No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Open Innovation Deficiency: Evidence on Project Abandonment and Delay
... This learning process leads to innovative behaviour, ultimately improving innovation performance. Therefore, this study proxies for innovation failure using the ratio of the number of failed technology development projects to the number of technology development projects in the survey year (Bong & Park, 2021;Van Criekingen et al., 2021). Given we additionally control for the year effects and firm size, this measure can reflect the size differences of the projects implemented by firms in that year. ...
This study employs a simultaneous equation model to examine the extent to which firms’ innovation failure can affect future innovation and productivity growth. Our findings suggest that experiencing past failure in the innovation process enhances the innovation performance of a firm; this, in turn, contributes to productivity growth. The primary contribution of this study is the proposal of a conceptual model for the innovation process that considers failure experience as a major input to the knowledge production function. Our results also offer several implications for innovation managers and policymakers. For example, innovation policy initiatives should consider not only the tangible accomplishments of firms, but also their failure experiences. This study also highlights a method to enhance innovation by establishing systems that encourage challenging research and recognise and reward the process, even when a project fails.
... They mainly found evidence of an interaction pattern where SMEs source innovative knowledge within client-supplier relationships, in particular for commercialization/production-related purposes, as part of a package with the purchase of new equipment or technology. They also find that co-opetition reduces innovativeness, which converges with other findings [130][131][132]. They put forward the fear of SMEs in this area to give away their technology to a competitor, which could explain their inertia to build new structures of distributed knowledge enabling new paths for innovativeness. ...
Most of SMEs are engaged in open innovation practices, but they do not benefit from open innovation or from patenting in the same way as larger firms do. At the same time SMEs, as territorialized suppliers, play a crucial role within evolving regional specialization. In this context the purpose of our study is to examine how low and medium technology supplier SMEs learn and organize themselves at a territorial level to address the challenge of IP protection in an open innovation paradigm. We used a qualitative method with a longitudinal multi-case study involving 27 companies with a historical lance to compare the territorial dynamics of knowledge protection within clustered supplier SMEs in two European regions. The results show they protect their knowledge by learning how to design, in a direct relationship with clients, customized complex technological products to develop a new organizational matrix of multidisciplinary knowledge that reveals itself difficult to imitate within the clusters. They also cope with other supplier firms across sectors even if they show societal path dependencies in the way to build cooperation. This dynamic has given birth to changing structural relationships among regionally clustered SMEs and between them and large firms.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any references for this publication.