11.-13. veebruaril 2020 toimub kolmepäevane ingliskeelne seminar innovatsiooni toetavast võrgustumisest ja meetoditest. Läbiviimist toetavad Dr. Eelke Wielinga ja Bowine Wijffels Hollandist.

Laager on mõeldud innovatsiooniprojektide läbiviijatele ja nõustajatele.

Seminaril arutatakse:

• innovatsiooniprotsesside teaduslikud aspektid;
• vahendeid, mis aitavad ergutada innovatsiooni teket, edendada võrgustikke ja säilitada võrgustiku-sisest energiat;
• innovatsioonivõrgustike edusammude hindamise raamistik;
• innovatsioonivõrgustikke soodustav keskkond.

Seminari materjalid:

• Laagri päevakava 
• Eelke Wielinga ettekanne AKISe kujunemisest
• Hanna Tamsalu ettekanne MAK meetmetest
• Laagri struktuur ja Bowine Wijiffelsi materjalid analüüside kohta
• Laagris toimunu kokkuvõte
• Innovatsioonikaartide printimissõbralik versioon 
• innovatsioonikaartide inglisekeelseid seletusi SIIN

LISAINFO - Eelmine innovatsiooniseminar toimus 5.-6. novembril 2019. Vaata lisainfot SIIT ja Kokkuvõte seminarist lühivideona: https://youtu.be/ 

Trainers observations and thoughts after the event

First and above all: congratulations for this initiative and for succeeding in bringing these valuable people together from the different corners in the Estonian AKIS! We don’t know other examples in Europe where it has been tried this way to bring clarity in what could be done for improving the system. You found the right people who know how it works within their own bubbles and who showed the willingness to explore new ways for collaboration. That is a significant achievement. You have something on which you can build further.

Bubbles. Participants in the different categories live within their own reality, without knowing much about others. This is not surprising at all: it happens always and everywhere, and no one is to blame. A nice quote from an advisor: “I thought I needed them, but they also need us!”.

Feeding, safety and reproduction. The eco-analysis brought awareness about the different basic needs of every actor that needs to be taken case off. When, for example. The researchers said: “We produce scientific articles for our survival”, this work serves their safety more than their desire to be useful: reproduction. Rural Network must generate sufficient stories from about what is going on at farm level, not only for reproduction but also for feeding confidence at the level of policy and public opinion, in order to remain safe.

Interest in the Free Actor concept. Free Actor is something everybody knows but rarely receives recognition within existing structures. There are always people who walk that extra mile because they think it is useful for the network, although nobody has asked them to do so. They are worth their weight in gold, but they don’t get it. More often than not they must row upstream and take personal risks. Yet, they are essential for a well functioning system. 
Note, that the model of Co-creaton triangle has no good or bad positions. All positions within the circle are needed for co-creation. And if someone is outside, this is a signal to find out why, and what could be done to connect. Furthermore, it distinguishes positions that can change rather quickly, and not functions as described in formal structures. The key is that it takes a network of carrying partners who embrace the idea because they share an ambition.

Managers position is not popular. This might be caused by confusion about what management means in this model. Here it refers to enabling management. It takes an actor with the power to make changes in the structure that allow for bringing the initiative further. This could be by providing funds, or by modifying the rules. It could also be by providing structure in order to align various contributions towards complementarity.
It should not be confused with a common idea of managers setting targets and telling what to do. The actors in networks around initiatives are no project personnel taking orders. But they do need to find their way in existing structures that set boundaries (the enabling environment). And they do need structure for regulating the traffic between collaborating partners.
The issue at stake here is what an enabling structure for innovation could look like, and who has the means and the power to adjust the current structure.

Structure follows flow. It might seem a bit disappointing to some that the camp did not lead to a new and clean organigramme of The Future AKIS for Estonia. Such a structure needs to grow step by step.  It is an illusion that a new structure could function well when key players haven’t had the opportunity to go through the learning process, revealing what needs to change and probing by trial and error what appears to work.

Possible pathways

• Initiators of vital circles can make a good use of a extra bit of space in time and money - this would allow them to actively search for relevant and actual information, engage in learning professional networks, and stimulate initiatives in their early stage, before they are ripe for a project proposal
• New ways of monitoring - how can you distinguish an effective free actor from someone opportunistically claiming he is effective while he is not? 
• A stimulating network -  public agency has a position within the system no other actor can perform. It can invite people, it can also assist in stimulating networks, and helping people to find their way, especially in the bureaucracy.
• Story telling - Real life stories have more impact on the opinion of both public and policy makers than reports or brochures. It is not enough only to tell what had been done and how successful it was. Helping people to write good stories is a specialism. 

Info: Põllumajandusuuringute keskuse maaelu võrgustikutöö osakonna juhataja asetäitja Hanna Tamsalu,  e-posti aadressil hanna.tamsalu@pmk.agri.ee või telefonil 5201 078 Sündmuse läbiviimine on toetatud Maaelu arengukava tehnilise abi vahenditest maaelu- ja innovatsioonivõrgustiku tegevusele. Sündmus on registreeritud osalejatele tasuta.