Rob Dekkers’s research while affiliated with University of Glasgow and other places

Whereas Patel and Pavitt’s (Econ Innov New Technol 3:77–95, 1994a) work has been modestly cited, its postulation of two archetypes for national innovation systems, i.e. dynamic and myopic national innovation systems, has hardly been used to advance insight in firm behaviour; in this chapter we explore this dichotomy and build a novel research instrument for characterising this behaviour with regard to technological activities (although we equate their original terminology with innovation). An exploration of the underlying postulations, background and domain assumptions leads to the development of elements for the instrument. At the same time, it demonstrates that firm behaviour has limitedly been discussed in the context of national innovation systems. Therefore, suggestions for research, including the use of research methods, build on the deliberations on this chapter. Furthermore, the thoughts on how to use the research instrument informed by systems theories indicate the multiple levels of analysis: decision making on and monitoring of innovation processes in firms and innovation networks, sectoral innovation systems, regional innovation systems and national innovation systems. In addition, decision making on and monitoring of innovation processes in firms and innovation networks is related in this chapter to two models derived from systems theories: the model for the dynamic adaptation capability and the model for management of innovation and organisational structures. Particularly, we advocate that data for using the research instruments to position firm behaviour in the continuum of dynamic and myopic national innovation systems can be aggregated to compare firms across sectoral, regional and national innovation systems; this will lead to answering the question whether firms’ perspectives on innovation are an expression of its individual approach to innovation management or whether they share traits related to managing innovation with other firms in an industrial sector, regional innovation system or national innovation system.

Past decades have seen a rise in activities for the commercialisation of intellectual property (IP), particularly by non-practicing or non-producing entities. Publications have weakly discussed their impact on the effectiveness of innovation processes and the development of technology in industrial sectors, the quest of this study. As a first step a systematic literature review retrieved 91 relevant papers, but finds they address ‘the good, the bad and the ugly’ in an almost canonical way. During twelve interviews with experts, it became clear that the canonical classification is too simplistic for modelling. In addition, the array of interventions was larger than originally presumed. These and other findings were used for a focus group of twelve academics. The outcomes confirmed that theory is lacking in the domain of innovation management, particularly with respect to the generation and exploitation of IP. The road to decisive research seems far away: a mission impossible, perhaps.

New product development is important to the competitiveness, growth, and survivability of companies. End-user involvement in NPD is seen as a determinant for successful new products, and hence, companies are increasingly shifting towards a direction where they co-create products with end users. However, currently there is little consensus regarding the contribution of this involvement to new product outcomes. This study investigates the effects of three different approaches to end-user involvement in NPD and explores how end users are involved in and influence the NPD process and end product. The NPD processes of six companies were investigated on account of the exploratory nature of this study. The findings provide a holistic overview of three approaches to end-user involvement and emphasise factors that impact the end-user involvement outcomes. Additionally, the findings provide direction to managers for making informed decisions regarding how and when to involve end users for creating more effective and efficient NPD processes.

Traditional indicators, such as R&D expenditures and patent applications, are not necessarily the most relevant to measure the innovative capability of companies. Hence, this study aims at understanding how the conversion of ideas and inventions into commercialisation of products and services is managed, with an emphasis on internal processes and structures. To this purpose, a question sheet and a guide for semi-structured interviews have been developed derived from the model for the dynamic adaptation capability. Surprisingly, the findings from five French and five Scottish firms point to differences in innovative capabilities between French and Scottish firms that can be understood from autopoietic principles (following the law of parsimony) and the myopic versus dynamic approach for the context of the national innovation system. Additionally, the extent of the instrument indicates that a major effort is required to understand the innovative capabilities of firms and that this cannot be reduced to simplified measures as traditionally done.

This epilogue brings us to reflect on what this book has brought to the table for European perspectives and what it means for research into innovation management.

This article investigates theory of agency as a theoretical underpinning in the field of supply chain finance. Specifically, through a hermeneutic approach, the authors examine the development of the theory, its postulations and assumptions, and its use in the field of supply chain finance. This leads to three conclusions: the theory is currently adopted rather superficially; there is potential for further developments by investigating non-standard configurations; and there is an increasingly relevant set of articles in supply chain finance that seems to be positioned within the boundaries of the theory of agency but makes no mention of it.