stakeholder engagement in the water sector. Wehn et al. [84] argue that when
conceived as a social learning process, stakeholder engagement can lead to shared
understanding and concerted actions to improve water governance. The value of
stakeholder engagement in fostering smart water systems is further emphasised in
the International Telecommunication Union’s report on ICTs and smart water
management [71]. By involving stakeholders (the non-implementing partners), the
VIA Water-supported partnerships are expected to be able to not only secure
acceptance and ownership of their ICT-focused water innovations but also to have
access to resources such as data and information possessed by these stakeholders
which could only be acquired through cooperation with them. Partnering with
relevant stakeholders in ICT-WIPs is finally consistent with insights from the
innovation systems literature: notably that innovation is (and should be conceived
as) resulting from complex interactions among various actors and institutions who
both affect and are affected by the innovation process [35].
The two types of governance mechanisms – structural and relational – were found
to be used concurrently in the partnerships. This finding does not support many of
the previous studies which emphasised that relational governance is often preferred
in innovation alliances and or networks due to its assumed advantages (i.e. flexibility) as compared to structural governance which is criticised for being costly and
rigid [52–54]. In contrast, the finding here is consistent with some studies which
underscore the importance of combining the two categories of governance mechanisms [46, 85]. In a study on 18 innovation networks in the Dutch agri-food sector,
Tepic et al. [44] demonstrated the complementarity of both governance mechanisms.
They conclude, among other things, that structural governance increases clarity of
partnerships, while relational governance helps prevent attrition in highly uncertain
conditions, especially in newly established innovation networks with limited previous cooperation. Similarly, Garbade et al. [48] in their analysis of 94 innovation
alliances (in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Austria) establish that structural agreements play a key role in setting up a platform for trust on which relational
governance can strive.
Finally, this study has established that some of the VIA Water ICT-WIPs still
experienced problems in spite of the governance mechanisms deployed. This suggests that there is still room for improvement on the mechanisms selected by the
partnerships. We observed, for example, that the structural governance mechanisms
that are mostly used include agreements such as MoUs and reference letters/endorsement letters. Although such documents are useful to make partnership obligations
and rights clearer and, as such, to lower uncertainties to some extent, it is important
to highlight that they are not legally enforceable agreements. They are just used by
partnering organisations to express their willingness to participate, indicating an
intended common line of action, and they are only settled internally. Agreements
that imply a legal commitment are however extremely important to handle some of
the key conflicts that might arise from the ICT-based water innovation partnerships.
Appropriability of innovation outputs and distribution of innovation revenues is one
of the areas where such agreements are needed [86].
Promoting Smart Water Systems in Developing Countries Through. . .
197
conceived as a social learning process, stakeholder engagement can lead to shared
understanding and concerted actions to improve water governance. The value of
stakeholder engagement in fostering smart water systems is further emphasised in
the International Telecommunication Union’s report on ICTs and smart water
management [71]. By involving stakeholders (the non-implementing partners), the
VIA Water-supported partnerships are expected to be able to not only secure
acceptance and ownership of their ICT-focused water innovations but also to have
access to resources such as data and information possessed by these stakeholders
which could only be acquired through cooperation with them. Partnering with
relevant stakeholders in ICT-WIPs is finally consistent with insights from the
innovation systems literature: notably that innovation is (and should be conceived
as) resulting from complex interactions among various actors and institutions who
both affect and are affected by the innovation process [35].
The two types of governance mechanisms – structural and relational – were found
to be used concurrently in the partnerships. This finding does not support many of
the previous studies which emphasised that relational governance is often preferred
in innovation alliances and or networks due to its assumed advantages (i.e. flexibility) as compared to structural governance which is criticised for being costly and
rigid [52–54]. In contrast, the finding here is consistent with some studies which
underscore the importance of combining the two categories of governance mechanisms [46, 85]. In a study on 18 innovation networks in the Dutch agri-food sector,
Tepic et al. [44] demonstrated the complementarity of both governance mechanisms.
They conclude, among other things, that structural governance increases clarity of
partnerships, while relational governance helps prevent attrition in highly uncertain
conditions, especially in newly established innovation networks with limited previous cooperation. Similarly, Garbade et al. [48] in their analysis of 94 innovation
alliances (in the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Austria) establish that structural agreements play a key role in setting up a platform for trust on which relational
governance can strive.
Finally, this study has established that some of the VIA Water ICT-WIPs still
experienced problems in spite of the governance mechanisms deployed. This suggests that there is still room for improvement on the mechanisms selected by the
partnerships. We observed, for example, that the structural governance mechanisms
that are mostly used include agreements such as MoUs and reference letters/endorsement letters. Although such documents are useful to make partnership obligations
and rights clearer and, as such, to lower uncertainties to some extent, it is important
to highlight that they are not legally enforceable agreements. They are just used by
partnering organisations to express their willingness to participate, indicating an
intended common line of action, and they are only settled internally. Agreements
that imply a legal commitment are however extremely important to handle some of
the key conflicts that might arise from the ICT-based water innovation partnerships.
Appropriability of innovation outputs and distribution of innovation revenues is one
of the areas where such agreements are needed [86].
Promoting Smart Water Systems in Developing Countries Through. . .
197