The dark matter of innovation: Design and innovative performance in dutch manufacturing

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 515-534

  Marsili, Orietta ^a   Salter, Ammon ^b  

^a ERASMUS UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EXPENDITURE; INNOVATION; INVESTMENT; MANUFACTURING; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE;

EID: 33751517768     PISSN: 09537325     EISSN: 14653990     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09537320601019628     Document Type: Article

References (93)

1. The empirical part of this research has been carried out at the Centre for Research of Economic Microdata at Statistics Netherlands. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policies of Statistics Netherlands. This paper has greatly benefited from comments by Stefano Brusoni, Elena Cefis, Keld Laursen and the late Keith Pavitt. An earlier version of the paper was presented at the ISS Conference 2002. Ammon Salter would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Ghoshal Research Fellowship of the Advanced Institute of Management (AIM) Research.
2. K. Clark & T. Fujimoto, Product Development Performance (Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press, 1991);
3. E. J. Kleinschmidt & R. Cooper, The impact of product innovativeness on performance, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2), 1991, pp. 110-132.;
4. S. Brown & K. Eisenhardt, Product development: Past research, present findings and future directions, Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 1995, pp. 343-378;
5. M. Iansiti, Technology Integration (Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press, 1997);
6. J. West & M. Iansiti, Experience, experimentation and the accumulation of knowledge: The evolution of the R&D in the semiconductor industry, Research Policy, 35(5), 2003, pp. 809-825.
7. Op. cit. Iansiti, ref. 2;
8. H. W. Chesbrough, Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology (Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press, 2003).
9. A. H. Van de Ven, D. E. Polley, R. Garud & S. Venkataraman, The Innovation Journey (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999).
10. J. Tidd, J. Bessant, and K. Pavitt, Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Market and Organisational Change (Chichester, John Wiley & Sons, 2005).
11. R. Coombs, M. Harvey & B. Tether, Analysing distributed processes of provision and innovation, Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 2004, pp. 1125-1155;
12. B-Å. Lundvall, User-Producer Relationships, National Systems of Innovation and Internationalisation, in: B-Å Lundvall (Ed.), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning (London, Pinter, 1992).
13. E. Von Hippel, The Sources of Innovation (New York, Oxford University Press, 1988);
14. E. Von Hippel, Democratizing Innovation (Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, 2005).
15. Op. cit. ref. 5
16. Op. cit. Clark & Fujimoto, ref. 2.
17. A. Griffin & J. R. Hauser, Integrating R&D and marketing: A review and analysis of the literature, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, 1996, pp. 191-215;
18. K. B. Kahn, Market orientation, interdepartmental integration, and product development performance, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, 2001, pp. 314-323;
19. M. A. A. M. Leenders & B. Wierenga, The effectiveness of different mechanisms for integrating marketing and R&D, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, 2002, pp. 305-317.
20. Op. cit. von Hippel, ref. 7.
21. G. Pisano, The Development Factory: Unlocking the Potential of Process Innovation (Cambridge, MA, Harvard Business School Press, 1997).
22. G. Ahuja, Collaboration networks, structural holes and innovation: A longitudinal study, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 2000, pp. 425-455;
23. B. S. Tether, Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis, Research Policy, 31(6), 2002, pp. 947-967.
24. R. Rothwell & P. Gardiner, The role of design in competitiveness, paper presented at the International Conference on Design Policy, Royal College of Art, London, 20-23 July 1982;
25. R. Rothwell & P. Gardiner, The role of design in product and process change, Design Studies, 4(3), 1983, pp. 161-169;
26. R. Roy, Product design and company performance, in: M. Oakley (Ed.) Design Management (Oxford, Blackwell, 1990);
27. V. Walsh, R. Roy, M. Bruce & S. Potter, Winning By Design: Technology, Product Design and International Competitiveness (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1992);
28. R. Roy & J. C. K. H. Riedel, Design and innovation in successful product competition, Technovation, 17(10), 1997, pp. 537-548;
29. B. S. Tether & S. Massini, Employment creation in small technological and design innovators in the UK during the 1980s, Small Business Economics, 11(2), 1998, pp. 353-370;
30. B. S. Tether, In the business of creativity: An investigation, with evidence fromthe UK, into the role of designers&design consultancies in innovation in the 'networked economy', DRUID Summer Conference 2003, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2003.
31. V. Walsh, Design, innovation and the boundaries of the firm, Research Policy, 25(4), 1996, pp. 509-529.
32. Op. cit. Walsh et al., ref. 14, p. 5.
33. A. Sterlacchini, Do innovative activities matter to small firms in non-R&D intensive industries? An application to export performance, Research Policy, 28, 1999, pp. 819-832.
34. R. Roy & J. C. K. H. Riedel, Design and innovation in successful product competition, Technovation, 17(10), 1997, pp. 537-548.
35. Op. cit. West & Iansiti, ref 2.
36. G. Gemser & M. Leenders, How integrating industrial design in the product development process impacts on company performance, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, 2001, pp. 28-38.
37. R. R. Nelson, Why do firms differ, and how does it matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12, 1991, pp. 61-74.
38. Op. cit. Walsh et al., ref. 14.
39. D. Teece, Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration collaboration, licensing and public policy, Research Policy, 15, 1986, pp. 285-305.
40. P. Gardiner & R. Rothwell, Tough customers: Good designs, Design Studies, 6(1), 1985, pp. 7-17.
41. R. Garcia & R. Calantone, A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, 2002, pp. 110-132;
42. op. cit. Tether, ref. 14.
43. Op. cit. ref. 15.
44. Ibid., p. 512.
45. Ibid., p. 513.
46. Op. cit. ref 20, p. 29.
47. W. Vincenti, What Engineers Know and How They Know It (Baltimore, John Hopkins Press, 1990), p. 6.
48. Ibid., p. 7.
49. Ibid., p. 8.
50. OECD, The Measurement of Scientific and Technical Activities - Frascati Manual (Paris, OECD, 1992).
51. C. Freeman, Design and British Economic Performance, Lecture (London, Design Centre, 1983).
52. Op. cit. ref. 33, p. 29.
53. Op. cit. ref 33, p. 31.
54. Op. cit. ref. 34.
55. OECD, Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data: The Oslo manual (Paris, OECD, 1997).
56. Ibid., p. 60.
57. Ibid., p. 90.
58. Ibid., p. 63.
59. Statistics Netherlands, The Knowledge Based Economy 1998 (in Dutch: Kennis en economie 1998) (Voorburg/Heerlen, Statistics Netherlands, 1998).
60. Op. cit. Tether, ref. 14.
61. G. Pahl & W. Beitz, Engineering design: A systematic approach, (K Wallace, trans.), 2nd edn (London, Spinger Verlag, 1996).
62. Ibid., p. 400.
63. Ibid., pp. 400-402.
64. See E. Brouwer & A. Kleinknecht, Determinants of innovation: A microeconomic analysis of three alternative innovation output indicators, in: A. Kleinknecht (Ed.), The Determinants of Innovation (North Holland, Kluwer, 1996), pp. 99-124.
65. L. Klomp & G. Van Leeuwen, The Importance of Innovation for Firm Performance, LNM-series 9902 (Voorburg/Heerlen, Statistics Netherlands, 1999).
66. There are some firms that carry out design activities that did not respond to the survey question. Since we have no way of differentiating those firms that did carry out design but who did not report these design activities from those who carried out no design at all, we assume a non-response to this question to be an indicator of a lack of design activity. This is a limitation of our study and data set.
67. Op. cit. ref. 38.
68. Op. cit. Gardiner & Rothwell, ref. 14;
69. see also Garcia & Calantone, op. cit. ref. 25.
70. Principle component analysis is a technique for reducing the number of variables under analysis by summarizing the underlying patterns of correlation among the variables. It is a commonly used procedure in the analysis of innovation survey data. The factor loading for each principle component analysis used in the analysis is available upon request.
71. K. Laursen & A. Salter, Searching low and high: What types of firms use universities as a source of innovation, Research Policy, 33(8), 2004, pp. 1201-1215;
72. K. Laursen & A. Salter, Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovative performance among UK manufacturing firms, Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 2006, pp. 131-150.
73. K. Pavitt, Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory, Research Policy, 13(6), 1984, pp. 343-373.
74. The Dutch system of industrial classification as at 1993 is based on the NACE Rev 1.
75. W. H. Greene, Econometric Analysis, 3rd edn (Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-Hall, 1997).
76. The distribution of innovative performance displays positive skewness (equal to 3.6 for products new to the market, 2.8 for products new to the firm and 1.7 for improved products). Positive skewness implies that the distribution is characterized by a large number of low-performing firms and a small number of high-performing firms. The kurtosis of the distribution is above the normality value (the difference is equal to 16.3 for products new to the market, 11.3 for products new to the firm and 3.0 for improved products). High kurtosis implies that the tails of the empirical distributions are 'fatter' than the tails of the normal distribution. That is, the relative presence of high-performing and low-performing firms is higher than under normality conditions.
77. C. Filippucci, I. Drudi & R. B. Papalia, Testing the relevance of Tobin's approach formodelling consumption, Economic Notes, 25(2), 1996, pp. 225-247;
78. R. Papalia & F. Di Iorio, Alternative error term specification in the Log-Tobit model, in: S. Borra, R. Rocci, M. Schader & M. Vichi (Eds), Advances in Classification and Data Analysis (Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, 2001).
79. The sample is composed of firms that are 'innovators' according to a broad definition, which consists of firms that introduced either process or product innovations and firms that have carried out unsuccessful or uncompleted projects. Included within this definition are innovative firms with turnover for a specific category of product innovation equal to zero. These firms are also accounted for in the estimation of the model.
80. Alternative versions of the hierarchical regression have been considered by entering the linear and interactive effects sequentially for the variables of marketing, first, and then machinery. The estimated coefficients of design and R&D expenditure did not change significantly, however.
81. M. Bruce & J. Bessant, Design in business: Strategic innovation through design (Harlow, Pearson Education Limited, 2002);
82. DTI, Creativity, Design and Business Performance (London, Department of Trade and Industry, DTI Economics Paper #15, 2005);
83. G. Cox, Cox Review of Creativity in Business: Building on the UK's strengths (London, HM Treasury, 2005).
84. Op. cit. Roy & Riedel, ref. 14.
85. Op. cit. ref 25.
86. W. M. Cohen, Empirical studies of innovative activities, in: P. Stoneman (Ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1995), pp. 182-264.
87. Op. cit. Von Hippel 1988, ref. 7.
88. Op. cit. Cox, ref. 61.
89. Op. cit. Bessant & Bruce, ref. 61.
90. Op. cit Tether, ref. 14.
91. Op. cit. DTI, ref. 61.
92. N. Rosenberg, Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1982).
93. Op. cit. ref. 34.