Page 241 - UKZN Proceedings of the Conference Report

Business process innovation focus
The results showed that agribusinesses that chose to concentrate only on business process innovation, 49% reported that they were not impacted by the pandemic, whereas 51% indicated their innovation focus was affected by the pandemic. This near-even split highlights the vulnerability of process-oriented innovations to external shocks. Business process innovations often require close collaboration and integration with external partners and stakeholders, making them susceptible to disruptions caused by the pandemic. The slight majority facing challenges reflects the need for agile and adaptable process management strategies in times of crisis.
Business process innovations, by nature, require tight integration with external stakeholders, which can expose firms to greater risks during periods of instability. This finding aligns with the observations of Eisenhardt and Martin (2000), who emphasized that the adaptability of processes is crucial for maintaining operational continuity. However, the challenges faced by these firms during the pandemic highlight a critical gap in the literature: while process innovation is often seen as a pathway to efficiency and resilience, its dependence on external collaborations can become a liability in times of widespread disruption. This suggests that firms must not only innovate their processes but also build robust contingency plans to mitigate the risks of dependency on external entities.
Both product and business process innovation
Businesses that engaged in both product and business process innovation were the most impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic, with 68% reporting that their innovation activities were affected by the pandemic, compared to only 32% who were not affected. This significant impact can be attributed to the complexity and resource intensity involved in managing dual innovation focuses. The high level of disruption suggests that these firms faced substantial challenges in balancing and sustaining multiple innovation focus amid the uncertainty and operational constraints imposed by the pandemic.
This finding sheds new light on the innovation strategies the discourse, as it challenges the commonly held belief that combining product and process innovations offers the best of both worlds. Instead, it appears that the dual focus may have introduced additional layers of complexity,
making it difficult for firms to swiftly adapt to the rapidly changing environment. This outcome suggests that while dynamic capabilities are critical, their effectiveness may be constrained by the complexity and resource demands of managing multiple innovation streams simultaneously.
No innovation focus (neither product nor business process) Conversely, firms without a specific innovation focus experienced the least disruption caused by the pandemic, though this might reflect a broader lack of strategic engagement with innovation. The substantial majority (76 %) of such firms that remained unaffected by the pandemic highlight a paradoxical relationship between absence of innovation focus and resilience in the face of external shocks. It is plausible that the absence of a dedicated innovation focus enabled these firms to remain flexible, adaptable, and open to diverse opportunities that emerged during the crisis. This echoes the essence of dynamic capabilities, which emphasize an organisation’s ability to rapidly reconfigure resources and strategies in response to changing circumstances in their environments. This finding raises important questions about the value of a dedicated innovation strategy in certain contexts, particularly during crises. The results suggest that under extreme uncertainty, firms may benefit from maintaining a broader, more flexible approach rather than committing to specific innovation strategy.
Classification of innovation strategy
The analysis of the distribution of innovation strategies implemented by agribusinesses showed an environment primarily characterised by reactive and passive approaches, with a significant number of stagnant innovators (Figure 2). Moreover, the analysis showed that no agribusinesses preferred a proactive approach to their innovation, while less than 1 percent chose an active strategy to innovation.
Active innovators
Active innovators were characterised by their engagement in new-to-firm product or business process innovations and their collaborative efforts with suppliers, customers, competitors, and public research institutes. The low prevalence of firms that adopted this strategy suggests that this approach was not a preferred strategy by a large number of businesses. This could indicate a reluctance or inability to engage in collaborative innovation or a preference for other forms of innovation strategies.
Proceedings of the conference on Public innovation, develoPment and sustainability | 239