Patterns in UK company innovation styles: New evidence from, the CBI innovation trends survey

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 295-310

  Coombs, Rod ^a   Tomlinson, Mark ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE; INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY; INNOVATION; MANUFACTURING; SERVICE SECTOR;

UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 0031786227     PISSN: 09537325     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09537329808524318     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. These data also have their problems, which arc well known. R&D expenditures can be reported in varying ways by companies, and the interpretation of patents is complicated by varying propensities to patent and by varying significance of patents. There arc many discussions of these issues in the literature; for a brief survey sec R. Coombs, P. Narendran & A. Richards, 'A Literature-based Innovation Output Indicator', Research Policy, 25, 1996, pp. 403-113.
2. P. Patcl & K. Pavitt, Iargc Firms in the Production of the World's Technolog)-: An Important Case of Non-globalisation', Journal of International Business Studies, 22, 1991, pp. 1-21;
3. P. Patel & K. Pavitt, 'Patterns of Technological Activity: Their Measurement and Interpretation" in: P. Stoncman (Ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Technological Change (Oxford, Blackwcll, 1995);
4. O. Granstrand, P. Patel & K. Pavitt, 'Multi-Technology Corporations: -Why They Have "Distributed" Rather than "Distinctive" Core Competencies', California Management Review, 39, 1997, pp. 8-25.
5. Coombs et al., op. cit., Ref. 1, review some of these issues.
6. Sec also D. Archibugi & M. Pianta, 'Innovation Surveys and Patents as Technology Indicators', in OECD, Innovation, Patents and Technological Strategies (Paris, OECD, 199G).
7. GUI, CBI/XalWtsl Innovation Trends Survey, Issue 7 (London, CBI, 1996).
8. All factor analysis reported in this paper is principle components followed by varimax rotation.
9. The other analyses on different combinations of the 1996 and 1997 data can be shown to support the notion that the 1996 analysis is reasonably representative. Details arc available from the authors upon request.
10. There is also modest evidence that the non-UK firms gain longer-term benefits from innovation. Even the questions relating to innovations up to 10 years ago show higher incidences of current gains (especially in market share and new markets) than UK-owned firms.
11. Note that we have interacted the ownership variable with the three styles in these models.
12. It is worth noting that this impression is not gained if only patenting behaviour is used as the indicator of innovativencss. These data arc generated by question 5 on the survey, which asks about patents applied for during the year. If these patent data are used as the sole indicator of innovativeness, the service firms fall well below the manufacturing firms. By using a factor analysis of all the other questions on aspects of innovation, we have shown what we argue is a more accurate picture of the innovativcncss of service firms.
13. Sec, for example, N. Foss, 'Equilibrium vs Evolution in the Resource-based Perspective: The Conflicting Legacies of Demsetz and Pcnrose', DRUID Working Paper 97-10, 1997, Copenhagen Business School;
14. S. Mctcalfe & N. De Liso, 'Bridging the Divide: A Capability Theory of the Finn and Evolutionary Concepts of Innovation', in: R. Coombs el al. (Eds), Technological Change and Organisation (Aldcrshot, Edward Elgar, 1998).