Innovation ecosystem: cooperation of the agricultural market entities in the light of empirical research conducted on the basis of Group Azoty Pulawy innovation consortium

Economic Annals-ХХI: Volume 185, Issue 9-10, Pages: 108-118

Citation information:
Pokojski, Z. (2020). Innovation ecosystem: cooperation of the agricultural market entities in the light of empirical research conducted on the basis of Group Azoty Pulawy innovation consortium. Economic Annals-XXI, 185(9-10), 108-118. doi: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V185-11

Zenon Pokojski
PhD (Economics),
Assistant Professor,
Faculty of Economics,
Maria Curie-Skłodowska University
5 Maria Curie-Skłodowska Sq., Lublin, 20-031, Poland
zenon.pokojski@poczta.umcs.lublin.pl
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5870-6397

Innovation ecosystem: cooperation of the agricultural market entities in the light of empirical research conducted on the basis of Group Azoty Pulawy innovation consortium

Abstract. Traditionally, the innovation process has been of a closed nature because research or development projects are generated inside the company and brought to the market by a company. However, Chesbrough (2003) formulated the open innovation paradigm, assuming that companies can and should use external and internal ideas as well as external and internal market paths in search of new opportunities for their development. Openness to innovation requires cooperation with other market players, therefore some kind of partnership is necessary to co-create value with various stakeholders. The partners share their knowledge and experience as well as the benefits of jointly conducted innovative projects. Managing this type of partnership is now considered one of the key competences of the organization. However, the issue of managing the innovation ecosystem as the most mature form of open innovation has been relatively poorly researched.

We do not know much about what organizational and legal solutions are adopted by companies in partnerships for the development of innovation, what a model of cooperation could look like or how to manage such a partnership. How far should we formalize these processes? While searching for answers to these questions, the author decided to conduct empirical research in 2019 among the consortium members of Group Azoty Puławy (nitrogen fertilizers production), based on an in-depth, partially structured interview, supported by an analysis of several selected innovation ecosystems of global chemical groups (BASF, MONSANTO, SOLVAY and YARA).

Group Azoty Puławy is part of Group Azoty, the second largest producer of mineral fertilizers in Europe. In 2019, Group Azoty Puławy generated revenues of EUR 845.4 million and profit of EUR 70.7 million. The results for the first nine months of 2020 were EUR 533.7 million and EUR 37.2 million, respectively (Group Azoty Puławy interim reports 2020; 2021).

The subject of the research was a consortium established in 2011 by Group Azoty Puławy in order to implement joint innovation projects. In the period between 2011 and 2016, consortium members submitted 22 initiatives, 6 of which were completed by 2016. After five years of operation, the consortium consisted of 12 members, including 5 representatives of scientific institutions, 3 producers of agricultural products and 4 organizations representing agricultural entrepreneurs. The purpose of the research was to assess the degree of openness of project participants to cooperation during the construction phase and the management phase of the consortium.

The research of innovation consortium of the Group Azoty Puławy shows the following:

• During the construction phase, the members of the consortium were open to the accession of new partners, however selectively, i.e. according to the leader’s instructions.
• The selection of partners was complementary and concerned entities serving the same market segment as leaders.
• During the management phase of the consortium, the solution that gave the leader the greatest power had the largest number of followers.
• Most of the respondents were in favour of a formalized cooperation strategy, i.e. the one based on stan­dardizing relations between partners.
• The respondents were open to both formal (specific, contractual) and informal (relational) mechanisms in building and managing a partnership.

Keywords: Innovation Ecosystem; Innovation Consortium; Group Azoty Puławy; Business Ecosystem; Open Innovation; Ecosystem Building; Ecosystem Management

JEL Classification: O32; M21

Acknowledgements and Funding: The author received no direct funding for this research.

Contribution: The author contributed personally to this work.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V185-11

References

1. Adegbesani, J. A., & Higgins, M. J. (2010). The intra-alliance division of value created through collaboration. Strategic Management Journal, 32(2), 187-211.
   https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.872
2. Adner, R. (2006). Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harvard Business Review, 84(4), 98-107.
   https://hbr.org/2006/04/match-your-innovation-strategy-to-your-innovation-ecosystem
3. Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2009). Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31(3), 306-333.
   https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.821
4. Autio, E., & Thomas, L. (2014). Innovation ecosystems: Implications for innovation management. In M. Dodgson, D. M. Gann, & N. Phillips (Eds.), Innovation management (pp. 204-288). Oxford University Press.
5. Basole, R. C. (2009). Visualization of interfirm relations in a converging mobile ecosystem, Journal of Information Technology, 24, 144-159.
   https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2008.34
6. Blomqvist, K., & Levy, J. (2006). Collaboration capability – a focal concept in knowledge creation and collaborative innovation in networks. International Journal of Management Concept and Philosophy, 2(1), 31-48.
   https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMCP.2006.009645
7. Chesbrough, H. (2003). The area of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 35-41.
   https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279868179_The_Era_of_Open_Innovation
8. Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open Business Models: How to thrive in the New Innovation Landscape. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
9. Chesbrough, H., & Brunswicker, S. (2018). The adoption of open innovation in large firms. Technology Management, 61(1), 35-45.
   https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2018.1399022
10. Czakon, W. (2016). The basics of the research methodology in social sciences. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Nieoczywiste (in Pol.).
11. Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 659-669.
    https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.21318923
12. Doz, Y. L. (1996). The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: initial conditions of learning processes? Strategic Management Journal, 17(S1), 55-83.
    https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171006
13. Du, J., Leten, B., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2014). Managing open innovation projects with science-based and market-based partners. Research Policy, 43(5), 828-840.
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.12.008
14. Ebrahim, N. A., & Bong, Y. B. (2017). Open innovation: A bibliometric study. International Journal of Innovation, 5(3).
    https://doi.org/10.5585/iji.v5i3.184
15. Faber, E. C. (2001). Managing collaborative new product development. Enschede: Twente University Press.
16. Fjelstad, Ø., Snow, C., Miles, R., & Lettl, C. (2012). The architecture of collaboration. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 734-750.
    https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1968
17. Freeman, Ch. (1982). The economics of industrial innovation. London: F. Printer.
18. Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 68-78.
    https://hbr.org/2004/03/strategy-as-ecology
19. Iansity, M., & Levien, R. (2004a). The keystone advantage: what the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation and sustainability. Harvard Business School Press.
20. Jackson, D. J. (2011). What is an innovation ecosystem? National Science Foundation, 2(1), 1-11.
    https://erc-assoc.org/sites/default/files/topics/policy_studies/
    DJackson_Innovation%20Ecosystem_03-15-11.pdf
21. Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open innovation: The Role of Openness in Explaining Innovation Performance Among U. K. Manufacturing Firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131-150.
    https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.507
22. Le, H. T., Dao, Q. T., Pham, V. C., & Tran, D. T. (2019). Global trend of open innovation research: A bibliometric analysis. Cogent Business & Management, 6(1).
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1633808
23. Marek, J. (2005). In-depth personal interviews. In K. Mazurek-Łopacińska (Ed.), Marketing Research. Theory and Practice (pp. 149-153). Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN (in Pol.).
24. Mierzejewska, B. (2008). Open Innovation – a new approach to the processes of innovation. E-mentor, 24(2).
    http://www.e-mentor.edu.pl/artykul/index/numer/24/id/539 (in Pol.)
25. Olander, H., Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., Blomqvist, K., & Ritala, P. (2010). The dynamics of relational and contractual governance mechanisms in knowledge sharing of collaborative R&D projects. Knowledge and Process Management, 17(4), 188-204.
    https://doi.org/10.1002/kpm.356
26. Pokojski, Z. (2018). A model of cooperation platform for entities involved in the agricultural market open to innovations in Poland. Economic and Environmental Studies, 18(2), 809-823.
    https://doi.org/10.25167/ees.2018.46.21
27. Pokojski, Z. (2018). In searching for business model open for innovations on agricultural market – conceptual approach. Economic Sciences for Agribusiness and Rural Economy, 1, 237-242.
    https://doi.org/10.22630/ESARE.2018.1.33
28. Randhawa, K., Wilden, R., & Hohberger, J., (2016). A bibliometric review of open innovation: Setting a research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(6), 750-772.
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12312
29. Ritala, P., Agouridas, V., Assimakopoulos, D., & Gies, O. (2013). Value creation and capture mechanisms in innovation ecosystems: a comparative case study. International Journal of Technology Management, 63(3-4), 244-267.
    https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2013.056900
30. Ritala, P., Armila, L., & Blomqvist, K. (2009). Innovation orchestration capability – defining the organizational and individual level determinants. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13(04), 569-591.
    https://doi.org/10.1142/S136391960900242X
31. Sopińska, A., & Dziurski, P. (2018). Open innovation. The prospect of cooperation and knowledge management. Warsaw: Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH.
    https://wydawnictwo.sgh.waw.pl/produkty/profilProduktu/id/1035/
    OTWARTE_INNOWACJE_Agnieszka_Sopinska_Patryk_Dziurski (in Pol.)
32. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319-1350.
    https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.640
33. The Group Azoty Pulawy. (2021). Interim reports 2020; 2021.
    https://pulawy.grupaazoty.com/relacje-inwestorskie/raporty-okresowe (in Pol.)

Received 2.07.2020
Received in revised form 8.09.2020
Accepted 16.09.2020
Available online 21.11.2020