal. Small and unviable research centers will find themselves unfunded. But ‘Centers of Excellence’ will foster the proper development of scientists through the provision of the necessary resource, and the delivery of rigorous criticism from other scientists of quality and reputation. Plans for the next generation of research are often identified not by the scientific community, but by the potential funders themselves. This results in required research areas being put out to tender, and research workers anxious for funding may be tempted to place low-cost bids although they lack adequate resource

39

to deliver good science. Such bids can be tempting to industrial sponsors attracted to the immediacy of an applied science approach (Whittemore, 1996). For example, the interaction between nutrition and the taste and tenderness of meat, or the interaction between nutrition and the immune response, are both subjects likely to benefit from a basic rather than an applied scientific approach. However, taking the basic approach does not ensure high scientific quality. For example, the failure of animals to achieve the expected response to nutrients is presently more in need of high quality science than is the basic determination of nutrient requirement in the first place. Likewise, pollution control has passed to the applications phase, and is now a matter primarily for development engineers.

3.2. Diminishing response Often it is the first surge of knowledge that represents the most substantial proportion of the useful total. Despite this, some subject areas can become fashionable, and large funding allocations continue to be made in the face of a research yield that progressively decreases; adding unnecessary detail to an already sufficient knowledge base. But new knowledge may sometimes have benefits in excess of the additive effects. In this respect it is helpful for funding bodies to distinguish between whether it is the law of diminishing returns or the law of first limiting constraint which applies (de Wit, 1992, 1993). The former would be illustrated by yet another estimate of maintenance requirement. The latter is illustrated when an outcome from one experiment also supplements the understanding of another. Thus an experiment to study response to protein will be better interpreted in knowledge of response to energy.

3.3. Relevance to need If a new idea coming from research is to be used, its usefulness must be evident. It is therefore reasonable for research sponsors to expect plans for technology transfer at the same time as they receive plans for the experimental protocol (Edwards and

40

C.T. Whittemore / Livestock Production Science 72 (2001) 37 – 42

Farrington, 1993; Harrington, 1997). It was the lack of evident relevance to need in the independent government-funded research programmes of 1960– 1980 which led in the UK to the cutting of research budgets (Whittemore, 1998). Next followed the insistence that either the project had to be jointly funded with industry, or relate to a government agenda. A significant cause of the loss of independence suffered by the scientific community was its inability adequately to demonstrate the relevance of research to the solution of problems of interest to government or industry. A historical perspective suggests that the 1970s were dominated by the determination of nutrient requirement and the evaluation of feedingstuffs; as comprehensively recorded by Theodorou and France (1999). The 1980s identified fundamental errors in nutrient requirement logic and re-invented the phenomenon of nutrition: genotype interaction. Lactation yield, fatness and lean tissue growth rate dominated nutritional investigations. The 1990s registered alarm at high productivity in the animal sector, and became sensitive to the relationship between animal nutrition, environmental pollution, sustainability of production, and animal welfare (Whittemore, 1994, 1995). To obtain research funds in Europe at the present time, nutritional scientists will often link their work to pollution control, animal health and wellbeing, or meat and milk product quality. The commercial sector also remains interested in the frank testing of product with a view to its endorsement. Kealey (1996) has explored the relative merits of industry funding for such purposes. Understanding and being able to control animal response to nutrients are both prerequisite for the provision of animal wellbeing and the resolution of animal production environmental sustainability problems (MAFF, 2000). The phrase ‘Integrated Management Systems’ (IMS) has come to be used to describe a stepwise approach to controlled nutritient provision. First, the identification and monitoring of the physiological state of the animal. Next, the specification and delivery of the nutritional means to change that state in the desired direction. Last, assessment of the outcome with a view to improving (by iteration) the accuracy of any subsequent nutritional specification. Inherent in IMS philosophy is that the control function is automatic, immediate and

quantitative. In this way, the research finding and its transfer are firmly linked together.

4. Technology transfer of innovations from research to the end user Table 1 describes a number of example innovations from nutrition research. Information transfer (column 1) relates primarily to transfer by the written or spoken word amongst peers, while technology transfer (column 2) refers to the actual means by which end-users may achieve implementation. Information transfer amongst scientists is relatively straightforward, but has little to do with either the effective transfer of the technology to the end user, or with the impact of the innovation (Nelson and Farrington, 1994). More than one level of end-user should be considered. For example, the feed and primary production industries (column 3) and the ultimate consumer of the animal product (column 4) are all end-users of animal nutrition research. The nature of the impact of an innovation can differ at each level. High impact innovations tend to be associated with means of technology transfer which facilitate automatic implementation; such as built-in software packages, hardware and mechanical equipment, formulae for diet nutritional content, grading payment schedules, and ‘legal’ enforcement. All of which – once implemented – either limit or exclude further and frequent recourse to the decision-making process. The linear pattern of technology transfer; research institute – extension service – practicing farmer (Whittemore, 1996, 1998) is probably inadequate for developed agriculture, and the transfer of information and technologies requires non-linear and com¨ plex interactions (Roling and Engel, 1991; Haug, 1999). The inclusion of extension methodology as an intermediate step in the chain appears to hinder the uptake of new ideas (Edwards and Farrington, 1993). This seems particularly to be the case where the end-user, the extension professional, and the scientific innovator all consider themselves to be equally knowledgeable. As stated by Garforth and Usher (1997) in relation to the influence of the extension step, ‘‘information is not simply passed on but is

Table 1 Transfer and impact of nutritional innovation in the livestock industry Means of information transfer (effectiveness of transfer)

Industry outcome (impact)

Consumer outcome (impact)

National Standards for nutrient requirement

Scholarly texts and software (80%) Nutritional evaluation of feedingstuffs Scientific publications (60%) Least-cost diet formulation Software (100%) Quantification of response to change Scientific publications and in level of nutrient supply professional journals (50%) Quantification of effect of feeding Grading schemes level and energy:protein ratio on carcass fatness (100%) Identification of feeds or feed additives Intellectual Property Advertising with specific functions in professional journals (10%) Reduction in environmental pollution by Scientific publications and optimization of nutrient supply professional journals (60%)

Nutrient requirement provided in the diet (80%) Diet formulation matrices (70%) Ingredient mixture in compounded diet (80%) Extension services (40%) Financial returns from Meat Packers imposing grading schemes (100%) Included into diet (80%) Extension services (40%). Legislation and codes of practice (95%) Manual of Standards Inspection, followed by withdrawal (100%) of registration if non compliant (100%) Little information presently Extension services available for transfer (20%) (10%) Potential inclusion in Quality Assurance Standards (80%) Little information presently available Software/hardware interfaces, electronic for transfer. Intellectual property protected control mechanisms, mechanized nutrient balancing software and feed provision (90%) (90%)

Improved efficiency (high) Optimization of feed ingredient inclusion (high) Improved efficiency (high) Improved efficiency (medium) Reduced output and decreased returns (negative) Increase in diet cost; efficacy sometimes unverified (neutral) Increase in feeding costs (negative)

Reduction in product price (medium) Reduction in product price (medium) Reduction in product price (medium) Reduction in pollution (medium) Increase in product quality (high) Little (neutral) Improvement in the local environment (medium)

Imposition of Farm Quality Assurance Standards Nutritional enhancement of the flavour and eatability of the meat product

Increase in production costs, but maintenance of market (neutral) Increase in value of the product in the market place (high)

Improvement in product quality (high) Increased benefit at the point of consumption (high)

Improved efficiency, maintenance of market position, compliance with pollution controls, optimization of output (high)

Improvement of product value and reduction in pollution (medium)

Integrated Management Systems for the optimization of nutrient provision

Means of technology transfer (effectiveness of transfer)

C.T. Whittemore / Livestock Production Science 72 (2001) 37 – 42

Innovation

41

42

C.T. Whittemore / Livestock Production Science 72 (2001) 37 – 42

continually being transformed and adapted’’. Thus there is contrast between the rate of uptake of new knowledge relating to optimum diet protein content (which requires no more than a once-for-all adjustment to diet formulation software) on the one hand; and on the other, the rate of uptake of new knowledge relating to optimum level of feed supply (which requires first information delivery, next the inclusion of a decision-maker, and last the exercising of judgement on a day-by-day basis). Innovations which will result in loss of profit are unlikely to be implemented by businesses unless there is some ‘legal’ or moral obligation. In such circumstances, Farm Quality Assurance Schemes are a most effective means of technology transfer, and impact strongly on the way livestock are farmed (Whittemore, 1995).

References Edwards, D.T., Farrington, J., 1993. Review of the factors influencing uptake and impact of a sample of 21 UK supported renewable natural resources research projects. In: ODI Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper 43. Overseas Development Institute, London. Garforth, C., Usher, R., 1997. Promotion and uptake pathways for research output: a review of analytical frameworks and communication channels. Agric. Systems 35, 301–322. Harrington, G., 1997. Technology transfer in the livestock and meat industry. In: Commissioned Report to the Meat and Livestock Commission, Milton Keynes. Haug, R., 1999. Some leading issues in international agricultural extension, a literature review. J. Agric. Educ. Extension 5, 263–274.

Kealey, T., 1996. The Economic Laws of Scientific Research. Macmillan, London. Lewis, T., 1997. Farmers Weekly, 19 September. MAFF, 2000. Agriculture Link. Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, PB 5240. Miflin, B., 1997. Farmers Weekly, 19 September. Nelson, J., Farrington, J., 1994. Information Exchange Networking For Agricultural Development: A Review of Concepts and Practices For Cta. Sayce Publishing, Exeter. ¨ Roling, N., Engel, P., 1991. The development of the concept of agricultural knowledge and information systems. In: Rivera, W., Gustafson, M. (Eds.), Agricultural Extension: Worldwide Institutional Evolution and Forces for Change. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 125–137. Theodorou, M.K., France, J., 1999. Feeding Systems and Feed Evaluation Models. CABI Publishing, Wallingford. Whittemore, C.T., 1994. Food from animals: environmental issues and implications. In: Dalzell, J.M. (Ed.), Food Industry and the Environment. Blackie Academic and Professional, London, pp. 1–14. Whittemore, C.T., 1995. Response to the environmental and welfare imperatives by UK livestock production industries and research services. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 8, 65–84. Whittemore, C.T., 1996. Policy issues for education in general agriculture in UK Universities. Eur. J. Agric. Educ. Extension 3, 21–34. Whittemore, C.T., 1998. Structures and processes required for research, higher education and technology transfer in the agricultural sciences; a policy appraisal. Agric. Econ. 19, 269– 282. Whittemore, C.T., 2000. Pitfalls in Reporting Animal Science Research. University of Edinburgh Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, Edinburgh. de Wit, C.T., 1992. Resource use efficiency in agriculture. Agric. Systems 40, 125–151. de Wit, C.T., 1993. Resource Use Analyses in Agriculture: A Struggle For Interdisciplinarity. Wageningen Agricultural University, Wageningen.