Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Embracing the Complexity: Surfacing Problem Situations with Multiple Actors of the Pineapple Value Chain in Uganda

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Systemic Practice and Action Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The complexity of local situations in which agricultural value chains are enacted requires a systemic understanding when seeking to improve interlinked livelihoods. Studying the fresh pineapple value chain in Uganda offers an illustrative example. Individually negotiated and context-specific actor relationships, along with their connected activities can be revealed by conceptualizing the chain as a purposeful human activity system. We followed a systems learning approach to elicit value chain actors’ perspectives on factors influencing their activities while surfacing relevant problem situations, resolutions and constraints. Participatory methods, including cognitive mapping, were used to spark dialogue during meetings with only farmers, traders and brokers and also with mixed groups. The results present the multiple natural, technical and social factors identified by value chain actors leading to losses and benefits to their income. System driving and shaping influences included infrastructure, seasonality, perishability and weather conditions. Process-oriented analysis of multi-stakeholder discussions revealed feedback cycles related to fragmentation of the chain. This resulted from and contributed to problematic communication, price fluctuations and challenges in actor relations. For example, actors proposed uniform pricing and debated the implications. Although the systemic perspective brought forward actors’ awareness of potential benefits of improved collaboration and recognition of interdependent activities, it also exposed barriers. Participatory systems learning helped to capture actors’ room of maneuver, and can support processes towards actor-driven change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Fieldwork from July to October, 2015 was jointly conducted with a Master’s student, Katharina Bitzan.

  2. Only during one of the field stays in 2016 were we able to have a field assistant from Ntungamo. In this way, the first author was an outsider from Europe and some of the field assistants were outsiders from other regions of Uganda.

  3. Throughout the discussion, we use either supply chain or value chain depending on the term used in the respective references.

References

  • Anastasiadis F, Poole N (2015) Emergent supply chains in the agrifood sector: insights from a whole chain approach. Supp Chain Mnagmnt 20(4):353–368. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-08-2014-0259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arinloye DDAA, Linnemann AR, Hagelaar G, Omta SWF, Coulibaly ON, van Boekel MAJS (2016) 4. Willingness to pay for market information received by mobile phone among smallholder pineapple farmers in Benin. In: Bijman J, Bitzer V (eds) Quality and innovation in food chains. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp 75–100

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod R (1976) Structure of decision: the cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton University Press

  • Banathy BH (1992) A systems view of education: concepts and principles for effective practice. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A (1977) Social learning theory, [Rev. ed.]. Prentice Hall series in social learning theory. Prentice Hall, Inc, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Banson KE, Nguyen NC, Bosch OJH, Nguyen TV (2015) A systems thinking approach to address the complexity of agribusiness for sustainable development in Africa: a case study in Ghana. Syst Res 32(6):672–688. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banson KE, Sun D, Banson IB (2016) Systemic view of the market opportunities for fresh cuts convenience in Ghana. IJMABS 2(2):141. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMABS.2016.080232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bateson G (1987) Steps to an ecology of mind: collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution and epistemology, Reprint. Jason Aronson Inc., Northvale, New Jersey, London

  • Beers PJ, van Mierlo B (2017) Reflexivity and learning in system innovation processes. Sociol Ruralis 57(3):415–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beers PJ, van Mierlo B, Hoes A-C (2016) Toward an integrative perspective on social learning in system innovation initiatives. E&S 21(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08148-210133

  • Booth Sweeney L, Meadows D (1995) The systems thinking playbook: exercises to stretch and build learning and systems thinking capabilities. University of New Hampshire, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • Carolan MS (2013) The wild side of agro-food studies: on co-experimentation, politics, change, and hope. Sociol Ruralis:n/a-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12020

  • Chambers R (1994) The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Dev 22(7):953–969. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(94)90141-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekaran N, Raghuram G (2014) Agribusiness supply chain management. CRC Press, Boca-Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (1981) Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (1999) Systems thinking. In: Galliers R, Currie W (eds) rethinking management information systems: an interdisciplinary perspective. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 45–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Chevalier JM, Buckles DJ (2013) Handbook for participatory action research, planning and evaluation. SAS2 dialogue, Ottawa

  • Churchman CW (1968) The systems approach. Dell Publishing Co., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Coe R, Sinclair F, Barrios E (2014) Scaling up agroforestry requires research ‘in’ rather than ‘for’ development. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 6:73–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Córdoba-Pachón J-R (2011) Embracing human experience in applied systems-thinking. Syst Res 28(6):680–688. https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.1117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donovan J, Franzel S, Cunha M, Gyau A, Mithöfer D (2015) Guides for value chain development: a comparative review. J Agribus in Dev Em Econ 5(1):2–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/JADEE-07-2013-0025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douthwaite B, Hoffecker E (2017) Towards a complexity-aware theory of change for participatory research programs working within agricultural innovation systems. Agric Syst 155:88–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.04.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (1988) Cognitive mapping. Eur J Oper Res 36(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(88)90002-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Ackermann F (2004) Making strategy: the journey of strategic management, reprinted. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • England KVL (1994) Getting personal: reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. Prof Geogr 46(1):80–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1994.00080.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Godden NJ (2017) The participation imperative in co-operative inquiry: personal reflections of an initiating researcher. Syst Pract Action Res 30(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-016-9387-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein J (1999) Emergence as a construct: history and issues. Emergence: complexity and. Organization 1(1):49–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez MI, Barrett CB, Buck LE, de Groote H, Ferris S, Gao HO, McCullough E, Miller DD, Outhred H, Pell AN, Reardon T, Retnanestri M, Ruben R, Struebi P, Swinnen J, Touesnard MA, Weinberger K, Keatinge JDH, Milstein MB, Yang RY (2011) Agriculture. Research principles for developing country food value chains. Science 332(6034):1154–1155. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1202543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray SA, Zanre E, Gray SRJ (2014) Fuzzy cognitive maps as representations of mental models and group beliefs. In: Papageorgiou EI (ed) Fuzzy cognitive maps for applied sciences and engineering: from fundamentals to extensions and learning algorithms, vol 54. Springer, Berlin, pp 29–48

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action. Translated by Thomas McCarthy, vol 1. Beacon Press, Boston

  • Hanafizadeh P, Mehrabioun M (2017) Application of SSM in tackling problematical situations from academicians’ viewpoints. Syst Pract Action Res 14:575–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-017-9422-y

    Google Scholar 

  • Henly-Shepard S, Gray SA, Cox LJ (2015) The use of participatory modeling to promote social learning and facilitate community disaster planning. Environ Sci Pol 45:109–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hildbrand S, Bodhanya S (2017) Exploring the complexity of sugarcane supply chains via systemic approaches. Kybernetes 46(2):310–329. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-05-2014-0094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch Hadorn G, Hoffmann-Riem H, Biber-Klemm S, Grossenbacher-Mansuy W, Joye D, Pohl C, Wiesmann U, Zemp E (2008) Handbook of transdisciplinary research. Springer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Horton D, Akello B, Aliguma L, Bernet T, Devaux A, Lemaga B, Magala D, Mayanja S, Sekitto I, Thiele G, Velasco C (2010) Developing capacity for agricultural market chain innovation: experience with the "PMCA" in Uganda. J Int Dev 22(3):367–389. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovmand PS (ed) (2014) Community based system dynamics. Springer New York, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ison RL (2012) Systems practice: making the systems in farming systems research effective. In: Darnhofer I, Gibbon D, Dedieu B (eds) Farming systems research into the 21st century: the new dynamic. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp 141–157

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird PN (1983) Mental models: towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Harvard University Press

  • Johnson-Laird PN (2004) The history of mental models. In: Manktelow K, Chung MC (eds) psychology of reasoning: theoretical and historical perspectives. Psychology Press, pp 179–212

  • Kaufmann B, Hülsebusch C (2015) Employing cybernetics in social ecological systems research. In: Jeschke S, Schmitt R, Dröge A (eds) Exploring cybernetics: Kybernetik im interdisziplinaren Diskurs, 1, Aufl, vol 2015. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, Wiesbaden, pp 167–184

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann B, Arpke H, Christinck A (2013) From assessing knowledge to joint learning. In: Christinck A, Padmanabhan MA (eds) Cultivate diversity!: A handbook on transdisciplinary approaches to agrobiodiversity research. Margraf, Weikersheim, pp 115–141

  • Kelly GA (1955) The psychology of personal constructs: a theory of personality. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilelu C, Klerkx L, Omore A, Baltenweck I, Leeuwis C, Githinji J (2017) Value chain upgrading and the inclusion of smallholders in markets: reflections on contributions of multi-stakeholder processes in dairy development in Tanzania. Eur J Dev Res. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-016-0074-z

  • Kim DH (1999) Introduction to systems thinking. Pegasus Communications Waltham, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, Swilling M, Thomas CJ (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(S1):25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liamputtong P (ed) (2008) Doing cross-cultural research: ethical and methodological perspectives, Social indicators research series, v, vol 34. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Loeber A, van Mierlo B, Grin J, Leeuwis C (2007) The practical value of theory: Conceptualising learning in the pursuit of a sustainable development. In: Wals AEJ (ed) Social learning towards a sustainable world: principles, perspectives, and praxis. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp 83–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Long N (1990) From paradigm lost to paradigm regained? The case for an actor-oriented sociology of development. Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe / European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies(49):3–24

  • MFPED (2016) Background to the budget fiscal year 2016/17: enhanced productivity for job creation. Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, Uganda

  • Midgley G (2000) Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology, and practice. Springer

  • Mulyati H, Geldermann J (2017) Managing risks in the Indonesian seaweed supply chain. Clean Techn Environ Policy 19(1):175–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-016-1219-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mutemi M, Njenga M, Lamond G, Kuria A, Öborn I, Muriuki J, Sinclair FL (2017) Using local knowledge to understand challenges and opportunities for enhancing agricultural productivity in Western Kenya. In: Öborn I, Vanlauwe B, Phillips M, Thomas R, Brooijmans W, Atta-Krah K (eds) sustainable intensification in smallholder agriculture: an integrated systems research approach. Taylor and Francis, Florence, pp 177–195

  • Nakandala D, Samaranayake P, Lau H, Ramanathan K (2017) Modelling information flow and sharing matrix for fresh food supply chains. Business Process Mgmt Journal 23(1):108–129. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-09-2015-0130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyamah EY, Jiang Y, Feng Y, Enchill E (2017) Agri-food supply chain performance: an empirical impact of risk. Manag Decis 55(5):872–891. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-01-2016-0049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oswald W (1997) Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. In: Lamarque PV, Asher RE (eds) concise encyclopedia of philosophy of language. Elsevier science ltd, Oxford, pp 76–83

  • Özesmi U, Özesmi SL (2004) Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: a multi-step fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecol Model 176(1–2):43–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.10.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prakash S, Soni G, Rathore APS, Singh S (2017) Risk analysis and mitigation for perishable food supply chain: a case of dairy industry. Benchmarking 24(1):2–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2015-0070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramage M, Shipp K (2009) Systems thinkers. Springer London, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Evely AC, Cundill G, Fazey I, Glass J, Laing A, Newig J, Parrish B, Prell C, Raymond C, Stringer LC (2010) What is social learning? Ecol Soc 15(4)

  • Restrepo MJ (2017) Collaborative learning to co-develop innovations with smallholder dairy farmer groups in Nakuru County, Kenya. PhD Dissertation, University of Hohenheim

  • Reynolds M, Holwell S (2010) Introducing systems approaches. In: Reynolds M, Holwell S (eds) Systems approaches to managing change: a practical guide. Springer, London, pp 1–23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro MM (2008) Modelling the factors influencing the commercialisation of paper mulbery bark (Broussonetia papyrfera/vent): a supply chain analysis of a non-timber forest product in Oudomxay, Laos. Dissertationen der Universität für Bodenkultur in Wien, Bd. 70. Guthmann-Peterson, Wien, Mülheim an der Ruhr

  • Ribeiro MM, Zwirner W (2010) Applying participatory processes: findings from a supply chain analysis on the commercialisation of paper mulberry bark in Laos. Syst Pract Action Res 23(4):323–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-009-9162-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rist S, Chiddambaranathan M, Escobar C, Wiesmann U (2006) “It was hard to come to mutual understanding …”—the multidimensionality of social learning processes concerned with sustainable natural resource use in India, Africa and Latin America. Syst Pract Action Res 19(3):219–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-006-9014-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roba GM, Lelea MA, Kaufmann B (2017) Manoeuvring through difficult terrain: how local traders link pastoralists to markets. J Rural Stud 54:85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.05.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ropohl G (2009) Allgemeine Technologie: Eine Systemtheorie der Technik. Univ., Habil.-Schr. Karlsruhe, 1978, 3., überarb. Aufl. Univ.-Verl. Karlsruhe; Univ.-Bibl., Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe

  • Roux DJ, Nel JL, Cundill G, O’Farrell P, Fabricius C (2017) Transdisciplinary research for systemic change: who to learn with, what to learn about and how to learn. Sustain Sci 18(3):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0446-0

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharmer CO (2009) Theory U: learning from the futures as it emerges. Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge PM (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning Oganization, vol 1. Currency Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Shukla M, Jharkharia S (2013) Agri-fresh produce supply chain management: a state-of-the-art literature review. Int Jrnl of Op & Prod Mnagemnt 33(2):114–158. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571311295608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stadtler H (2015) Supply chain management: an overview. In: Stadtler H, Kilger C, Meyr H (eds) Supply chain management and advanced planning, 5th edition. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 3–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Stindt D, Sahamie R, Nuss C, Tuma A (2016) How Transdisciplinarity can help to improve operations research on sustainable supply chains-a transdisciplinary modeling framework. J Bus Logist 37(2):113–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoian D, Donovan J, Fisk J, Muldoon M (2012) Value chain development for rural poverty reduction: a reality check and a warning. Enterprise Development and Microfinance 23(1):54–60. https://doi.org/10.3362/1755-1986.2012.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Temple B, Edwards R (2002) Interpreters/translators and cross-language research: reflexivity and border crossings. Int J Qual Methods 1(2):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690200100201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas DJ, Griffin PM (1996) Coordinated supply chain management. Eur J Oper Res 94(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(96)00098-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaill PB (1996) Learning as a way of being: strategies for survival in a world of permanent white water. The Jossey-Bass business & management series, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • van Mierlo B, Janssen A, Leenstra F, van Weeghel E (2013) Encouraging system learning in two poultry subsectors. Agric Syst 115:29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2012.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vänninen I, Pereira-Querol M, Engeström Y (2015) Generating transformative agency among horticultural producers: an activity-theoretical approach to transforming integrated Pest management. Agric Syst 139:38–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voinov A, Bousquet F (2010) Modelling with stakeholders. Environ Model Softw 25(11):1268–1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.03.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the different farmers, brokers and traders for their time and willingness to engage in project activities and share their perspectives. We also appreciate the dedicated cross-cultural work of our Ugandan research assistants, Robinah Makomero, Carolyn Nakakeeto, Joan Atukunda, and Nsubuga Caesar. Special thanks to Master’s student Katharina Bitzan for her support during and after the 2015 fieldwork. We appreciate the constructive feedback and encouragement from the anonymous reviewers and the editor. This article is an outcome of the project on the Reduction of Post-Harvest Losses and Value Addition in East African Food Value Chains (RELOAD), funded through an initiative for Research on the Global Food Supply (GlobE) by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in cooperation with the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) (Grant Number 031A247D).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, University of Kassel, Nordbahnhofstr. 1a, 37213, Witzenhausen, Germany

    Katharine Tröger, Margareta Amy Lelea & Oliver Hensel

  2. German Institute for Tropical and Subtropical Agriculture (DITSL), Steinstraße 19-21, 37213, Witzenhausen, Germany

    Katharine Tröger, Margareta Amy Lelea & Brigitte Kaufmann

  3. Social Ecology of Tropical and Subtropical Land-Use Systems, Institute of Agricultural Sciences in the Tropics (Hans-Ruthenberg-Institute), University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany

    Brigitte Kaufmann

Authors
  1. Katharine Tröger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Margareta Amy Lelea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Oliver Hensel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Brigitte Kaufmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katharine Tröger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tröger, K., Lelea, M.A., Hensel, O. et al. Embracing the Complexity: Surfacing Problem Situations with Multiple Actors of the Pineapple Value Chain in Uganda. Syst Pract Action Res 31, 557–580 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-018-9443-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-018-9443-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation