No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Exploring Non-technological and Mixed Modes of Innovation Across Countries
Abstract
Book synopsis: Innovation has become a key factor for economic growth, but how does the process take place at the level of individual firms? This book presents the main results of the OECD Innovation Microdata Project -- the first large-scale effort to exploit firm-level data from innovation surveys across 20 countries in an internationally harmonised way, with a view to addressing common analytical questions of great importance to policy makers who seek to promote innovation.
These issues include:
Which characteristics of companies affect their propensity to innovate?
Which types of firms invest more in innovation?
What is the impact of patenting on innovative behaviour?
What are the different innovation strategies that enterprises adopt, and are they the same across countries?
Through the use of common indicators and econometric modeling, this analytical report presents a broad overview of how firms innovate in different countries, highlights some of the limitations of current innovation surveys, and identifies directions for future research.
Innovation in Firms is part of the OECD Innovation Strategy, a comprehensive policy strategy to harness innovation for stronger and more sustainable growth and development, and to address the key global challenges of the 21st century.
... In contrast, in this work, I follow a data-driven approach to identify innovation strategies, in the line of Frenz and Lambert (2009), Leiponen and Drejer (2007), and Srholec and Verspagen (2012), who have worked with firm-level data from the Community Innovation Survey. Using LAIS, a unique dataset of microdata from Innovation Surveys from several Latin American countries (Crespi et al., 2022), I perform a factor analysis to identify the predominant innovation practices among innovative firms. ...
... On the other hand, supplier dominated and ad hoc innovators were idiosyncratic in Denmark, and incremental innovators and weak/market driven in Finland. Frenz and Lambert (2009) analyzed a more extensive set of countries with a similar methodology. 2 However, the focus of their analysis was at the innovation practice level, not strategies as such. ...
... Departing from previous studies that measure engagement in innovation activities through dummies (Frenz and Lambert, 2009;Huang et al., 2010;Jensen et al., 2007;Srholec and Verspagen, 2012), or just by using the total innovation investments relative to turnovers (Leiponen and Drejer, 2007), I use a measure of total investment in each innovation activity standardized by the number of employees in the firm. I assume that this approach represents the importance of each innovation activity to the underlying strategy performed by the firm. ...
The study of innovation in Latin American firms has concentrated almost exclusively on the determinants and impacts of innovation investments and outputs. Less attention has been paid to how firms innovate. This study applies factor and cluster analysis to a unique dataset of harmonized innovation surveys from Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay, to identify the main innovation practices and strategies performed by Latin American firms. Three of the four identified innovation strategies can be linked to results from similar studies using European firm-level data. However, none of these strategies resembles a strong science or research orientation. An approach to "open management" innovation emerges as idiosyncratic for Latin American firms. These innovation strategies are associated with differences in sales growth and labor productivity. The analysis also shows that firm resources and capabilities drive innovation strategy selection.
... Recent empirical studies indicate that different innovation patterns may co-exist within sectors. Moreover, heterogeneity stemming from the co-existence of distinct modes of innovation may vary across industries (Leiponen and Drejer 2007;Frenz and Lambert 2010;Srholec and Verspagen 2012). Although these studies provide compelling evidence regarding the diversity of innovation patterns within industries, the dynamics of such heterogeneity require further attention. ...
... Previous studies (Leiponen and Drejer 2007;Srholec and Verspagen 2012) use variables about product and process innovations, sources of knowledge, cooperation preferences, and impact of innovations to categorize firms. More recently, the OECD's Innovation Microdata Project provides modes of innovation for firms from many countries based on factor analysis of selected binary variables (Frenz and Lambert 2010). Calculated factor scores are then used in the k-means cluster analysis. ...
... According to their innovation patterns, firms' classification was an essential part of this paper since the dispersion of innovative firms within sectors was subsequently used to construct a diversity index. Quantification of intra-industry heterogeneity of innovation patterns, which enables sector-level analysis of such diversity, distinguishes this paper from similar previous studies (e.g., Leiponen and Drejer 2007;Frenz and Lambert 2010;Srholec and Verspagen 2012). ...
This paper aims to explore sector-level sources of intra-industry heterogeneity of innovation patterns among Turkish firms. We constructed a taxonomy of innovative firms and explored the different modes of innovation. We then analyzed the sector-level determinants of intra-industry heterogeneity. Analysis results indicate that groups of firms within the same sector that display distinct innovation characteristics and firm’s resource position, knowledge base, and cooperation behavior have a bearing on firms’ innovative characteristics. Furthermore, our analysis shows that variables related to variety generation within a sector increase heterogeneity. In contrast, larger average firm size or concentration of firms that belong to a group reduces heterogeneity in that sector. Our analysis results show that firms with distinct innovative characteristics populate the sectors. Therefore, sectoral innovation policies should target specific groups rather than emphasizing innovation typologies based on vague abstractions. Moreover, heterogeneity of innovative behavior can be a risk-mitigation tool to control the adverse effects of path dependency and lock-in.
... Another metric based on the relative innovative position of firms is also used in order to add robustness to the analysis. Frenz and Lambert (2010) report implementation of factor analysis method to determine innovation patterns for a number OECD countries. A similar approach was also adopted in this thesis to identify innovation patterns in Turkey. ...
... Step 2 firms of a number of countries based on factor analysis of some binary variables (Frenz & Lambert, 2010). Calculated factor scores are then used in the k-means cluster analysis. ...
... New-to-firm product innovations and expenditure on marketing activities are closely related to marketingbased imitating mode, which emerges in Austria, Brazil and New Zealand. On the other hand, this mode is not observed in Korea and Norway (Frenz & Lambert, 2010). ...
This thesis aims to explore the sources of intra – industry heterogeneity of innovation modes and the effects of such heterogeneity on the innovation process. A taxonomy of innovative firms was constructed and different modes of innovation were explored for this purpose, then micro and macro level determinants of intra – industry heterogeneity were analyzed. The linkage between firm’s innovative characteristics and its resource position, knowledge base and relationships with other organizations was established. Finally the effects of intra – industry heterogeneity on the innovation process were investigated using a modified version of the Crépon – Duguet – Mairesse model.
Analysis results indicate that there are groups of firms within the same sector that display distinct innovation characteristics and firm’s resource position, knowledge base and cooperation behavior have a bearing on the innovative characteristics of firms. Furthermore, it was found that variables related to variety generation within a sector increase heterogeneity; whereas increasing average firm size or concentration of firms that belong to a group reduces the amount of heterogeneity in that sector. Research findings indicate that firms operating in more diverse sectors (in terms of innovative behavior) spend more on innovation and introduce product innovations more efficiently.
Research based evidence from this thesis show that sectors are populated with firms that have distinct innovative characteristics. Therefore, sectoral innovation policies should target specific groups, rather than emphasizing innovation typologies based on vague abstractions. Moreover heterogeneity of innovative behavior can be regarded as a risk – mitigation tool to control the adverse effects of path dependency and lock – in.
... Using exploratory factor analysis on an extensive dataset of innovative firms obtained from the third Community Innovation Survey (CIS) in 13 European countries, we detect four behavioral patterns that can be interpreted as research, user, external, and production ingredients of an innovation strategy. This supports findings of other papers that used methods of multivariate analysis on micro data to detect strategies, modes, or regimes of innovation (Cesaratto and Mangano, 1993;Hollenstein, 1996Hollenstein, , 2003de Jong and Marsili, 2006;Jensen et al., 2007;Leiponen and Drejer, 2007;Frenz and Lambert, 2009) and demonstrated that the variety of how firms innovate goes much beyond the decision on how much to spend on R&D. ...
... Studies based on data from early vintages of the CIS questionnaire, for example Cesaratto and Mangano (1993), Hollenstein (1996Hollenstein ( , 2003, de Jong and Marsili (2006), and Leiponen and Drejer (2007), showed that besides the traditional idea about "science-based" innovation, many firms rely on "market-oriented" and "process, production, supplier-driven" strategies. Using evidence on organizational and marketing changes from the fourth round of CIS, Frenz and Lambert (2009) added what they call "wider innovating" mode. Jensen et al. (2007), based on the Danish DISKO survey, highlighted two types of learning in firms labeled as "science, technology, and innovation" and "doing, using, and interacting" modes. ...
... Sectoral differences have not been considered by Frenz and Lambert (2009), but this study needs to be highlighted for providing the broad cross-country comparative evidence based on micro data that remains extremely rare. Under auspices of the OECD micro data project, they organized researchers with access to CIS dataset from nine countries, including four non-European, to estimate the same factoring procedure. ...
The aim of the paper is to assess heterogeneity of the innovation process. Using exploratory factor analysis on micro data
from the third Community Innovation Survey in 13 countries, we identify four patterns that can be interpreted as research,
user, external, and production ingredients of innovation. All too often it is assumed that how firm innovate can be represented
by differences across sectors and/or countries. To put this proposition under scrutiny, we partition variability of the factors
scores into components identified by these higher levels. Sectors and countries matter to a certain extent, but far more of
the variance is given by heterogeneity among firms within both of them. However, groups of firms produced by cluster analysis
account for much higher share of the variance, which indicates that the most relevant stratification of the data cuts across
the established sectoral and national boundaries. We discuss implications of these findings for understanding of selection
in evolutionary economics and for the literature on innovation systems.
... Using exploratory factor analysis on an extensive dataset of innovative firms obtained from the third Community Innovation Survey (CIS) in 13 European countries, we detect four behavioral patterns that can be interpreted as research, user, external, and production ingredients of an innovation strategy. This supports findings of other papers that used methods of multivariate analysis on micro data to detect strategies, modes, or regimes of innovation (Cesaratto and Mangano, 1993;Hollenstein, 1996Hollenstein, , 2003de Jong and Marsili, 2006;Jensen et al., 2007;Leiponen and Drejer, 2007;Frenz and Lambert, 2009) and demonstrated that the variety of how firms innovate goes much beyond the decision on how much to spend on R&D. ...
... Studies based on data from early vintages of the CIS questionnaire, for example Cesaratto and Mangano (1993), Hollenstein (1996Hollenstein ( , 2003, de Jong and Marsili (2006), and Leiponen and Drejer (2007), showed that besides the traditional idea about "science-based" innovation, many firms rely on "market-oriented" and "process, production, supplier-driven" strategies. Using evidence on organizational and marketing changes from the fourth round of CIS, Frenz and Lambert (2009) added what they call "wider innovating" mode. Jensen et al. (2007), based on the Danish DISKO survey, highlighted two types of learning in firms labeled as "science, technology, and innovation" and "doing, using, and interacting" modes. ...
... Sectoral differences have not been considered by Frenz and Lambert (2009), but this study needs to be highlighted for providing the broad cross-country comparative evidence based on micro data that remains extremely rare. Under auspices of the OECD micro data project, they organized researchers with access to CIS dataset from nine countries, including four non-European, to estimate the same factoring procedure. ...
Our aim is to quantify innovation strategies of firms based on evidence from the CIS data. Using exploratory factor analysis on micro data from CIS3 in 13 countries, we identify four factors that that can be interpreted as re- search-based, user-driven, extensive and social responsibility innovation strate- gies. Since it has been put forward that diversity in the way how firms innovate can be explained by differences across sectors and/or countries, we explore to what extent the innovation strategy of a firm is influenced by this context. We use cross-classified mixed-effects model to partition the variation of innovation strategies into components identified by sectors, countries, and idiosyncrasies at the firm level. The analysis shows that sectors and countries matter to a certain extent, but most of the variance (from 80 to 95%) is given by heterogeneity among firms.
... This paper is part of the most comprehensive exercise of such a naturecomprehensive in terms of the breadth of innovation related activities and in terms of the micro-data sets and number of countries involved. It is an extension of a wider OECD micro-data project (Frenz and Lambert, 2009) The aim of this paper is to shed further light on the relative importance of the four mixed modes of innovation in explaining the performance of the enterprise; for the UK only at this stage. Performance indcators used are levels of productivity measured both as output and value added Data are derived from matching the fourth and fifth Community Innovation Surveys in the UK (UKISs) with the latest waves of the Annual Business Inquiry (ABI 2005), which provide output and value added data. ...
... A second strand of the research, developed further in this paper, adopts a novel way of taking account of a wider set of complementarities in innovation, by measuring a set of mixed modes by factor analysing innovation survey data. It is an extension of an earlier phase of the OECD project (Frenz and Lambert, 2009) which uncovers indicators of mixed of innovation for nine countries. The rationale for the modelling strategy is briefly, that patterns of innovation at the micro level can be investigated with statistical techniques that allow "centres of gravity" of firm and industry behaviour to emerge from the wealth of data in the broad brush innovation surveys. ...
... This section provides an overview of the advances made towards formulating typologies of mixed modes of innovation. For a detailed discussion on methodology and findings, and to access the individual factor loadings for the participating countries, see Frenz and Lambert, 2009. Table 1 provides an overview of the four mixed modes of innovation across nine OECD countries. ...
The paper explores micro-level innovation survey data and examines the role – vis-à-vis traditional forms of science and technology related activities – which organisational and managerial changes, qualified staff and network capabilities play in determining business performance and the functioning of national systems of innovation. It follows a two-step strategy. First, measures, based on factor scores, of innovation modes are developed and linked to differences in the innovation environments of the OECD countries. Second, the relative importance for firm performance – turnover and value added per capita – of innovation modes (vis-à-vis one another) are tested. A key finding of the paper is that productivity measured by value added per capita is influenced more strongly by non-technological modes of innovation that prioritise internal enhancements to do with organisational and managerial techniques and methods, than it is by improved production processes. Whereas output per capita is relatively more strongly and significantly related to product, process and technology based innovation.
... En cuanto a los activos por los que apueste el territorio, dos son asimismo los grandes dilemas a que se enfrenta la estrategia territorial: (i) el centrarse en el desarrollo de unas core capacidades, o el buscar un balance más equilibrado de los diferentes tipos de activos; y (ii) el trabajar con una visión más amplia o más restrictiva de la innovación y sus determinantes. Respecto al primer dilema, autores de muy diferentes corrientes sostienen que la corrección de los puntos débiles y la combinación de diferentes modos de aprendizaje, innovación o bases de conocimiento ofrece mejores resultados que el concentrarse en desarrollar al máximo los puntos fuertes o el desarrollo de estrategias basadas en un único factor (Hansen y Birkinshaw, 2007;Soete, 2006;Arundel y Hollanders, 2007;Lundvall y Lorenz, 2007;Jensen et al., 2007;Asheim, 2009;Frenz y Lambert, 2009;Mairesse y Mohnen, 2007;Criscuolo et al., 2011;Wintges y Hollanders, 2010). En cuanto al segundo dilema, frente a planteamientos que reducen los componentes del sistema a aquellos ligados con las actividades de I+D (por ejemplo, Nelson, 1993;Niosi, 2010;Etzkowitz y Leydesdorff, 2000), tendríamos los enfoques más amplios que tratan de incluir en el análisis todos los componentes y relaciones del sistema que inciden significativamente en la innovación (Lundvall, 1992;Edquist, 1997;Asheim y Gertler, 2005). ...
... 41). Así, frente a planteamientos como los de Gill (2010 y 2011) o el informe World Development Report 2009, que plantean que con objeto de favorecer el desarrollo y disminuir las diferencias interterritoriales las políticas deben ser neutrales desde el punto de vista territorial (spatially blind), la Comisión Europea y muchos de los autores que se mueven en torno a esta (Informe Barca, 2009;Barca y McCann, 2010;Barca, 2011;Landabaso, 2011;, así como la OCDE (véase OECD, 2009;Garcilazo et al., 2010;Garcilazo, 2011), consideran, por el contrario, que las políticas deben tomar en cuenta el contexto (esto es, deben ser spatially aware o place based), contexto este que varía notablemente de unos territorios a otros. En tal sentido, la estrategia de especialización inteligente sería un caso de política place based, dado que para su definición se deben tomar en cuenta cuáles son los activos productivos y bases de conocimiento de la región en las que presenta ventajas comparativas, a partir de las cuales plantear la especialización inteligente (McCann y Ortega-Argilés, 2011;McCann, 2011) 6 . ...
[ES] A pesar de que existe un amplio reconocimiento de que los territorios necesitan desarrollar estrategias de innovacion para la construccion de ventajas competitivas, hasta ahora no han sido explicitados el contenido y las particularidades del termino estrategia aplicado al ambito territorial, por lo que se ha utilizado frecuentemente con significados ambiguos.
... This paper offers another angle on innovation modalities by adopting a recently emerging approach towards identifying innovation typologies. We define mixed modes of innovation which explicitly refer to a set or bundle of activities which are undertaken together by a firm to bring about and market a new good or service, or improve on production, delivery and business processes (Arundel and Hollanders 2005, Battisti and Stoneman 2010, Frenz and Lambert 2009, Hollenstein 2003, Jensen, Johnson, Lorenz and Lundvall 2007, Leiponen and Dreijer 2007, Shrolec and Verspagen 2009. Mixed modes of innovation include aspects of both user and open innovation, although it is the latter that serves as the jumping off point for the analysis as the innovation surveys in question address the issue of external linkages more fully than they do those implicit in user innovation models. ...
... Indeed, the increased emphasis on non-technological activities was a major driver for the emergence of modes of innovation (e.g. Frenz and Lambert 2009). The relevance of internal resources (e.g. ...
This paper offers a new angle on innovation modalities by adopting a recently emerging approach towards identifying innovation typologies via exploratory data analysis techniques with the aim to tease out some underlying latent variables that represent coherent innovation strategies for groups of firms. Mixed modes of innovation include aspects of both user and open innovation, and are employed to inform on such concepts. The modes of innovation are developed by exploring micro-level innovation survey data across 18 countries. The contributions of the paper lie in (a) the identification of five core innovation modes that are found in almost all countries; and (b) examining – via regression analysis – the role of different modes in firm performance.
... This reflects quite 'soft' approach to innovation not based on indigenous capabilities of firms. We call this aspect as 'External information-driven' innovation and use 15 We use tetrachoric and polychoric correlations in the factoring procedure, which are better suited for binary and Likert scale variables (Kolenikov and Angeles 2004), and which have become preferred in the recent studies based on the CIS data (Leiponen and Drejer, 2007; Verspagen, 2008 and Frenz and Lambert, 2009). the INFO shortcut for the factor score. ...
... This reflects quite 'soft' approach to innovation not based on indigenous capabilities of firms. We call this aspect as 'External information-driven' innovation and use 15 We use tetrachoric and polychoric correlations in the factoring procedure, which are better suited for binary and Likert scale variables (Kolenikov and Angeles 2004), and which have become preferred in the recent studies based on the CIS data (Leiponen and Drejer, 2007; Verspagen, 2008 and Frenz and Lambert, 2009). the INFO shortcut for the factor score. ...
Innovation has its most important impact on the economy through the diffusion of new technical knowledge, from its first worldwide implementation in the production of goods and services to its adoption and adaptation by enterprises located in different places across the globe. One way to identify whether an enterprise creates new knowledge or uses already existing knowledge is to measure the novelty of the innovation in various markets, namely whether the innovation is new to the world, country and local market, or only to the enterprise. While innovation new to the enterprise may be only capturing the ability of an enterprise to use and adopt new knowledge, it is also a precondition for economic growth and development. Pooling information from the Third Community Innovation Survey carried out in thirteen European countries, including several countries significantly behind the European average per capita income, we estimate an ordered probit model that relates the novelty of product innovation to structure, strategy and capabilities of enterprises. The study shows that research and marketing capabilities boost the outcome most in the frontier countries, while process upgrading and foreign ownership make much more difference in catching-up countries. This illustrates how the nature of the innovation process changes with the increasing distance from the technology frontier. Presented at GLOBELICS 2009, 7th International Conference, 6-8 October, Dakar, Senegal. Parallel session 2: Innovation and firm performance
... Firm-level characteristics play a significant role in shaping innovation activity within industries and also within countries (Frenz and Lambert, 2009). The "prime units for innovation" are private firms (Lundvall, 2007). ...
This paper provides empirical evidence on the innovation performance in European countries in the period 2012-2014 based on a micro level analysis. We provide a comparative perspective among three different institutional settings in Europe: Central and Eastern European countries (CEE), Southern European countries and Northern European countries. We estimate the CDM model of simultaneous equations while using data from the Eurostat Community Innovation Survey 2014 (CIS2014). This model directly links R&D engagement and intensity to innovation outcomes measured either as process or as product innovation and then estimates the effectiveness of the innovative efforts in terms of productivity gains. In general, during our observation period, which fell in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, the links between innovation inputs, innovation outputs and productivity were found to be rather weak. Another remarkable finding from our study is that, notwithstanding a higher participation in innovation by larger firms, among those firms that innovate, innovation output is relatively higher for small firms (compared to large firms) in Northern Europe. This relatively important role for small firms in innovation was not found for the other two country groups.
... Also, in all likelihood, urban lead firms maintain a strong base in what has been dubbed 'symbolic' knowledge by Asheim, Coenen, and Vang (2007), while rural lead firms have an upper hand in 'synthetic' knowledge. Meanwhile, however, the results cut across the 'science, technology, and innovation' versus 'doing, using, and interacting' dichotomy established by Jensen et al. (2007) and do not easily map on the various modes of innovation identified by Leiponen and Drejer (2007), Frenz and Lambert (2009) and Srholec and Verspagen (2012), which indicates that the study of lead firms cannot be easily narrowed down to innovation only. ...
This paper examines regional distribution of indigenous lead firms in global production networks (GPNs). The paper triangulates unique evidence at the firm-level from a large innovation survey, extensive field interviews and detailed case studies in Czechia. The results indicate that lead firms are not predominantly urban species, as often assumed in the literature, but tend to be located to a surprisingly high extent in rural areas. Nevertheless, rural lead firms differ significantly from the urban ones in many respects. Urban regions turn out to be a seedbed for young, ambitious, close to the market and networked lead firms in new industries, which conforms to typical urbanization economics in action, whereas rural regions tend to harbor mature, established and relatively self-reliant lead firms with strong technical know-how in traditional industries, which build on location-specific resources and traditions. The results call for a more nuanced view on the coupling between GPNs and location advantages and more granular take on the regional dimension of innovation policy.
... In order to extend the rent extraction from their innovations, firms have developed sophisticated innovative strategies, which often bring together technological and nontechnological forms of innovations, such as new business methods, and organisational and marketing innovations (Frenz and Lambert 2009;Evangelista and Vezzani 2010). Indeed, evidence on these mixed modes of innovation show that this shift concerns both large and small firms as well as manufacturing and services sectors (OECD 2011). ...
This paper investigates the relationship between the innovative activity of the top corporate R&D investors worldwide and their market valuation. The analysis exploits a sample of more than 1,250 publicly listed Multinational Corporations (MNCs) and their intellectual property rights (IPR) – patents and trademarks – filed between 2005 and 2012. The study contributes to the literature on the IPR-market value link by examining the premium resulting from the interactive use of different IPR. Moreover, the empirical setting allows differentiating the effects of an increase in market value derived from additional IPR (within-effects) with respect to the premium received for holding more IPR than the competitors (between-effects). The findings suggest that investors value the simultaneous use of the two IPRs and form their expectations by benchmarking firms. Finally, significant industrial specificities are observed in the individual effects of patents, trademarks and their interactions on the market value of firms.
... 3. Literature review Firm-level characteristics play a significant role in shaping innovation activity within industries and also within countries (Frenz and Lambert 2009). Stojčić and Hashi (2014) and Hashi and Stojčić (2013) investigate the impact of innovation on companies' productivity across a number of East and West European countries using a companylevel dataset from the CIS04 and CIS06. ...
This paper provides empirical evidence on the innovation performance in the European countries in the years of recovery from the global economic and financial crisis by using the CDM model of simultaneous equations. The model directly links R&D engagement and intensity to innovation outcomes measured either as process or as product innovation, and then estimates the effectiveness of the innovative efforts leading to productivity gains. The difference between the drivers of innovation systems and its influence over the productivity growth is analyzed between two different institutional settings in Europe. For that purpose a company-level dataset is used from the 2012 round of the Comunity Innovation Survey.
Тhe results indicated that the recent financial crisis had negative influence on the companies’ willingness to innovate. The effect of the crisis led to further divergence in the innovation systems of these two institutional settings. Identifying the characteristics of the innovation systems and drivers of innovation during the turmoil shows that policy instruments on EU level should be oriented towards creation of competitive business environment, encouragement to adopt the best management techniques and organizational structures and improvement of well-functioning capital, product and labor markets.
... La propia aproximación terminológica por "aquello que no es", en lugar de por "lo que es", ha generado una multiplicidad de aproximaciones desde diferentes ámbitos de estudio. Asimismo, la distinción dicotómica entre ambas formas de innovación (tecnológica vs. no-tecnológica) resulta demasiado simplista, ya que ofrece una visión incompleta e inexacta de la complementariedad existente entre ambas dimensiones de la innovación (Frenz et al., 2009). ...
El trabajo tiene como objetivo fundamental la elaboración de una métrica de
indicadores de innovación no-tecnológica, que sirva a una adecuación de la medición
del desempeño innovador de las organizaciones.
En este sentido, uno de los principales problemas que ha planteado el ejercicio es la propia aproximación del principal concepto de estudio: la innovación no-tecnológica.
Por un lado, el concepto de innovación, y por ende los indicadores que describen la actividad innovadora, no son parte de un lenguaje común, lo que ha provocado ciertos niveles de indeterminación entre las distintas formas en que puede entenderse y/o clasificarse la innovación.
Por otro lado, el tradicional predominio de la dimensión tecnológica, así como
la ambigüedad e imprecisión que acompañan la idea de lo no-tecnológico, ha limitado un
mayor alcance y aproximación de la componente no-tecnológica de la innovación.
... Hollenstein (2003);de Jong and Marsili (2006);Jensen et al. (2007) and Leiponen and Drejer (2007) showed that besides the traditional science-based innovations, there is a variety of market-oriented and process, production, supplier-driven paths to innovation. Frenz and Lambert (2009) recognized the so-called wider innovating mode by taking into account evidence on organizational and marketing changes. Srholec and Verspagen (2012) identified what they dubbed research, user, external and production ingredients of innovation strategies. ...
The link between knowledge and firm growth has been a core topic in economics of innovation for a long time. However, despite strong theoretical arguments, empirical evidence remains inconclusive. One important reason for this conundrum may be the failure of standard indicators to capture firm innovation activities comprehensively. We contribute to overcoming this limitation by looking in the knowledge processes that drive variegated forms of innovation and aim thereby to establish a solid relationship with firm growth in more detail. Our arguments draw on the differentiated knowledge base approach, distinguishing between analytical, synthetic, and symbolic knowledge. We measure the three types of knowledge bases with detailed longitudinal linked-employer-employee micro-data from Sweden. Econometric findings based on a very large sample of small and medium-sized firms indicate significantly positive effects of the three knowledge types, and in particular combinations thereof, on firm growth. In addition, we show that not only high-growth but also slow-growth firms benefit immensely from the use of combinatory knowledge bases. We find evidence on a curvilinear relation between knowledge bases and growth of firms. Beyond certain thresholds increasing the knowledge bases further results in decreasing firm growth. Our results remain robust in a wide range of specifications and econometric models.
... The identification of the different profiles of product and/or process innovators has followed a two-stages methodology widely used in the literature, which consists of clustering firms on the basis of their answers to different sections of the CIS questionnaire, using previously estimated latent variables from a factor analysis (see Leiponen and Drejer 2007, Frenz and Lambert 2009, Srholec and Verspagen 2012. The logic is the following: studying the correlations across CIS variables, the factor analysis identifies which of them form coherent subsets (factors); these are then interpreted, using inductive reasoning, as possible ingredients of an innovation strategy; the clustering algorithm applied to these factors allows to split the sample of firms according to the degree of similarity/dissimilarity of the mix of ingredients of their innovation strategies, seeing which are common to all groups, and which are group-specific; finally, such clusters, using again inductive reasoning, are given an economic interpretation. ...
This paper provides first empirical evidence of the joint effects that innovation strategies and human resource management practices exert on firm growth. By exploiting unique information from a large sample of Italian manufacturing firms in the very recent years, it shows that investing in technology and implementing performance-based pay policies are both positively associated with a significant turnover, employment and labor productivity growth premium. However, their joint adoption does not necessarily sum the two effects. In particular, performance-based rewards boost the growth of non innovating firms and of firms pursuing relatively simple innovation strategies , centered around the acquisition of new machinery, equipment and software. For firms strongly relying on R&D as an additional lever for product and process upgrading, the estimated effect of having in place such incentive mechanisms is null or even negative.
... The identification of the different profiles of product and/or process innovators has followed a two-stages methodology widely used in the literature, which consists of clustering firms on the basis of their answers to different sections of the CIS questionnaire, using previously estimated latent variables from a factor analysis (see Leiponen and Drejer 2007, Frenz and Lambert 2009, Srholec and Verspagen 2012. The logic is the following: studying the correlations across CIS variables, the factor analysis identifies which of them form coherent subsets (factors); these are then interpreted, using inductive reasoning, as possible ingredients of an innovation strategy; the clustering algorithm applied to these factors allows to split the sample of firms according to the degree of similarity/dissimilarity of the mix of ingredients of their innovation strategies, seeing which are common to all groups, and which are group-specific; finally, such clusters, using again inductive reasoning, are given an economic interpretation. ...
It is widely acknowledged that investing in technological innovation and implementing pay-for-performance schemes for the remuneration of workers are two effective means to boost firm performance. However, very little is know about their strategic interaction. Are they complement, substitute or independent channels for growth?
By exploiting unique information from a large sample of Italian manufacturing firms in the very recent years, I show that investing in technology and implementing performance-based pay policies are both positively associated with a significant turnover, employment and labor productivity growth premium. However, their joint adoption does not necessarily sum the two effects. In particular, performance-based rewards boost the growth of non innovating firms and of firms pursuing relatively simple innovation strategies, centered around the acquisition of new machinery, equipment and software. For firms strongly relying on R&D as an additional lever for product and process upgrading, the estimated effect of having in place such incentive mechanisms is null or even negative.
... The identification of the different profiles of product and/or process innovators has followed a two-stages methodology widely used in the literature, which consists of clustering firms on the basis of their answers to different sections of the CIS questionnaire, using previously estimated latent variables from a factor analysis (see Leiponen and Drejer 2007, Frenz and Lambert 2009, Srholec and Verspagen 2012. The logic is the following: studying the correlations across CIS variables, the factor analysis identifies which of them form coherent subsets (factors); these are then interpreted, using inductive reasoning, as possible ingredients of an innovation strategy; the clustering algorithm applied to these factors allows to split the sample of firms according to the degree of similarity/dissimilarity of the mix of ingredients of their innovation strategies, seeing which are common to all groups, and which are group-specific; finally, such clusters, using again inductive reasoning, are given an economic interpretation. ...
This paper provides first empirical evidence of the joint effects that innovation strategies and human resource management practices exert on firm growth. By exploiting unique information from a large sample of Italian manufacturing firms in the very recent years, it shows that investing in technology and implementing performance-based pay policies are both positively associated with a significant turnover, employment and labor productivity growth premium. However, their joint adoption does not necessarily sum the two effects. In particular, performance-based rewards boost the growth of non innovating firms and of firms pursuing relatively simple innovation strategies, centered around the acquisition of new machinery, equipment and software. For firms strongly relying on R&D as an additional lever for product and process upgrading, the estimated effect of having in place such incentive mechanisms is null or even negative.
... The idea that an establishment's orientation to innovation is likely to be more complex and nuanced than revealed in response to questions regarding the introduction of "new or significantly improved" products, services, or processes over the past 3 years have been examined in both the CIS and BRDIS, using factor analysis (e.g.,Sanchez, 2014;Frenz and Lambert, 2009). Factor analysis in these studies is used to reduce the relatively large number of innovation inputs and outputs reported by respondents into a much smaller set of innovation modes-collections of innovation practices that tend to be found together. ...
... Since they rank highly in the R&D factors and in R&D cooperation with different types of partners, notably with research organizations (including foreign ones and independent scientists), as well as with suppliers of materials and machinery, they come close to some firms from the incumbent EU countries. The latter are called by other researchers the 'high profile group' (Srholec and Verspagen, 2008), 'science-based high-tech firms with full network integration' (Hollenstein, 2003), 'science-based' (Leiponen and Drejer, 2007), 'new-to-market innovating' (Frenz and Lambert, 2009), 'strategic innovators' (Arundel and Hollander, 2005), 'knowledge intensive product developers' (Som et al., 2010) or firms performing the 'Science, Technology, Innovation mode of learning and innovation' (Jensen et al., 2007). However, the science-based innovation path group of NMS' firms is, in our opinion, closer to the STI/DUI mode of learning and innovation than the STI mode. ...
This paper investigates the differences in innovation behaviour among manufacturing firms in three New Member States (NMS): the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. It is based on a survey of firms operating in four manufacturing industries: food and beverages, automotive, pharmaceuticals and electronics. The paper takes into account: innovation inputs in enterprises, cooperation among firms in R&D activities, the benefits of cooperation with business partners and innovation effects. Five types of innovation patterns that firms in the NMS introduce to improve competitive advantage were detected using a cluster analysis. They differ in terms of in-house innovation capabilities, their forms, the use of external sources of innovation, spillover absorption and economic performance. Interestingly, most of them are similar to the innovation patterns of firms in the incumbent EU member states. This seems to confirm Shorec and Verspagen’s (2008) claim that, in the heterogeneity in firms’ innovation behaviour, countries matter only to a certain extent. The paper shows that in the NMS the role of the two types of innovation sources – R&D and cooperation – are complementary rather than consist of the ‘make-or-buy decision’ (Veugelers, 1997) model. Although external knowledge is important in innovation activities, the benefits of using it are determined by in-house innovation capacities.
... Although the dominant orientation of innovation policy will continue to favour the incentive to R&D, the truth is that this is not the only way for firms to innovate. Multiple studies have shown that firms do not innovate in the same way (see, for example, Nunes & Lopes, 2015; Fitjar and Rodriguez-Pose, 2013; Gokhberg, Kuznetsova and Roud, 2012; Parrilli, González and Peña, 2012; Marlon and Lambert, 2009; Žížalová, 2009; Jensen et al., 2007; Lundvall, 2007; Tödtling, Lehner and Kaufmann, 2006; Lorenz and Lundvall, 2006). Particularly, Lundvall (1985) drew our attention to the fact that innovation result of an interactive and collective learning process. ...
... Secondly, greater availability of micro-data, such as the CIS, has made it possible to investigate empirically firms' heterogeneity in innovation related behaviour. Exploratory empirical studies have shown that there is a great deal of variety in the way firms innovate within industries and within countries (Srholec and Verspagen, 2008;Evangelista and Vezzani, 2010;Frenz and Lambert, 2010). ...
Book synopsis: The recent financial and economic crisis has spurred a lot of interest among scholars and public audience. Strangely enough, the impact of the crisis on innovation has been largely underestimated. This books can be regarded as a complementary reading for those interested in the effect of the crisis with a particular focus on Europe.
... An alternative method of constructing innovation modes is to use factor analysis to assign firms to one of two or more categories. This method is used by Frenz and Lambert (2009) to identify different patterns of how firms innovate in nine OECD countries. The method uses the results to 16 innovation survey questions. ...
... As an example of the exploratory approach, de Jong and Marsili (2006) use principal component analysis followed by cluster analysis to identify different types of innovative firms with less than 100 employees. The principal component analysis uses fifteen variables, covering innovative outputs (product and process innovations), innovative inputs (the presence of an innovation budget, time devoted to innovation, and the presence within the firm of innovation specialists), three external sources of information for innovation, two measures of managerial attitudes to innovation, and two 4 See Corrocher et al. (2009), Frenz and Lambert (2009), Hollenstein (1996, Hollenstein (2003), Jensen et al. (2007), De Jong and Marsili (2006), Knell and Srholec (2010), Leiponen and Drejer (2007), Peeters et al. (2004), Sellenthin and Hommen, 2002and Srholec and Verspagen (2008. measures of interactions with external sources. ...
... Since the publication of the work by Jensen et al. in 2007, different methodological approaches have been applied to identify distinct innovation modes (see e.g. Amara et al., 2008; Marlon & Lambert, 2009; Z ˇ ı ´žalová, 2009; Guo et al., 2010; Isaksen & Karlsen, 2010 Chen et al., 2011; Trippl, 2011; Aslesen et al., 2012; Gokhberg et al., 2012; Gonzalez-Pernia et al., 2012; Parrilli & Elola, 2012; Fitjar & Rodriguez-Pose, 2013; Isaksen & Nilsson, 2013; Apanasovich, 2014a; Gonzalez-Pernia et al., 2014). After identifying the various innovation modes, their implications for public policy and for innovation strategies must be addressed. ...
This paper seeks to identify different innovation modes and their territorial embeddedness, relating them to firms’ innovative and economic performance. We also analyse the relationship between the different innovation modes and the economic impact of the crisis on firms’ performance. These relationships are tested by regression and latent class models for the Portuguese population of firms, using a sample of 397 firms classified according to technological intensity, size and region. Our results show three different innovation modes: a DUI (Doing, Using and Interacting) mode, an STI (Science, Technology and Innovation) mode and a TEI (Territorial Embeddedness Innovation) mode in which territory plays a key role. These innovative modes are related in different ways to firms’ economic and innovative performance and also have marked distinctions in terms of resilience to the economic crisis. These findings lead to a reflection on regional innovation policy in the European context.
... The currently prevailing stream does not limit priorities to core capabilities or strengths. It also pays attention to neutralizing the weakest structures and functions of the region and combining different types of learning, innovation and knowledge bases (Soete 2006;Arundel and Hollanders 2008;Jensen et al. 2007;Asheim 2009;Frenz and Lambert 2009;Mairesse and Mohnen 2009;Wintjes and Hollanders 2010). Likewise, most of the analysts are in favour of considering all the components and relations that affect the innovation and competitiveness, not only those that are R&D-based or the hard ones (Lundvall 1992;Edquist, 1997;Asheim and Gertler 2005). ...
The concept of regional strategy has been imported from the field of strategic management without reflecting on its specificities.
This paper offers a holistic approach, which integrates all the elements a regional strategy should take into account around
three core questions regarding: the strategy objectives (‘what for?’); the strategic positioning and its bases (‘what?’);
and the process of formulating the strategy (‘how?’ and ‘who?’). This framework is applied to identify and analyse the strategies
developed in the Basque Country over the last 30 years. The Basque Country is of great interest as it epitomizes the experience
of old industrialized European regions that were ravaged by the economic crisis of the 1970s and have since achieved a considerable
economic success. It is also a good example of the dual process that has taken place in Europe, involving top-down decentralization
and the transfer of powers from national to supranational institutions.
... Next step in the analysis involves leaving aside the pre-defined innovator typologies, and applying factor analysis to identify innovation activities that are practiced in parallel in both service and manufacturing firms (for a similar approach at country-level see e.g. Frenz et al. 2009). Usually, the innovation practices in manufacturing and services are presented as very different from one another. ...
This study identifies differences in research and development and innovation activities, expenditures, modes and strategies in knowledge intensive business services (KIBS), finance, and manufacturing. By applying descriptive and exploratory statistical methods on firm-level data, it succeeds in constructing distinctive innovation profiles for the sectors. The results indicate differences in the role of international markets for innovation production and in the existence of innovator vs. modifier by sectors. Moreover, the role of KIBS is central in emerging research and innovation systems as they act as knowledge transmitters between markets and science.
... Studies based on data from early vintages of the CIS questionnaire, for example Cesaratto/Mangano (1993), de Jong/Marsili (2006, Hollenstein (1996Hollenstein ( , 2003 and Leiponen/Drejer (2007), showed that besides the traditional idea about "science-based" innovation, many firms rely on "marketoriented" and "process, production, supplier-driven" strategies. Using evidence on organizational and marketing changes from the fourth round of CIS, Frenz/Lambert (2009) added what they call "wider innovating" mode. Jensen et al. (2007), based on the Danish DISKO survey, highlighted two types of learning in firms labeled as "science, technology and innovation" and "doing, using and interacting" modes. ...
"The aim of the paper is to assess the heterogeneity of German affiliates in the Czech Republic and their mother companies in Germany. Applying cluster analysis to firm-level data from the unique IAB-ReLOC survey, we identify four main groups of firms that partition the sample by broad sectoral lines and technological intensity of their operation. More specifically, the principal clusters can be interpreted as: I) High-tech industrial firms; II) Low-tech industrial firms; III) High-tech service providers; and IV) Low-tech service providers. The classification is examined more closely by location, ownership and industry of the firms and in the framework of a probit model. The main result is that there is a significant technological gap between the mothers and their cross-border daughters in industry that cannot be found in the service sector. From this follow implications for technological upgrading on both sides of the border, which are discussed in the concluding section of the paper." (Author's abstract, IAB-Doku) ((en))
... They note that, between 1998 and 2000, 46 per cent of Portuguese firms are innovative compared to 45 per cent of Finnish firms, a questionable result given the superior innovation performance of Finland across a number of other innovation indicators, including R&D expenditures and patenting activity. Some of these problems with comparability and interpretation can be improved through better analysis, for instance by developing indicators for how firms innovate (Frenz and Lambert 2009) and by improving the design of survey questions. ...
... Secondly, greater availability of micro-data, such as the CIS, has made it possible to investigate empirically firms' heterogeneity in innovation related behaviour. Exploratory empirical studies have shown that there is a great deal of variety in the way firms innovate within industries and within countries (Srholec and Verspagen, 2008;Evangelista and Vezzani, 2010;Frenz and Lambert, 2010). ...
The 2008 economic crisis has severely reduced the short-term willingness of firms to invest in innovation. But this reduction has not occurred uniformly and a few firms even increased their investment in spite of the adverse macroeconomic environment. This paper, based on the latest three waves of the UK Community Innovation Survey, compares drivers of innovation investment before and during the crisis. We find that the crisis led to a concentration of innovative activities within a small group of fast growing new firms and those firms already highly innovative before the crisis. The companies in pursuit of more explorative strategies towards new product and market developments are those to cope better with the crisis.
Research background: While the Sectoral Innovation System (SSI) anticipates technology-related similarities in innovation patterns in the same sectors across countries, the distance to the frontier suggests that there are important differences with respect to the level of national technological development. Most contemporary analyses of sectoral innovation systems are focused on well-developed economies. In contrast, the evidence from developing countries including new EU members are scared and lack dynamics. Purpose of the article: The purpose of this paper is to identify and compare product and process innovation patterns in Polish low and high technology systems. The main assumption is that divergence and convergence in innovation patterns of low- and medium-low technology (LMT) and high technology (HT) systems evolve over time and are strongly influenced by the characteristics of firms, their linkages with other system participants, existing demand, and institutional conditions. Methods: According to the third edition of the Oslo Manual (OECD, 2005), we employ a harmonized questionnaire and methodology to collect unique micro data on innovation. The survey concerns 5252 firms including 873 firms from HT sector. The scope of the research relates to product and process innovation at least new to the firm. Findings & value added: Our results show that although the intensity of product and process innovation is higher in HT system, both business support institutions and public financial instruments better support firms in LMT sectors. On the other hand, existing demand and market structure favor the emergence of new innovations at the firm level (imitations), but with more emphasis on LMT. The key source of innovation is suppliers, with foreign suppliers in HT and national ones in LMT. In contrast to leading economies, LMT plays a key role in long term economic growth in Poland.
This paper is primarily concerned with how managerial and technological innovations interact, and their relationship with firm performance. Parallels between managerial innovations and investments in intangibles are highlighted. Using an existing data set relating to 1497 UK enterprises in 2009 with an emphasis upon the service sector, it is shown that firms both source and use managerial and technological innovations and different types thereof simultaneously, suggesting widespread complementarities. Factor analysis is used to generate combined indicators of firms’ overall efforts in both sourcing and using different innovations and enables their allocation to clusters. The most active sourcing and using clusters are the smallest, whilst the least active are the largest. Firm characteristics differ across both sourcing and using clusters in expected ways. Further, (i) there is a positive relationship between corporate performance and the intensity of both sourcing and using innovations, and (ii) firms undertaking technological (managerial) innovation experience greater improvement in sales growth if they also undertake managerial (technological) innovation. The findings indicate that reliance upon either managerial or technological indicators of innovation alone could be misleading in terms of both measuring the extent of innovation and the impacts of different types of innovation upon firm performance.
This paper provides first empirical evidence of the joint effects that innovation strategies and human resource management practices exert on firm growth. It shows that investing in technology and implementing performance-based pay policies are both positively associated with a significant turnover, employment and labor productivity growth premium. However, their joint adoption does not necessarily sum the two effects. In particular, for firms strongly relying on R&D as a lever for product and process upgrading, the estimated effect of having in place monetary incentive mechanisms is null or even negative. Job enlargement and employee empowerment policies, instead, are not found to directly impact on growth, independently of the innovation strategy pursued by firms.
The prime objective of this book is the use microeconomic analysis to guide and provide insight into the generation and adoption of new products. Taking an approach that uses minimal formal mathematics, the volume initially addresses questions of definitions, sources, and extent of product innovation, differentiating between goods and services; hard and soft innovations; horizontal and vertical innovations; original, new to market, and new to firm innovations. The sources of product innovations (e.g. R&D, design, and creativity) are explored empirically, and the extent of such innovations is then pursued using survey and other data. Three chapters are devoted to the theoretical analysis of the demand for and supply of new products and to the determination of firms' decisions to undertake product innovation. Later chapters encompass empirical evidence on the determination of the extent of product innovation, the diffusion of such innovation, the impact of product innovation on firm performance, price measurement, and welfare, while the final chapter addresses policy issues.
Abstract
The study aims at providing new evidence with respect to the still unresolved question, whether the innovation behaviour of firms reflects industry-specific characteristics (“technological regime approach”), or whether it is the outcome of firm-specific strategies to gaining a competitive edge (“strategic management view”). To this end, we firstly identify a set of innovation strategies (cluster analysis), whose adequacy we evaluate using the “economics of innovation” as reference. Secondly, we investigate the dynamics of innovation strategies to get some insights into structural changes of the economy. Thirdly, we examine, based on a large number of 4-digit branches, the intra-industry heterogeneity of innovation strategies. Finally, we analyse in a production function framework the relative importance of a company’s innovation strategy and its industry affiliation as determinants of firm performance. The third part of the paper tends to support the “strategic management view” (high intra-industry heterogeneity), while the final one is rather in line with the “technological regime approach” (industry affiliation is the more important factor determining firm performance). These opposite findings indicate that a company has a certain room of manoeuvre to choose an innovation strategy in line with its specific capabilities, but some structural characteristics at industry level restrict the strategic options.
JEL O30, O31, O32, O33
Keywords Innovation; Firm-level taxonomy of innovation strategies; Dynamics of innovation strategies; Intra-industry heterogeneity of innovation behaviour; Impact of firm strategies and industry affiliation on performance
This paper uses new business micro data from the Business Research and Development and Innovation Survey (BRDIS) for the years 2008-2011 to relate the discrete innovation choices made by U.S. companies to features of the company that have long been considered to be important correlates of innovation. We use multinomial logit to model those choices. Bloch and Lopez-Bassols (2009) used the Community Innovation Surveys (CIS) to classify companies according dual, technological or output-based innovation constructs. We found that for each of those constructs of innovation combinations considered, manufacturing and engaging in intellectual property transfer increase the odds of choosing innovation strategies that involve more than one type of categories (for example, both goods and services, or both tech and non-tech) and radical innovations, controlling form size, productivity, time and type of R&D. Company size and company productivity as well as time do not lean the choices in any particular direction. These associations are robust across the three multinomial choice models that we have considered. In contrast with other studies, we have been able to use companies that do and companies that do not innovate, and this has allowed to rule out to some extent selectivity bias.
The development of the tourism industry in recent years has caused the industry considered as one of the highest paid industries in the world, an industry that accounts for a small share in Iran and due to intense competitive environment that requires the use of innovations in this field. The use of ecosystems for innovation in the tourism industry including the requirements of this industry, which is trying to gain a beautiful future ahead of it could help tourism, As well as to the existence of human capital as the most important factors of innovation, human capital management in accordance with ecotourism remarkable innovation, so the aim of this study was to evaluate the ecosystems of innovation in tourism Iran. The research is descriptive document library with an emphasis on style. The results show that the identification of existing tourism resources and then identifying the target market needs to understanding the needs and interests of tourists and in this regard due to better infrastructure to attract tourists is noteworthy, therefore, apply the strategies found in the first and second stages of change and innovation demands and then using the ecosystems of innovation in tourism and advances to idolize countries like Japan can help to improve the situation in the country's tourism industry, therefore, adapt between innovation ecotourism And human resource management style productivity features including value-creating innovation ecosystems management is that because of the unique and remarkable ecosystems are increasing the quality of innovation in the tourism industry can be an effective step in improving harvest.
The economic and financial crisis has brought firms, territories and countries before a set of restrictions to a greater or lesser extent, function as the conditioners of economic activity for several agents, also affecting their activities associated with the development of its innovation process. Innovation is a highly complex process, very contingent and onerously demanding. With innovation as a key source of high economic performance, it is important to understand to what extent the current economic crisis is to constrain the innovation of firms and thus, the process of wealth creation. The main objective of this paper is to show that the economic crisis has a different effect on firms, depending on the type of innovation strategies adopted. For this, we identify some relevant relations between the economic crisis and the critical factors of the innovation process, namely knowledge networks and context costs, special dimensions that we associate with the efficiency of institutional and relational capital. These objectives will be achieved using several statistical and econometric techniques, with information found in a database obtained through a business survey. Our main results show some interesting findings: first we find evidence that the most dynamic firms recognize less impact of the economic crisis. Second, we find empirical evidence that the knowledge networks can be taken as a resilient mechanism of firms to manage the negative impacts of the crisis. Finally, firms that recognize more importance to the reduction of context cost seems more resilient to economic crisis. We finish with some recommendations for regional policy.
International inter-firm cooperation for technological purposes increased substantially in the last four
decades with the emergence of patterns of globalization of R&D and innovation. Motives and firms’
decision-making process to cooperate internationally are considered crucial aspects for successful
inter-firm technological collaboration. This chapter reviews and summarizes the principal theoretical
perspectives and trends on this issue from 1980 to 2012. Rather than focusing only on the motives of two-
firm partnerships, there is a shift in literature in the last decade towards the analysis of how embedded
firms are in social networks and divergence of motives related to the influence of multiple stakeholders.
Furthermore, research attention paid to motives for technological cooperation is decreasing due, in
part, to the decline experimented in manufacturing and R&D areas over the 1990s, the rapid increase
in cross-border strategic alliances in business services, and complexities associated with the emergence
of mixed modes of innovation
Innovation has its most important impact on the economy through the diffusion of new technical knowledge, from its first worldwide implementation in the production of goods and services to its adoption and adaptation by enterprises located in different places across the globe. One way to identify whether an enterprise creates new knowledge or uses already existing knowledge is to measure the novelty of the innovation in various markets, namely whether the innovation is new to the world, country and local market, or only to the enterprise. While innovation new to the enterprise may be only capturing the ability of an enterprise to use and adopt new knowledge, it is also a precondition for economic growth and development. Pooling information from the Third Community Innovation Survey carried out in thirteen European countries, including several countries significantly behind the European average per capita income, we estimate an ordered probit model that relates the novelty of product innovation to structure, strategy and capabilities of enterprises. The study shows that research and marketing capabilities boost the outcome most in the frontier countries, while process upgrading and foreign ownership make much more difference in catching-up countries. This illustrates how the nature of the innovation process changes with the increasing distance from the technology frontier.
By using firm-level data provided by the fourth Community innovation Survey (CIS4)—for a selected number of EU countries—this
article explores the employment impact of innovation extending the analysis to organizational change. The empirical evidence
presented shows that both technological and organizational innovation exert a positive impact on employment mainly “indirectly,”
that is by improving growth performances in firms. The strength of these indirect effects have been found to vary across different
types of innovations. Despite the limits imposed by data at our disposal, the evidence presented seems to somewhat diminish
the relevance of the labor displacing effects of the process innovation, the latter being strong and clearly visible only
within the manufacturing industry and only when process innovations are combined with organizational changes.
The empirical literature investigating the issue of the heterogeneity across firms has proposed the concept of innovation modes. This aims at grouping firms depending on a number of innovation characteristics. The role of design as a source of innovation has been largely disregarded. The aim of this paper is to fill this gap as it i. seeks to identify the main characteristics of firms which rely on design for their innovations; ii. aims to bring the role of design within the framework provided by the literature on the innovation modes of firms. Design activity is predominant in firms characterized by: i. complex innovation strategy, and ii. intense interaction with the external environment. Investment in design it is associated with higher performance of the firm.
This article addresses the impact of the current economic downturn on innovation across Europe. Using micro- and macro-data, we investigate to what extent some structural characteristics of National Systems of Innovation, along with demand, affect firms’ persistency in terms of innovation investment. It emerges that the effects of the economic downturn in terms of firms’ innovation investment are not the same across European countries. The competences and quality of the human resources, the specialization in the high-technology sector, together with the development of the financial system seem to be the structural factors which are able to offset the effect of the economic downturn on innovation investments of firms across Europe. Finally, some considerations about policies during recessions are discussed.
This paper investigates the differences in innovation behaviour, i.e. differences in innovation sources and innovation effects, among manufacturing firms in three NMS: the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. It is based on a survey of firms operating in four manufacturing industries: food and beverages, automotive, pharmaceuticals and electronics. The paper takes into account: innovation inputs in enterprises, cooperation among firms in R&D activities, the benefits of cooperation with business partners and innovation effects (innovation outputs and international competitiveness of firms' products and technology) in the three countries. After employing cluster analysis, five types of innovation patterns were detected. The paper characterises and compares these innovation patterns, highlighting differences and similarities. The paper shows that external knowledge plays an important role in innovation activities in NMS firms. The ability to explore cooperation with business partners and the benefits of using external knowledge are determined by in-house innovation activities, notably R&D intensity.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.