Agricultural Systems 113 (2012) 39–49

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Agricultural Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /agsy

Design process outputs as boundary objects in agricultural innovation projects:Functions and limitations

Laurens Klerkx a,⇑, Severine van Bommel b, Bram Bos c, Henri Holster c, Joyce V. Zwartkruis d,Noelle Aarts b,e

a Knowledge, Innovation and Technology Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlandsb Communication Strategies, Wageningen University, The Netherlandsc Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Wageningen University and Research Centre, The Netherlandsd Innovation Studies, Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, The Netherlandse ASCOR, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 21 December 2011Received in revised form 15 June 2012Accepted 25 July 2012

Keywords:Poultry production systemsDesignAgricultural innovation systemsNew product development

0308-521X/$ - see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2012.07.006

⇑ Corresponding author. Address: PO Box 8130,Netherlands. Tel.: +31 317 484694; fax: +31 317 486

E-mail address: Laurens.Klerkx@wur.nl (L. Klerkx)

a b s t r a c t

The purpose of this article is to investigate the functions of design process outputs (such as design briefs,scale models, visualizations, animations) as boundary objects in the implementation of novel agriculturalproduction system concepts. The case study analysis of the innovation process that led to the establish-ment of the Rondeel poultry husbandry system reveals that the interpretative flexibility of design processoutputs as boundary objects helps in creating mutual understanding among diverse actors involved inthe implementation of a novel agricultural production system concept, and in mobilizing support forit. In some cases, boundary objects allow for interpretative flexibility but remain stable in shape; some-times, however, the boundary objects themselves change as a result of the redesign process they induce.Furthermore, implementers of novel systems may prefer to maintain a rigid interpretation of the bound-ary object, using such interpretative rigidity of the boundary object as both an inclusion and exclusionmechanism for actors and options in the innovation process. The results confirm that a design processoutput such as a scale model can be purposefully created to serve as a boundary object and support novelagricultural system concept implementation. However, the effectiveness of a boundary object cannot bepredicted and fully planned ex-ante.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

It has been argued that a fundamental reorientation and reorga-nization of agricultural systems (i.e. production, processing, trade)is needed for greater sustainability, emphasizing issues such asenvironmentally sound production, high animal welfare, and so-cially and economically equitable profit distribution (Rains et al.,2011; Wiskerke and Roep, 2007). As opposed to merely optimizingcurrent systems by means of incremental innovations of systemcomponents, many authors argue that fundamentally changingcurrent unsustainable systems calls for system redesign and radi-cal innovations of different kinds (technical, organizational, social)throughout agricultural production systems and supply chains(Grin et al., 2004; Bos et al., 2009; Elzen and Wieczorek, 2005).Researchers are increasingly called upon to support such system(re-)design and radical innovation processes with expert viewsand scientifically grounded information with regard to the creation

ll rights reserved.

6700 EW, Wageningen, The094..

of future visions and novel agricultural system concepts (Kropffet al., 2001; Le Gal et al., 2011; Sumberg and Reece, 2004). Such vi-sions and concepts can have a guiding, binding, convincing, anduncertainty mitigating function in radical innovation processes(Berkhout, 2006; Beers et al., 2010).

Several authors have made a parallel between the design pro-cesses in which such visions and concepts are created and thebody of literature on new product development (NPD) as a wayof structuring the different steps in such a process (e.g. Sumbergand Reece, 2004; Groot Koerkamp and Bos, 2008). Design stepsindicated by the NPD literature (Ulrich and Eppinger, 2004; Sum-berg and Reece, 2004; Groot Koerkamp and Bos, 2008; Montagna,2011) include: (1) idea generation or what is called ‘the fuzzyfront end’ in which ideas and solutions are generated through,e.g., brainstorming, and analyzing markets, user needs, andtrends; (2) idea screening in which unsound concepts are elimi-nated and ideas and solutions are structured and refined; (3)concept development in which briefs of requirements are formu-lated and converted into a model of a rapid prototype of theproduct (e.g. a scale model, drawing, etc.) and this model andprototype is tested among consumers; (4) business analysis

40 L. Klerkx et al. / Agricultural Systems 113 (2012) 39–49

(e.g. calculating selling price, break-even point); (5) market test-ing by means of a physical prototype or mock-up; (6) technicalimplementation (e.g. planning resources, logistics, suppliers,engineering); (7) commercialization (product launch, distribution,promotion); and (8) new product pricing. These steps do notnecessarily take place sequentially, but can also take place simul-taneously, and some steps may be eliminated (Ulrich and Eppin-ger, 2004). Several authors argue that the participation andco-development of multiple stakeholders in such a design pro-cess can enhance the effectiveness of the process in terms ofthe product meeting users’ requirements and being adopted (LeGal et al., 2011; Sumberg et al., 2003; Leeuwis, 1999; Von Hippel,2005; Cerf et al., in press), although the intensity and scope ofstakeholder involvement may vary (Nahuis et al., 2012). Forexample, it has been argued that effective participation indesigning for radical innovation requires stakeholders to havethe capacity to think in abstract terms and with a long-term per-spective and to see their place within a bigger whole (Sumberget al., 2003; Sumberg and Reece, 2004; Lettl, 2007). Also, mul-ti-actor design processes are not easy as boundaries need to bespanned between different actor groups, which have their owninterests, language, and culture (Klerkx et al., 2010; Jakku andThorburn, 2010).

In the field of agricultural systems redesign, much focus hasbeen on the potential and actual use of model-based scenarios inland use policy processes (Sterk et al., 2009a,b; Sterk et al., 2006;van Ittersum et al., 1998), and the role of model-based decisionsupport systems in farm management (Jakku and Thorburn,2010; Le Gal et al., 2011; McCown, 2002; Cerf et al., in press). Thiswork has often dealt with computer models producing for examplequantitative data on trade-offs of different scenarios, henceconnecting to NPD process steps 1–3 as described above. There ap-pears to have been less study of how design process outputs suchas rapid prototypes of concepts (e.g. drawings, scale models) areused in implementing novel agricultural system concepts (NPDsteps 4 and beyond). Furthermore, as Le Gal et al. (2011) concludedon the basis of a review of the function of many research-baseddesigns (design modeling and prototyping) and design supportefforts (providing methodologies to advisors to support farmerdecision making), too often these remain confined to farmers andscientists, not taking into account the broad range of actors thatmatter in system redesign.

This article aims to fill this gap in the literature by addressing:(1) how design process outputs in the form of written design spec-ifications (briefs), visualizations, animations, and scale models insystem redesign support a radical innovation process involving awide range of actors in agricultural production systems and supplychains, and (2) what this implies for design processes purposefullyproducing such outputs to stimulate radical innovation. The articlepresents an in-depth case study of the use and role of designprocess outputs in realizing a radical system innovation in layinghen husbandry systems, the Rondeel system. In earlier work, thecreation of the Rondeel concept (NPD steps 1–3) has been de-scribed (Groot Koerkamp and Bos, 2008; Bos et al., 2009), as wellas its implementation in practice (NPD steps 4 and beyond – Klerkxet al., 2010). The latter study noted the function of designspecifications (briefs), visualizations, animations, and scale modelsas so-called boundary objects (Klerkx et al., 2010) but did not spe-cifically assess how they were used. This article continues bybriefly reviewing the literature on boundary objects and their rolein innovation (Section 2). The case description and method(Section 3) are followed by a detailed assessment of how designprocess outputs were used in the Rondeel innovation process(Section 4). The article ends with a discussion on the value ofdesigns in innovation processes and implications for creatingdesigns as boundary objects.

2. Conceptual framework: design process outputs as boundaryobjects

2.1. Defining boundary objects

In line with Bessant and Maher (2009), Broberg et al. (2011), andEwenstein and Whyte (2009), we conceptualize design process out-puts (design briefs, scale models, visualizations, animations) asboundary objects. Work in the agricultural systems field has alsoused this concept to analyze agricultural decision support systemsin terms of the issues they discuss and their user interface and out-puts (Jakku and Thorburn, 2010; Thorburn et al., 2011; Martin et al.,2012; Eastwood et al., 2012). A boundary object is defined as ‘‘an en-tity shared by several different communities but viewed or used dif-ferently by each of them, being both plastic enough to adapt to localneeds and the constraints of the several parties employing them, yetrobust enough to maintain a common identity across sites’’ (Starand Griesemer, 1989, p. 393). Boundary objects incorporate ambi-guity (Bowker and Star, 2000) and have ‘interpretative flexibility,’which means that they can mean different things to people depend-ing on contextual factors, and that these different interpretations,views, and uses of the object are equally valid (Jakku and Thorburn,2010; Star and Griesemer, 1989). Boundary objects can be more orless tangible, and hence can be more or less an object in the truesense. A boundary object can also be a shared discourse or raw data(e.g. a mission statement, a database) (Huzzard et al., 2010; Meyer,2009). However, when the boundary object becomes visual or tan-gible (e.g. a map, a video, a computer animation, a scale model, deci-sion support system-based model outputs – Schut et al., 2010; Sterket al., 2009b; Jakku and Thorburn, 2010; Kristjanson et al., 2009), itcan be easier for different groups to organize themselves aroundthem (Backman and Börjesson, 2006). Whereas some authors arguethat effective boundary objects can be purposefully created, othershave been more critical and say that it is hard to know beforehandwhat constitutes an effective boundary object (Turnhout, 2009;Zeiss and Groenewegen, 2009). These authors argue that boundaryobjects are no ‘magic bullet’ because their characteristics are hard tosustain as problems and people change: they may work in one set-ting, but fail in another setting (Carlile, 2002; Thorburn et al., 2011).

2.2. The usefulness of boundary objects in design and innovationprocesses

Work on the role of visions in innovation has found that thesehave a guiding, convincing, binding, and uncertainty mitigatingfunction (Berkhout, 2006; Beers et al., 2010). In their nature as of-ten the more tangible expression of visions, boundary objects havebeen found to have similar functions. Given their interpretativeflexibility, boundary objects can create a connection between dif-ferent types of actors in innovation processes to increase joint ac-tion, so they may stimulate congruence (i.e. beliefs, strategies, andbehaviors are fully in agreement and oriented toward securing ajointly desired outcome) (Ewenstein and Whyte, 2009; Jakku andThorburn, 2010; Papadimitriou and Pellegrin, 2007; Swan et al.,2007; Mørk et al., 2012). However, boundary objects also allowfor incongruence and disagreement, and this can help individualsto learn about their differences across specific boundaries. Throughdiscussion about the object, different groups can also get a betterunderstanding of what the design is about, how the vision itespouses serves their goals, and how its use affects their normalpractices (Bos et al., 2009; Jakku and Thorburn, 2010; Ewensteinand Whyte, 2009; Schut et al., 2010). Boundary objects can alsoact as a tool to bring new actors into a support or lobby networkof actors who want to realize a certain innovation and convinceopponents of the proposed change by legitimizing certain visions

L. Klerkx et al. / Agricultural Systems 113 (2012) 39–49 41

or knowledge claims (Backman and Börjesson, 2006; Bergmanet al., 2007; Kimble et al., 2010; Beers et al., 2010).

To summarize, by conceptualizing design process outputs asboundary objects, one can study how they act as vehicles forchange by enabling networks of actors to form around a certain de-sign and the vision it espouses, negotiate a shared direction, andenhance collaboration in innovation processes. We now examinehow design outputs functioned as boundary objects in the imple-mentation of the Rondeel, an environmentally and animal-welfarefriendly poultry husbandry concept.

3. Background to the case and research methods

3.1. Background: how the Rondeel concept came about and wasimplemented

The Rondeel was one of the designs created in a reflexive inter-active design (RID) project, Caring for Hens (CfH) (see Groot Koerk-amp and Bos, 2008), which aimed to redesign poultry productionsystems in The Netherlands. Another concept, called The Planta-tion, was also developed in CfH. The RID process started withtwo phases (Bos et al., 2009), which correspond with NPD steps1–3 (see Section 1):

1. System and actor analysis: systematic reflection on the currentstructural arrangements of the production system at hand andthe needs of key actors involved (including farmers, citizens,consumers, and the hens – represented by ethological scien-tists). This was done analytically by scientists as well as in aninteractive fashion with stakeholders and resulted in a brief ofsystem requirements (BoR) as a concrete design process output.

Fig. 1. Cartoonist’s drawings of the Rondeel system (d

2. Designing new systems or arrangements in an interactive wayin order to incorporate the knowledge and values of multiplestakeholders (through focus groups, creative sessions) and toprevent a research bias in value incorporation. This resulted inan attractive concept that was visualized in artists’ impressionsas a concrete design process output.

This initial design process was funded by government and facil-itated by animal scientists. The third phase of RID, which corre-sponds with NPD steps 4 and beyond, is about working onstructural system change: using the concept and reflectionsembedded in the concept to realize radically different productionsystems in practice. After the CfH project, the government’s hopethat the Rondeel concept would be taken further by private partiesto implement the Rondeel design in practice (Groot Koerkamp andBos, 2008) was realized.

The Rondeel system aims to tackle several problems associatedwith intensive laying hen systems (often referred to as factory farm-ing), such as insufficient opportunities for hens to fulfill their etho-logical needs, an increasing scale of production facilities to realizeeconomies of scale that makes it hard to manage for a single farmerand his/her family, citizens’ bad image of animal production andanimal welfare due to issues such as permanent indoor confine-ment, feather picking, beak trimming, and frequent contagious dis-ease outbreaks (Groot Koerkamp and Bos, 2008). To solve theseproblems, the redesign process aimed to create a system that would:(1) allow the animal to have a happy and productive life; (2) have apositive societal image that is true to reality; (3) have an outdooraccess that meets the concerns of various stakeholders in the egg-production sector; (4) be robust and natural at the level of theproduction system and the supply chain. Robustness was

iameter 72.5 m). Source: De Lauwere et al., 2004.

42 L. Klerkx et al. / Agricultural Systems 113 (2012) 39–49

operationalized as the extent to which the production system andthe supply chain could withstand internal and external disturbances(resilience), and naturalness was operationalized as the require-ment to fulfill the ethological needs of the animals (Groot Koerkampand Bos, 2008). The Rondeel system integrates attributes of organic(open air) laying hen husbandry (e.g. natural shelter) with theadvantages of closed hen housing systems producing barn eggs(e.g. protection against avian airborne diseases), and hence is posi-tioned in the market as being ‘in between’ these two egg segments(organic eggs and barn eggs). The Rondeel concept has as its mostapparent distinctive feature that it is a round hen housing system(see Fig. 1), as opposed to the normal rectangular ones. This formwas chosen to give it a sense of robustness and security for the hens(Rondeel is the Dutch word for a castle tower), although this ismainly based on citizens’ perceptions of robustness and security(Groot Koerkamp and Bos, 2008). With a diameter of 72.5 m, thesystem has a size that is manageable for a family farm enterprise.

Fig. 2 provides a timeline that displays crucial events after theend of the CfH project and the start of the implementation of theRondeel concept. In terms of NPD steps (see Section 1), it can benoted that steps 4–8 took place simultaneously, and given thecomplexity and scale of the product (the Rondeel system), step 5did not take place. Furthermore, in terms of NPD, the Rondeelhas two types of consumers: the farmer who can buy and operatethe husbandry system, and the consumer who buys the egg withadded welfare value. The implementation process is described indetail in Klerkx et al. (2010), but for clarity we summarize the mainissues crucial in implementation:

– First, a development consortium was formed, led by a builder ofhousing solutions for the poultry sector (Vencomatic) and anegg packer (Kwetters), who established a technical committeeto guide the development. This consortium later transformedinto a spin-off firm from Vencomatic (Rondeel Ltd.). A rangeof consultants assisted Rondeel Ltd. on issues such as corporatesocial responsibility (CSR) and animal welfare (the consultancyfirm Transition and Society), technical features (researchersfrom Wageningen University’s Animal Science Group: ASG, sev-eral environmental regulation advisors, architect), and innova-tion process monitoring (TransForum). When these otheractors joined, the technical committee became a broadersteering group.

Fig. 2. A timeline depicting the important events in the develo

– The design that came out of CfH was further elaborated to makeit feasible either using current technologies or innovating newones. Also, necessary permits needed to be obtained to makeit meet environmental, building, and animal welfare legislation.This involved negotiations with municipalities (Barneveld) andgovernment (Ministry of Agriculture: LNV).

– Farmers had to be found that were willing to build the systemon their premises and operate the system.

– Funding and financial guarantees had to be obtained for thefurther development of the design and for investing in thefirst systems to be built. This required interaction and cooper-ation with actors such as the innovation program TransForum,the southern farmers’ organization (ZLTO), government, andbanks.

– A retailer had to be found who would be willing to sell the eggsto consumers and who was interested in collaborating. Thisrequired negotiation with several supermarket chains (e.g.Dutch supermarket chain Albert Heijn).

– To position the eggs in the market, a distinct label had to beobtained; this required negotiations with the animal protectionsociety (APS), which grants animal welfare certification in theform of ‘welfare stars,’ which indicate how these systemscompare to other husbandry concepts (e.g. free range, barnsystems).

3.2. Research methods

Similar to other studies on the use of boundary objects inagricultural innovation (Jakku and Thorburn, 2010), the data forthis paper are derived from a case study applying a longitudinalanalysis of the innovation trajectory (Van de Ven et al., 1999).The research used an explorative qualitative approach (Flyvbjerg,2006) focused on obtaining rich data from semi-structured inter-views that were recorded and fully transcribed. In this researchapproach, in which the interview transcripts are the data,selected quotes from interviews are used to illustrate importantissues that emerge as patterns from the data. Complementarily,secondary data sources such as meeting minutes, business plans,and media expressions such as newspaper articles were ana-lyzed. Table 1 displays the data gathering techniques. As thestudy draws on longitudinal data, in addition to the data earliergathered and reported on in Klerkx et al. (2010), 7 additional

pment of Rondeel after the initial design phase from CfH.

Table 1Data gathering techniques.

Type of data gathering

Semi-structured interviews geared at identifying actor experiences and perceptionsof the Rondeel concept and its implementation

39 Interviews:7 With Vencomatic/Rondeel Ltd. staff1 With Kwetters staff6 With civil servants (Barneveld/Deurne/LNVa)4 With interested farmers8 With service providers (architect, environmental consultant, ASGb researchers)6 With facilitators (Transforum/Transition and Society)4 With funding agencies (Oost NV/Gelderse Vallei/ING bank)3 With farmers’ representatives (ZLTOc/APSd)

Observation of actor interaction At 11 meetings (3 workshops and 8 steering committee meetings)Document analysis Analysis of meeting minutes over 3 years (2006–2010), newspaper articles over

4 years (2005–2010), communication with LNVa

a Ministry of Agriculture, Nature, and Food Quality.b Animal Science Group, Wageningen UR.c Southern Farmers’ Organization.d Animal Protection Society.

L. Klerkx et al. / Agricultural Systems 113 (2012) 39–49 43

interviews, 3 additional observations, and document analysis of 1additional year were used. With insights from theory on the useof boundary objects and visions in innovation, the data werecoded using Atlas 5.0 software and analyzed for patterns. Giventhe single case study character of the research, external validityis not derived from statistical generalization but from analyticalgeneralization in which ‘‘previously developed theory is used asa template with which to compare the empirical results of thecase study’’ (Yin, 2003, pp. 32–33).

4. Results

4.1. Different design outputs produced for the Rondeel concept

From the process that led to the Rondeel concept, as extensivelydescribed by Groot Koerkamp and Bos (2008), a number of designprocess outputs emerged that were intended to serve as boundaryobjects (Bos et al., 2009; Bos, 2009):

– A number of visual expressions (by means of cartoonists’ draw-ings) of demands of farmers, citizens, and laying hens (see Fig. 1for an example).

– Design specifications in the form of a BoR stipulating and quan-tifying the needs of citizens, farmers, and laying hens (seehttp://edepot.wur.nl/5547).

– A video outlining the design process (see http://www.duurzam-eveehouderij.wur.nl/NL/projecten/houdenvanhennen/).

After the technical committee had become operational, theRondeel concept was further translated into several additionaldesign process outputs, such as:

Fig. 3. The scale models of Rondeel. The picture on the right displays the then Minister othe right). Photos provided by Rondeel Ltd.

– A detailed design drawing, by an architect, of the top view andcross-sections of segments of the Rondeel system (this cannotbe provided here for reasons of confidentiality).

– The construction of a scale model of Rondeel in its surroundings(see Fig. 3).

– The construction of an animation showing the functioning ofRondeel (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_9P8XF5ks0).

– The design of the egg container, which just like the Rondeel sys-tem has a round form to communicate to the consumer the dis-tinctiveness of the way the egg was produced (see Fig. 4).

4.2. The different functions and limitations of the Rondeel designprocess outputs in the innovation process

In this section, we assess the practical value of the designprocess outputs in the process of realizing the first operationalRondeel system. We now further elaborate on how the designprocess outputs relating to the Rondeel concept were used byactors in the Rondeel development consortium and the laterRondeel Ltd. The results are organized around different ways inwhich the interpretative flexibility of the design process outputsplayed a role in the concept implementation, which are connectedto several key events in this process (see Table 2).

4.2.1. Interpretative flexibility enables many actors to engage with theRondeel concept

The design process outputs that emerged from CfH were instru-mental in interesting others about this new approach to laying henhusbandry. Several core values inscribed in the Rondeel concept,such as the importance of the welfare of the hens (represented byfeatures such as a shrub covered outdoor area), the importance of

f Agriculture (the lady on the left) talking with Rondeel Ltd staff (the gentlemen on

Fig. 4. Rondeel egg container. Photo provided by Rondeel Ltd.

44 L. Klerkx et al. / Agricultural Systems 113 (2012) 39–49

the family enterprise (represented in the size of the Rondeel), andthe importance of involving the consumer (openness reflected in avisitors’ area), enabled several groups of actors to recognize theirown ambitions, interests, and practices in the Rondeel concept. Inthis sense, the concept and the boundary objects connected to itallowed for interpretative flexibility. Furthermore, as discussed inSection 4.2.2, several adaptations were made to the system, so italso allowed for negotiating the final specifications of the Rondeelconcept. However, the development consortium (later RondeelLtd.) did not compromise on the round design of Rondeel(communicated through several visualizations), although it didnot immediately fit neatly into established technical and planningcategories; it was maintained in its essential round form throughoutthe implementation process although the way the concept wasoperationalized changed. Maintaining the round shape throughoutthe implementation process was the result of a decision made byKwetters and Vencomatic at the beginning of the process. Whenthe network began to grow and new members were enrolled, theacceptance of the round design was a pre-condition for joining.Consequently, the round design acted as a selection device fornetwork membership. Furthermore, the overall philosophy com-prising the core values of the Rondeel in terms of animal welfareand family farm size was always maintained and no compromiseswere made. The CfH trademark was used for the purpose ofbranding the design. The following quote illustrates this:

Then we said, we are not going to weaken the strength of the designbecause we want to reduce cost price, but we’ll make it a success!(Rondeel Ltd. staff)

This decision of the development consortium and later Ron-deel Ltd. to some extent constrained the interpretative flexibilityof actors, or rather their scope of action to enact their interpre-tative flexibility to adapt the design to their needs, aspirations,

Table 2The function of design process outputs as boundary objects relating to specific events in t

Year Event

2004 End project Caring for Hens

2006 Kwetters and Vencomatic start cooperating in Rondeel development process– set up technical committee

2006 Municipality of Barneveld embraces Rondeel concept and assists in locationsearch and permit obtainment and two farmers are found willing to build theRondeel

2007 Animal Protection Society embraces Rondeel concept and later (in 2008) onallows the developers to use their logo for the welfare certification

2008 Informal lobbying for financial guarantee with ZLTO and LNV

2009 Guarantee granted and loans provided

and interests. However, it also helped to maintain the uniformlystrong and thought-provoking image evoked by the design pro-cess outputs, which proved instrumental in building the networkthat needed to be formed by the development consortium andlater Rondeel Ltd. As explained in Section 3.1, actors that neededto be enrolled included civil servants as providers of buildingpermits, farmers as purchasers and operators of the system, civilsociety organizations to create societal support for the designthrough animal welfare and environmental certification, retailorganizations that would sell the product, organizations thatcould provide financing, such as government and banks, and peo-ple that could engage in political lobbying, for example fromfarmers’ organizations and the Ministry of Agriculture. The visu-alizations in the form of the artists’ impressions, the animation,and the scale model enabled these actors to grasp the intendedmeaning of the design and relate it to their role in the innovationprocess and gave them something to hold onto (reducing uncer-tainty and ambiguity). This is illustrated by the following quoteof a farmer:

He brought the DVD along [. . .]. We saw it on the computer. It issomething quite peculiar. We said to each other, it is a giganticcomplex. But, on the other hand, it appealed to me and also tomy wife. (Farmer)

When it came to more concrete negotiations, the design processoutputs (visualizations coupled with accompanying explanations,calculations, and figures) also served their purpose in engagingpeople. In these negotiations, the design told different stories todifferent people. With regard to civil servants, the design processoutputs for example enabled them better to assess how the plansfor the Rondeel fitted in with the official regulatory framework im-posed by the building aesthetics committee. The following quoteexpresses this:

So we went a couple of times to the building aesthetics committee,Vencomatic was also there, and they made a very nice scale modelwhat gave a good view of what it would look like. (Civil servant)

With regard to the investment fund, the design process outputs(visualizations as well as accompanying explanations, calculations,and figures) helped the investment fund manager realize that theplans for the Rondeel were attractive economically:

In fact the system design was shown there, and why it was chosen,hence elucidating the original study. Also the plans were explained,about what it would look like and why one would want to realize it.So this included an explanation of the advantage for animal welfareand also the economic attractiveness of the whole. (Investmentfund manager)

he Rondeel concept implementation process.

Role of design

Rondeel visualization and brief of design requirements as outcome of thisprojectThe earlier Rondeel visualization and brief of requirements capture theirinterest, and subsequently Kwetters and Vencomatic produce a detailed designdrawing, a scale model, a video, and an animation showing the functioning ofthe RondeelThe scale model and the video helped to show the municipality and the farmerswhat the Rondeel would look like

The scale model, the video, and the animation were instrumental in explainingthe Rondeel, but scientific research that ‘proved’ animal welfare was mostimportant in getting the support of the Animal Protection SocietyThe designs are convincing to ZLTO and LNV, but legislation prevents theseorganizations from being able to help outThe designs did not play a major role here as it was new insights into legislationthat made this possible

L. Klerkx et al. / Agricultural Systems 113 (2012) 39–49 45

With regard to the Animal Protection Society, the designprocess outputs showed the staff that the plans for the Rondeelwere animal friendly, although this needed to be complementedwith calculations by ASG to verify certain assumptions made inthe design and with the promise of ethological observation ofthe hens after realization of the system in order to receivethe animal welfare accreditation by means of the previouslymentioned ‘welfare stars.’ This is illustrated by the followingquote:

Nice system, not industrial at all, the grass on the roofs makes youthink of Centre Parcs [Dutch chain of holiday parks]. (APS staff)

These quotes show that the design enabled people to relate itto familiar concepts that embodied a certain value to them:people created symbols or synonyms. In the course of the project,several such symbols or synonyms were created in the interactionbetween the actors. Some of them were also linked to the termi-nology used in the design process, as a result of artistic interpre-tations of the needs assessment. Besides the ‘Centre Parcs forhens,’ other expressions such as the ‘5 star hotel for hens’ werealso used. However, it was not purely positive terms that wereused, as terms such as ‘UFO,’ ‘circus tent,’ ‘Teletubbies hill’[BBC TV series for children; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies], and ‘chicken brothel’ were also coined. Despite theapparently derogative nature of some of the symbols and syn-onyms used, this did not imply that the perceptions of those thatemployed these terms were negative, but again showed that thedesign outputs allowed for interpretative flexibility and allowedfor reinterpreting and adapting the concept. The following quotesare telling in this respect:

The Rondeel has a pretty big impact on its surroundings, it is agigantic structure. It is a circus tent, that is our first thought, whata gigantic circus tent that will be in the landscape. Yes, this is a dif-ferent form than we are used to. But it is good that this pattern isbroken. (Environmental advisor)

At the building aesthetics committee the first remark was that itwas a circus tent, and eventually it became a Teletubby hill inthe landscape. It merges smoothly into the landscape and thatresulted in acceptance at the municipality of Barneveld. (Architect)

These utterances show that these actors support the Rondeelsystem not only because of its claims on animal welfare valuesbut also because of the landscape values it represents. So the de-sign process outputs of the Rondeel concept served to ‘tell thestory,’ i.e. they linked up to actors’ values, beliefs, and feelings onwhat an innovative poultry husbandry system should be about,using drawings, videos, animations, and scale models. These visualrepresentations lent the concept an air of stability and continuityin the sense that the scale model and animations did not changeand thus gave actors a tangible entity onto which they could pro-ject their values, beliefs, and feelings. The story was told throughthese images, rather than through language – although the mes-sages of the visual representations were confirmed by writtenand oral language (by means of calculations, research reports, busi-ness plans). The design told multiple stories to multiple audiences:one story to the Animal Protection Society, another story to civilservants, another story to the poultry farmers. However, the mean-ings were not necessarily explicitly included in the design; rather,they were projected by several people onto it.

4.2.2. Interpretative flexibility allows for and leads to interactiveadaptation of the concept

From the foregoing sections it has become clear that, althoughsome aspects of the design appeared to remain relatively stable

(especially the round form of the Rondeel concept), at the sametime, other aspects of it constantly changed. What could be ob-served was that incongruence initiated a process of discussion,negotiation, and adaptation. Although the NPD steps 1 and 2 inCfH had yielded a quite detailed brief of requirements thatunderlay the Rondeel concept regarding the needs of the hen,farmer, and citizens/consumers (see Groot Koerkamp and Bos,2008), this did not guarantee immediate adoption by the com-mercial parties (first in the Kwetters–Vencomatic developmentconsortium and later Rondeel Ltd. and its support network) thattook over the baton to realize the Rondeel concept. Althoughthey embraced the overall philosophy behind the design, theirmain criticism of it was that it was not practical, and someessential elements for the practical implementation of such aninnovation (such as market creation, value chain organization)were insufficiently addressed in the design. These details henceimmediately became the subject of debate. For Kwetters andVencomatic, the design was a starting point that should beadapted and made ‘realistic.’ The following quotes strikingly con-vey this:

In the original idea, you know the drawings, they had even come upwith an integrated playground [. . .] in fact, that is all nonsense, butit is about the ideas of the consumer, as found by research, and thatis what you have to pick up. What remains you have to dispose of,that is worthless, that is not practical, and that will never work, nofarmer will buy it. You need to develop a system in which a hen canbe kept on a commercial basis. So I say: ‘the UFO stays, but the restis gone.’ (Kwetters manager)

You notice that the group here approaches it very technically, theystart by making Autocad drawings, and start to think about build-ing construction and all of that. That is of course only a partial, butnecessary, view. Because Rondeel, as it was delivered in the ASGreport, was a kind of fantasy impression of a system in which thereare a couple of very good things, but also some features that areabsolutely impossible, so we started working on what had beenelaborated less. And that made Rondeel into a system that youcould build for a farmer without them laughing in your face. Noth-ing negative about ASG’s work, but it needed to be given a practicaltwist and that is what has happened here at the start. (Vencomaticengineer)

So, the overall philosophy (including its values) of the Rondeeldesign was maintained, but redesigning it meant that choiceshad to be made with regard to technology such as outside shellconstruction (the materials for, and way of, constructing roofsand walls and outdoor space fencing), feeding, egg collection, man-ure collection, climate control, type of hens. Although the originalround form was always maintained, interaction between the innersystem (including subsystems for feeding, egg collection, manurecollection, climate control) and outer shell (walls and roof, outdoorspace fencing) led to an iterative design process, as the followingquote illustrates:

I think in the first instance the concept was a Roundel with a tree inthe outdoor run and a really open system. In the final design thereare five systems. Systems with a common design, built in a circle.That is different from the first concept. (Researcher)

To some extent, the original Rondeel concept as it came out ofthe CfH project, as displayed in the design process outputs suchas the artists’ drawings and the scale model, was guiding in this,but some pragmatic choices were also made:

If I hadn’t had that picture I wouldn’t have known how. My taskwas to design the outer shell. But if you don’t know what will bein it, you cannot design a shell. The idea had been invented of

46 L. Klerkx et al. / Agricultural Systems 113 (2012) 39–49

course. And following that idea, one looks, with materials andknowledge, for ways to solve it. (Architect)

Are you going to design a totally new husbandry system, or do youuse parts of an existing one, as we chose to do? (Vencomaticengineer)

The pragmatic choice was made to use existing technology inRondeel, such as the nesting system. This lowered developmentcosts and resulted in fewer problems with regulatory requirements(e.g. on gas emissions) as the existing system had already beenapproved.

Whereas many of the changes focused on the technological as-pects of the design, work also needed to be done on the socio-eco-nomic aspects of the Rondeel concept. An important issue dealtwith the positioning of the egg in the market as a new segment:many respondents indicated that this was something that hadnot been addressed thoroughly in CfH. At the outset of the process,this was the main responsibility of the egg packing firm. They sawmarketing as their territory and also questioned the ideas on localpackaging embedded within the Rondeel design as it emerged fromCfH:

If you put the Rondeel near Amsterdam, you do that. Then you dothe sorting ready-made for the shop. Then the box with eggs can betaken from the production unit. But if you do that in the Veluwearea, where you have to fetch all the eggs and collect them, and dis-tribute them again to fill orders, then you’re doing it wrong. So theconcept is not as static as they [the CfH designers] want to make itappear. (Kwetters manager)

As a result of diverging ideas on how to proceed with the pro-ject, relating also to more fundamental issues than the local pack-ing and marketing of the eggs, such as the level of investmentrequired, the division of risks in the project, and internal firmdynamics at Kwetters, Kwetters withdrew from the project. Thismeant that space opened up for a fundamental reorientation onhow to position the egg in the market and the organization ofthe supply chain. This was partly supported by ideas in the design,but it can be strongly observed in the data that the contribution ofspecialists (the CSR consultant, ASG researchers, ZLTO specialists)and workshops on marketing ‘in-between’ product segments suchas the Rondeel egg (positioned between barn eggs and organiceggs) were instrumental in defining the final marketing strategy.The reorientation with regard to how to position the egg in themarket, and the organization of the supply chain, implied a returnto on-farm packaging. Furthermore, active reference was made tothe high animal welfare value, environmental performance, andnaturalness of the Rondeel system. This was expressed in theround egg box made from coconut fiber, as well as supportive com-munication emphasizing the openness to the public of the Rondeelsystem.

The above shows that the design process outputs, as actually in-tended by the developers (Groot Koerkamp and Bos, 2008), showedinterpretative flexibility which lead to flexibility with the conceptand continuous adaptation and amendments. The design specifica-tions and the corresponding visualizations (scale model, artists’impressions) served as a script, outlining the main requirementsthe systems should meet, but left room for different interpreta-tions. The developers built on these and adapted them to theopportunities and constraints within which they could maneuver.This meant choosing some elements of the original concept andleaving out others: for example in order to meet the safety regula-tion for fire prevention, an intricate system of automatic curtainshad to be incorporated into the design. Elements such as the previ-ously mentioned ‘playground’ for hens were left out as these wereconsidered unworkable by the developers. This finally resulted inthe design not being realized in its original form, but rather in a

translation of it into a final form suitable for use by its final build-ers, exploiters, and consumers. Therefore, the final realization ofthe design rested entirely on the involvement of the network ac-tors that interacted, negotiated, and shaped the project until a mar-ket was built for the egg. A different network of actors wouldprobably have produced a different outcome.

4.2.3. The limits of interpretive flexibility: design process outputs as anexclusion and separation device

The design process outputs and the underlying technical speci-fications could also be used to distinguish the Rondeel system fromexisting ones. There was a continuous quest to prove that the sys-tem, because it was based on a thorough needs assessment, was infact superior to other systems in the sense that animal welfare andenvironmental performance had been included in the design. Con-sequently, the overall philosophy was benchmarked against organ-ic farming as a sustainable farming philosophy, thereby creating aboundary between the two systems to make them more distinct:

From market research it emerges very strongly that, as you ask howthe egg compares to other eggs, then they say, amazingly organic,in fact, they see it as better than organic. (ASG researcher)

Although several respondents said that the superiority might begreater on paper, and that it still had to be proven in practice, itwas a strong guiding vision. It also started to take on a life of itsown. At the start of the project it had been decided that the Ron-deel egg would not actively be positioned vis-à-vis organic, butat the end this was something that was ‘buzzing around’ (the Ron-deel egg is better than the organic egg) and even caused a verydefensive reaction among organic farmers. Similar to the earlierdecision on the round form (see Section 5.1), this issue on position-ing again shows that the design process outputs as boundary ob-jects allowed for interpretative flexibility on the part of theRondeel concept implementers (Rondeel Ltd.) and others they pur-posefully engaged in developing the concept, but some groupswere not invited to participate in the further shaping of the Ron-deel concept. Purposefully, incongruence was maintained in orderto make the Rondeel concept different from other poultry hus-bandry systems.

However, in addition to boundaries that were created and thatenhanced the attraction value of the design and were seen as posi-tive by the Rondeel developers, the design process outputs createdsome other boundaries that had negative consequences. As statedin Section 4.2.1, the actors championing the realization of Rondeelused it as a device for generating interest among people for Ron-deel and acquiring support for this innovation. Selling Rondeel asa finished ‘product,’ however, also alienated and excluded peoplefrom the concept. For example, during the realization process,the poultry farmers that were needed for the Rondeel to be builtwere unintentionally excluded.

As poultry farmers had been included in the design process inCfH, the developers took it as given that they and/or other poultryfarmers would also be willing to adopt it, although the farmers ap-proached in the implementation of the Rondeel concept were notthose farmers who participated in CfH (as these chose to developthe other concept developed in CfH, The Plantation). Consequently,it was interpreted as a blueprint and was being ‘sold’ to the poultryfarmers as a ready-made package. Given that there was no experi-ence with the Rondeel in practice, perceived uncertainty aboutinvestment risks and returns was high among the poultry farmersthat were approached. They were quite hesitant and nearly refusedto participate. The following two quotes highlight both sides of thecoin:

Kwetters, they selected a number of suitable farmers. That farmer isknown to us, is suitable, but cannot carry the risks and is not a sys-

L. Klerkx et al. / Agricultural Systems 113 (2012) 39–49 47

tem developer. Of course in the first phase of implementation youneed very specific farmers, I won’t deny that, but don’t expect theywill pull the process. There are exceptions, but don’t expect afarmer to carry a risk of 600,000 euros. (ASG researcher)

I’d liked to have been better informed about the course of the pro-ject [. . .]. The information that I got, I had to pull it out. [. . .] I kindof understand it, it is a new project, and for them it is a challenge,and what they have said, I can hold them accountable for that. [. . .].But my wife sometimes said, what are we going to do? The proce-dures [for permits] were initiated, but what will be in it for us? Thatis something you want to have clear. (Farmer)

So the design process outputs, which embody complexity, didnot become effective as boundary object in these instances.Various reasons can be proffered: the system developers (thedevelopment consortium, later Rondeel Ltd.) did not allow for re-interpretation by some actor groups to move from incongruenceto congruence, or the design process outputs as boundary objectswere not sufficient to do this in a standalone fashion. Here, itbecame apparent that there was a need for additional workshops– which formed part of a monitoring trajectory demanded byTransForum (project facilitator and provider of funding for addi-tional R&D) – to support the process of developing congruence.One workshop reflected upon the existing relationships withinthe development consortium, including a reflection on how farm-ers were considered initially by the development consortium andRondeel Ltd. In this monitoring workshop, the farmers’ feelingsof uncertainty came to the fore and were addressed. Farmers werebetter involved in the further development of the Rondeel systemby including them in the steering group. Also, reflection on otherissues that were ambiguous as to how to reinterpret them, e.g.how to adapt the concept to retain its functionality, was supportedby later workshops, for example on how to market the egg whenKwetters had withdrawn.

Such workshops were thus instrumental in resolving conflictsrelating to how to interpret and adapt the Rondeel concept; andthey also show that design process outputs, while having a bindingand uncertainty mitigating function, cannot always prevent or mayeven create separation and uncertainty. The concept included cer-tain interests at some points in the Rondeel realization process butexcluded others, or contained an explosive mix of diverginginterests that could lead to conflict between partners in the devel-opment consortium and stagnation of the innovation process. Forexample, the concept initially bound Vencomatic and Kwetters,but their incongruence on how it should be operationalized stag-nated the process until Kwetters left the consortium after havinga workshop in which positions were clarified. Furthermore, somestagnations in the process were not directly related to the designprocess outputs as boundary objects, such as the issue on financialguarantees: here government had already been bound to the con-cept and there was congruence on how the Rondeel system shouldbe implemented, but government could not help until legislativedevelopments elsewhere enabled them.

5. Discussion

5.1. Interpretative flexibility of boundary objects in relation toflexibility in design processes

As the analysis shows, the Rondeel concept had several designprocess outcomes, such as design specifications, visualizations,animations, and scale models, which can be considered boundaryobjects. These enabled and facilitated productive dialog for innova-tion between stakeholder groups and had a guiding, binding, andconvincing function. The design process outcomes in the Rondeel

case, which were used as boundary objects, indeed allowed forinterpretative flexibility and were able to overcome issues suchas a high degree of abstraction that might otherwise hinder activeand effective participation of actors in radical innovation (as notedby, e.g., Lettl, 2007).

Although the ability of boundary objects to allow for congru-ence and incongruence and thus support an adaptive process of de-sign implementation is what makes them effective, what isinteresting here is that some of the boundary objects where morestatic and others were more dynamic. With regard to the former,the static boundary objects were those made more tangible (visu-alizations, animations, and scale models), and they were the onesthat had a robustness that enabled them to carry the Rondeel con-cept through different contexts. As regards their flexibility toadapt, these rather had an evolving interpretation and this wasaccompanied by newly emerging discourse and symbolism, whichstrengthened a sense of belonging to, and ownership of, the Ron-deel concept; this resonates with findings of Plowman et al.(2007) and Boon and Moors (2008) on the stimulating functionof jointly developed symbolism in radical change. With regard tothe latter, the BoR as dynamic boundary object, following Broberget al. (2011), proved to be a ‘boundary object in the making’ or a‘boundary process,’ similar to seeing a DSS as boundary object(Jakku and Thorburn, 2010; Thorburn et al., 2011), which each timeproduces different model outputs. In contrast to the static bound-ary objects, this boundary object was less tangible and concretebut possessed a higher degree of abstraction.

In this case, the BoR continuously evolved in the implementa-tion process (i.e. through NPD steps 4–8). This evolution was insti-gated by the development consortium that adapted the designspecifications to its in-house technology and capabilities (Kashand Rycroft, 2002). Also, in the implementation of the concept,new challenges emerged that were not fully inculcated in the con-cept (i.e. such as the value chain configuration). This meant thatthe development consortium had to make new alliances to obtainthe necessary resources (in the form of knowledge, funding, polit-ical support). Each new development direction, and the actors thatcame along with that, meant a renegotiation of the design specifi-cations connected to the original concept. So the BoR that underlaythe concept was also consequently adapted, albeit sometimesimplicitly and in a more scattered fashion (i.e. not communicatedas an integrated brief and thus being a coherent boundary object).This is in line with observations by Wiskerke and Roep (2007)about being constantly aware of the fit of the espoused vision(embodied in the evolving concept) to changing circumstances,and connects with ideas on NPD as an iterative and cyclicalprocess. The main point here thus is that, as part of a design/NPDprocess, design process outputs are dynamic entities and vehiclesfor change because the concepts to which they are connected arenot definite outcomes; this confirms ideas of Jakku and Thorburn(2010) and Groot Koerkamp and Bos (2009). This continuousdesign process needs to take into account the specificities of eachactor group that is enrolled in the innovation network (e.g. farmers,retailers), to allow for adaptation of the design to specific contexts(within certain limits, to maintain the core features and integrity ofthe concept); this correlates with earlier findings by Douthwaiteet al. (2001).

5.2. Striking a balance between interpretative flexibility andinterpretative rigidity

Interpretative flexibility of designs is seen as an important attri-bute for the effectiveness of designs as boundary objects in termsof stimulating joint learning and negotiation. The intention inCfH was to create a boundary object that would be effective instimulating actors to reorganize poultry husbandry systems and

48 L. Klerkx et al. / Agricultural Systems 113 (2012) 39–49

realize the vision that was created by CfH; but it seems hard todetermine beforehand how to create a boundary object that iseffective at all boundaries, i.e. with all different actor groups. Ourcase shows that it also depends on how concepts and the relateddesign process outputs are used by certain actors in approachingothers, and to what extent they allow actors to enact flexibilityin their interpretation and thus influence the implementation ofa concept in practice (steps 4 and beyond in the NPD process). Ifthe opportunities for enacting interpretative flexibility of designprocess outputs and the visions they espouse are too limited, thiscan cause actors to feel unable to change the direction of the inno-vation process and can lead to excluding relevant actors. In termsof exclusion, an interesting observation from the Rondeel case isthat actors may strategically try to steer the use of boundary ob-jects by allowing more or less debate and room for adaptation oncertain aspects of the concept, restricting interpretative flexibility,and applying a certain ‘interpretative rigidity.’ Although the designprocess outcomes as boundary objects had in some aspects a veryopen and interpretative use as vehicles for change, they were alsoused sometimes by the Rondeel developers as a blueprint, i.e. asgiven and fixed to draw boundaries. Hence, they were disabledfrom acting as a boundary object.

So, some actors were allowed to influence the reinterpretationof the Rondeel design, whereas others were excluded (albeit notnecessarily intentionally). Although sometimes intentional exclu-sion was beneficial to the process and resolved stagnation (in caseof the departure of Kwetters), unintentional exclusion caused lock-ins (e.g. in case of the farmers). This nuances the generally positivevalue given to vision and the boundary objects connected to them(i.e. creating social learning, congruence – Ewenstein and Whyte,2009; Jakku and Thorburn, 2010; Berkhout, 2006; Beers et al.,2010) and makes the case for a more realistic view on what theydo, not only breaching boundaries but sometimes also creatingboundaries (cf. Kimble et al., 2010; Harrison et al., 2011). Thishighlights the importance of additional process monitoring (seee.g. van Mierlo et al., 2010) to assess when exclusion could bebeneficial and when it is detrimental to the innovation process.

5.3. Implications for system redesign processes that aim to createboundary objects relating to novel system concepts

As regards the implications for the use of system redesigns inradical innovation processes, the analysis shows that it is impor-tant to consider all relevant actors in a production system andvalue chain when developing a concept (NPD steps 1–3), therebyconfirming the plea of Le Gal et al. (2011) for a broad perspectivebeyond researchers and farmers. In CfH, not all relevant actorswere included as it focused on farmers, citizens, consumers, andthe hens (through ethological scientists) and thus essentiallyfocused on the farm level. As the functioning of the Rondeel designas boundary object in the implementation of the system showed,more emphasis could have been given to a more multidimensionalsystems view (e.g. rural planning aspects, supply chain redesign)with a more diverse set of actors from the innovation system(involving the poultry system builders, retailers, funding organiza-tions). More emphasis could thus be laid on the iteration of severaldesign phases in which more deliberate work is done on reachingcongruence before a concept is implemented in practice (phases 1and 2 – see Section 3.1), thus before arriving at the ‘final’ concept(in terms of it being set in written design specifications, visualiza-tions, animations, and scale models). This poses an interestingquestion however: whether engaging more actors in conceivingthe concept and working toward congruence in its written designspecifications, visualizations, animations, and scale models wouldactually make a difference in terms of their effectiveness, orwhether this is mainly determined in its implementation, as some

argue (Carlile, 2002; Turnhout, 2009; Zeiss and Groenewegen,2009). This study suggests that, even with an increased emphasison involving more actors earlier in the design process, the actualuse of boundary objects most likely is still unpredictable as it isnot known beforehand who they will engage and how they engagepeople, and how they need to be strategically used by those thataim to realize the concept in practice. This supports observationsby Huzzard et al. (2010) and Fleischmann (2006) that it might bebetter to talk about ‘boundary subject’ since it is constantly chan-ged and even has agency itself because it steers people’s behaviorin innovation processes. Although design processes such as that inCfH try to understand the needs of generic users and try to embodythese into a concept and corresponding design process outputs, asdiscussed in Section 5.1 there will also be a need for specificadaptation to emerging demands.

6. Conclusion

Our analysis has shown that design process outputs have animportant function as boundary objects in the implementation ofnovel agricultural system concepts that involve radical changesand many actors. Producing visual and tangible representationsof novel agricultural system concepts can assist in a joint innova-tion and learning process. However, some points require attention.Firstly, design process outputs are not an outcome of a design pro-cess, but part and parcel of an evolving design process. Despite thescientifically grounded foundation of system redesign design con-cepts, their use needs to be inherently flexible as their adaptationto practice circumstances raises new uncertainties. It seems thusimportant to think in terms of ‘boundary objects in the making’or ‘boundary subjects,’ in which the object cannot be seen apartfrom the design process. Hence, there is a need to be more con-scious of how boundary objects are strategically employed in theimplementation process, and of how boundary objects can be morestatic or more dynamic and change over the course of the imple-mentation process. Although the design output creation process(in terms of producing written design specifications, visualizations,animations, and scale models of a concept) can anticipate this byengaging a wide range of stakeholders in the design creationprocess (i.e. before implementing the novel agricultural systemconcepts in practice) and thus take into account a broader rangeof factors, the actual effectiveness of design process outputs asboundary objects may be hard to predict.

Acknowledgements

We thank the actors involved in the Rondeel project for theirco-operation in the research. The constructive comments of thefour anonymous reviewers were very helpful in improving thearticle. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support ofTransForum which enabled this study.

References

Backman, M., Börjesson, S., 2006. Vehicles for attention creation: the case of aconcept car at Volvo Cars. Eur. J. Innov. Manage. 9, 149–160.

Beers, P.J., Veldkamp, A., Hermans, F., van Apeldoorn, D., Vervoort, J.M., Kok, K.,2010. Future sustainability and images. Futures 42, 723–732.

Bergman, M., Lyytinen, K., Mark, G., 2007. Boundary objects in design: an ecologicalview of design artifacts. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 8, 546–568.

Berkhout, F., 2006. Normative expectations in systems innovation. Technol. Anal.Strat. Manage. 18, 299–311.

Bessant, J., Maher, L., 2009. Developing radical service innovations in healthcare –the role of design methods. Int. J. Innov. Manage. 13, 555–568.

Boon, W., Moors, E., 2008. Exploring emerging technologies using metaphors - Astudy of orphan drugs and pharmacogenomics. Social Science and Medicine 66,1915–1927.

L. Klerkx et al. / Agricultural Systems 113 (2012) 39–49 49

Bos, B., 2009. Concepts and objects as boundary objects for sustainable animalhusbandry. Anticipating regime transformations by design. In: Paper Presentedat KSI Conference 2009, June 4–6, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Bos, A.P., Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Gosselink, J.M.J., Bokma, S., 2009. Reflexiveinteractive design and its application in a project on sustainable dairyhusbandry systems. Outlook Agric. 38, 137–145.

Bowker, G.C., Star, S.L., 2000. Invisible mediators of action: classification and theubiquity of standards. Mind Cult. Act. 7, 147–163.

Broberg, O., Andersen, V., Seim, R., 2011. Participatory ergonomics in designprocesses: the role of boundary objects. Appl. Ergon. 42, 464–472.

Carlile, P.R., 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundaryobjects in new product development. Org. Sci. 13, 442–455+456.

Cerf, M., Jeuffroy, M.H., Prost, L., Meynard, J.M., in press. Participatory design ofagricultural decision support tools: taking account of the use situations. Agron.Sustain. Dev. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0091-z.

De Lauwere, C., Luttik, J., Groot Koerkamp, P., 2004. Houden van Hennen, op naargelukkige kippen, trotse boeren en tevreden burgers. Wageningen Universityand Research Centre. Retrievable trough http://edepot.wur.nl/31373.

Douthwaite, B., Keatinge, J.D.H., Park, J.R., 2001. Why promising technologies fail:the neglected role of user innovation during adoption. Res. Policy 30,819–836.

Eastwood, C.R., Chapman, D.F., Paine, M.S., 2012. Networks of practice for co-construction of agricultural decision support systems: Case studies of precisiondairy farms in Australia. Agric. Syst. 108, 10–18.

Elzen, B., Wieczorek, A., 2005. Transitions towards sustainability through systeminnovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 72, 651–661.

Ewenstein, B., Whyte, J., 2009. Knowledge practices in design: the role of visualrepresentations as ‘Epistemic objects’. Org. Stud. 30, 7–30.

Fleischmann, K.R., 2006. Boundary objects with agency: a method for studying thedesign-use interface. Inf. Soc. 22, 77–87.

Flyvbjerg, B., 2006. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual. Inq.12, 219–245.

Grin, J., Felix, F., Bos, B., Spoelstra, S., 2004. Practices for reflexive design: lessonsfrom a Dutch programme on sustainable agriculture. Int. J. Foresight Innov.Policy 1, 126–149.

Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Bos, A.P., 2008. Designing complex and sustainableagricultural production systems: an integrated and reflexive approach for thecase of table egg production in the Netherlands. NJAS – Wageningen J. Life Sci.55, 113–138.

Harrison, D., Prenkert, F., Olsen, P.I., Hoholm, T., 2011. Boundary Objects in Multi-actor Interactions within Tightly Structured Networks. Paper presented at the27th IMP-conference in Glasgow, Scotland.

Huzzard, T., Ahlberg, B.M., Ekman, M., 2010. Constructing interorganizationalcollaboration: the action researcher as boundary subject. Action Res. 8, 293–314.

Jakku, E., Thorburn, P.J., 2010. A conceptual framework for guiding the participatorydevelopment of agricultural decision support systems. Agric. Syst. 103, 675–682.

Kash, D.E., Rycroft, R., 2002. Emerging patterns of complex technological innovation.Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 69, 581–606.

Kimble, C., Grenier, C., Goglio-Primard, K., 2010. Innovation and knowledge sharingacross professional boundaries: political interplay between boundary objectsand brokers. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 30, 437–444.

Klerkx, L., Aarts, N., Leeuwis, C., 2010. Adaptive management in agriculturalinnovation systems: the interactions between innovation networks and theirenvironment. Agric. Syst. 103, 390–400.

Kristjanson, P., Reid, R.S., Dickson, N., Clark, W.C., Romney, D., Puskur, R., MacMillan,S., Grace, D., 2009. Linking international agricultural research knowledge withaction for sustainable development. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 9, 5047–5052.

Kropff, M.J., Bouma, J., Jones, J.W., 2001. Systems approaches for the design ofsustainable agro-ecosystems. Agric. Syst. 70, 369–393.

Le Gal, P.Y., Dugué, P., Faure, G., Novak, S., 2011. How does research address thedesign of innovative agricultural production systems at the farm level? Areview. Agric. Syst. 104, 714–728.

Leeuwis, C., 1999. Integral technology design as a process of learning andnegotiation. A social science perspective on interactive prototyping. In:Leeuwis, C. (Ed.), Integral Design: Innovation in Agriculture and NaturalResource Management. Mansholt Institute, Wageningen, pp. 123–144.

Lettl, C., 2007. User involvement competence for radical innovation. J. Eng. Tech.Manage. 24, 53–75.

Martin, G., Felten, B., Duru, M., 2012. Forage rummy: a game to support theparticipatory design of adapted livestock systems. Environ. Model. Softw. 26,1442–1453.

McCown, R.L., 2002. Changing systems for supporting farmers’ decisions: problems,paradigms, and prospects. Agric. Syst. 74, 179–220.

Meyer, M., 2009. Boundary object or boundary project? Construction, (non-)utilisation and politics of a database. Revue d’Anthropologie desConnaissances 3, 127–148.

Montagna, F., 2011. Decision-aiding tools in innovative product developmentcontexts. Res. Eng. Des. 22, 63–86.

Mørk, B.E., Hoholm, T., Maaninen-Olsson, E., Aanestad, M., 2012. Changing practicethrough boundary organizing: A case from medical R&D. Hum. Relat. 65, 263–288.

Nahuis, R., Moors, E.H.M., Smits, R.E.H.M., 2012. User producer interaction incontext. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 79, 1121–1134.

Papadimitriou, K., Pellegrin, C., 2007. Dynamics of a project through intermediaryobjects of design (IODs): a sensemaking perspective. Int. J. Project Manage. 25,437–445.

Plowman, D., Baker, L., Beck, T., Kulkarni, M., Solansky, S., Travis, D., 2007. Radicalchange accidentally: the emergence and amplification of small change. Acad.Manage. J. (AMJ) 50, 515–543.

Rains, G.C., Olson, D.M., Lewis, W.J., 2011. Redirecting technology to supportsustainable farm management practices. Agric. Syst. 104, 365–370.

Schut, M., Slingerland, M., Locke, A., 2010. Biofuel developments in Mozambique.Update and analysis of policy, potential and reality. Energy Policy 38, 5151–5165.

Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R., 1989. Institutional ecology, translations’ and boundaryobjects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of vertebratezoology, 1907–1930. Soc. Stud. Sci. 19, 387–420.

Sterk, B., van Ittersum, M.K., Leeuwis, C., Rossing, W.A.H., van Keulen, H., van de Ven,G.W.J., 2006. Finding niches for whole-farm design models – contradictio interminis? Agric. Syst. 87, 211–228.

Sterk, B., Carberry, P., Leeuwis, C., van Ittersum, M.K., Howden, M., Meinke, H., vanKeulen, H., Rossing, W.A.H., 2009a. The interface between land use systemsresearch and policy: multiple arrangements and leverages. Land Use Policy 26,434–442.

Sterk, B., Leeuwis, C., van Ittersum, M.K., 2009b. Land use models in complexsocietal problem solving: plug and play or networking? Environ. Model. Softw.24, 165–172.

Sumberg, J., Reece, D., 2004. Agricultural research through a new productdevelopment lens. Exp. Agric. 40, 295–314.

Sumberg, J., Okali, C., Reece, D., 2003. Agricultural research in the face of diversity,local knowledge and the participation imperative: theoretical considerations.Agric. Syst. 76, 739–753.

Swan, J., Bresnen, M., Newell, S., Robertson, M., 2007. The object of knowledge: therole of objects in biomedical innovation. Human Relations 60, 1809–1837.

Thorburn, P.J., Jakku, E., Webster, A.J., Everingham, Y.L., 2011. Agricultural decisionsupport systems facilitating co-learning: a case study on environmentalimpacts of sugarcane production. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 9, 322–333.

Turnhout, E., 2009. The effectiveness of boundary objects: the case of ecologicalindicators. Sci. Public Policy 36, 403–412.

Ulrich, K.T., Eppinger, S.D., 2004. Product Design and Development, third ed.McGraw-Hill, New York.

Van de Ven, A.H., Polley, D.E., Garud, R., Venkatamaran, S., 1999. The InnovationJourney. Oxford University Press, New York.

van Ittersum, M.K., Rabbinge, R., van Latesteijn, H.C., 1998. Exploratory land usestudies and their role in strategic policy making. Agric. Syst. 58, 309–330.

van Mierlo, B., Arkesteijn, M., Leeuwis, C., 2010. Enhancing the reflexivity of systeminnovation projects with system analyses. Am. J. Eval. 31, 143–161.

von Hippel, E., 2005. Democratizing innovation: the evolving phenomenon of userinnovation. J. fur Betriebswirtschaft 55, 63–78.

Wiskerke, J.S.C., Roep, D., 2007. Constructing a sustainable pork supply chain: a caseof techno-institutional innovation. J. Environ. Planning Policy Manage. 9, 53–74.

Yin, R.K., 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Zeiss, R., Groenewegen, P., 2009. Engaging boundary objects in OMS and STS?

Exploring the subtleties of layered engagement. Organization 16, 81–100.