Anahita Baregheh, Janet Zlotnik, Steve Wilson and Thomas Carey (bios here)
In a previous post on Results from our research project on Workplace Innovation and Quality of Work, we mentioned the one workplace partner for whom our initial effort to provide a targeted research synthesis was not successful (“ForestCo” in B.C.). They requested a research synthesis with examples of workplace innovation specific to their industry sector. However, our research did not identify insights on inclusive workplace innovation specific to the Forestry context (for reasons explained in that previous post).
We later followed up with a research synthesis on a closely-related issue of interest to ForestCo – Digital Transformation in the Forestry Sector – which also included research references on “why digital transformation requires workplace innovation[i]” and on the potential impact of digital transformation on the demographics (i.e., “male-dominated”) of the Forestry workforce. This research synthesis, whose highlights are summarized below, was based largely on work by the Nordic Test Network for the BioEconomy and the Mistra Digital Forest project of the Forest Industries Research and Innovation consortium in Sweden.
Successful Digital Transformation (DT) in forestry requires strong leadership to manage knowledge flow, competition, and collaboration. In doing so at an early stage a DT strategy needs to be developed and implemented[ii], as well as a trustful environment. This also requires increased rates of collaboration and formation of ecosystems “that includes whole value chains and a broadening of network activities, as both knowledge and abilities that generate innovation can be discovered anywhere in a cluster’s value chain(s) or diverse sources elsewhere”[iii].
DT bottlenecks are often not technology related but more related to the organizational environment, especially within forestry given its specific context. For example, in forestry Digital Transformation leads to real time supply chain data which supports improved decision making[i] by managers. A recent study[ii] in the Swedish forestry industry has identified the four DT bottlenecks shown in the figure below:
The first bottleneck refers to flow of the data from one organization to another, basically, different environments have different levels of digital maturity that can create obstacles for data flow. Many organizations still rely on manual data gathering and are skeptical of the value artificial intelligence can create.
The second bottleneck could be viewed as a byproduct of the first bottleneck: varying levels of digital maturity across the value chain. In addition, the focus of the value chain is often on supply and not demand. A standard approach to communication such as StanForD standard as well as data sharing across the value chain (especially between harvesting and later parts such as customer demand) is recommended.
The third bottleneck highlights the need to develop digital competency in this context. This highlights the need to develop in house expertise as opposed to consultants, this can be achieved through research projects, educational programs as well as collaboration with other companies where a neutral party is managing the program.
The fourth bottleneck highlights the potential of service innovation given that the industry has a product focus. This could be achieved by collaboration across organizations and the value chain although most firms are hesitant to share their ideas. Lack of trust is a barrier to forming value chain ecosystems in this context.
Our review of research articles also identified studies on innovation adoption and innovativeness in the following topic areas for innovation in Forestry[1]: Agroforestry, Bioenergy, Bioeconomy, Timber construction, Multifunctional and community-based forestry, Non-wood/non -timber forest products, and Social Innovation. Further knowledge synthesis efforts could focus on a specific topic of interest.
Here are three examples of such studies:
To solve the sawdust residue problem faced in the lumber industry, a recent study[2] adopted design thinking which resulted in several solutions (of which eco-packaging was identified as the most optimal). The study states “Eco-packaging, which is manufactured from a combination of sawdust residues from the lumber industry and mycelium, raises the prospect of replacing Styrofoam as a general packaging material, reducing the usage of plastic in transportation and packing.”
A recent study on open innovation in the forest industry identified that Swedish companies adopt a mix of open and closed innovations, especially as most do not have in-house R&D. The benefits of engaging with open innovation include efficiency, cost effectiveness, brand reputation and competitive advantage through access to external knowledge. The benefits of engaging with closed innovation include full control of projects and processes, easier measurement of impact and management of budget. Collaborative innovation is identified as the ideal open innovation format in forestry.[3]
“The digital transformation and automation of physical jobs could, in theory, reduce gender bias; however, the reverse appears to be true[4].” The authors of this recent study survey what is known about the barriers women face in sectors such as forestry and offer research-informed suggestions for improvements. For example, they have some pointed observations on organizing women-only or men-only activities, such as “Peer support is important for women to succeed in male dominated industries, where peer support can come from both men and women.”
Acknowledgement: Our project on Workplace Innovation and Quality of Work Life is supported by the Government of Canada’s Future Skills program
References:
[1] Oeij, P. R., Dhondt, S., Rus, D., & Van Hootegem, G. (2019). The digital transformation requires workplace innovation: an introduction. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialisation, 16(3), 199-207.
[2] Torto, M., & Kristofersson, A. (2023). Digitally transforming in a traditional industry: a senior management perspective. Proceedings of the 56th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp 4254-4263.
[3] Koukouvinou, P., Simbi, N., & Holmström, J. (2022). Managing unbounded digital transformation: exploring the role of tensions in a digital transformation initiative in the forestry industry. Information Technology & People, (ahead-of-print).
[4] Borz, S. A., Acuna, M., Heinimann, H. R., Palander, T., & Spinelli, R. (2017). “Innovating the competitive edge: from research to impact in the forest value chain”: half-century of FORMEC. Annals of Forest Research, 60(2), 199-201.
[5] Holmström, J. ( (2020) Digital Transformation of the Swedish Forestry Value chain: Key Bottlenecks and Pathways Forward. Internal Project Report, Mistra Digital Forest project.
[7] Weiss, G., Ludvig, A., & Živojinović, I. (2020). Four decades of innovation research in forestry and the forest-based industries–A systematic literature review. Forest Policy and Economics, 120, 102288.
[8] Sitnić, S. (2021). Product development using Design thinking approach. M.Sc. thesis, Lahti University (SWED)
[9] Levinsson, S., & Bedia Valenzuela, J. (2021). The relationship between Open innovation and Swedish forest companies: Master’s thesis, Uppsala University( (SWED).
[10] Roos, A., Blomquist, M., Bhatia, R., Ekegren, K., Rönnberg, J., Torfgård, L., & Tunberg, M. (2021). The digitalisation of the Nordic bioeconomy and its effect on gender equality. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 36(7-8), 639-654.