The impact of technology intermediaries on firm cognitive capacity additionality

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volumn 81, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 376-387

  Knockaert, Mirjam ^a,b   Spithoven, André ^a,c   Clarysse, Bart ^a,d  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^c Belgian Science Policy Office   (Belgium)

^d IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Absorptive capacity; Cognitive capacity additionality; Technology intermediary

Indexed keywords

ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY; COGNITIVE CAPACITY; FINANCIAL SUPPORT; FIRM NETWORK; MEDIATION ANALYSIS; POLICY MEASURES; PUBLIC SUPPORT;

INDUSTRY;

TECHNOLOGY;

COGNITION; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; TECHNOLOGY POLICY;

EID: 84888028738     PISSN: 00401625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.05.007     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Autio E., Kanninen S., Gustafsson R. First- and second-order additionality and learning outcomes in collaborative R&D programs. Res. Policy 2008, 37:59-76.
2. Luukkonen T. Additionality of EU framework programmes. Res. Policy 2000, 29(6):711-725.
3. Nelson R. The simple economics of basic scientific research. J. Polit. Econ. 1959, 67:148-163.
4. Dasgupta P., David P. Toward a new economics of science. Res. Policy 1994, 23:487-521.
5. Arrow K. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity 1962, 609-626. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. R. Nelson (Ed.).
6. Dalziel M. Why do innovation intermediaries exist?. Paper Presented at the 2010 Druid Conference, 16-18 August 2010, Imperial College Business School, London.
7. Dodgson M., Rothwell R. The Handbook of Industrial Innovation 1994, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
8. Nooteboom B. Innovation and diffusion in small firms: theory and evidence. Small Bus. Econ. 1994, 6:327-347.
9. Von Hippel E. The Sources of Innovation 1988, Oxford University Press, New York.
10. Mowery D. Science and Technology Policy and Interdependent Economies 1994, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston.
11. Cantner U., Pyka A. Classifying technology policy from an evolutionary perspective. Res. Policy 2001, 30:759-775.
12. Malerba F. Technological regimes and sectoral patterns of innovative activities. Ind. Corp. Chang. 1997, 6(1):83-118.
13. Park Y.-T. Technology diffusion policy: a review and classification of policy practices. Technol. Soc. 1999, 21:275-286.
14. David P., Hall B., Toole A. Is public R&D a complement or substitute for private R&D? A review of econometric evidence. Res. Policy 2000, 29(4/5):497-529.
15. Hsu F.-M., Horng D.-J., Hsueh C.-C. The effect of government-sponsored R&D programmes on additionality in recipient firms in Taiwan. Technovation 2009, 29(3):204-217.
16. Koga T. R&D subsidy and self-financed R&D: the case of Japanese high-technology start-ups. Small Bus. Econ. 2005, 24(1):53-62.
17. Clarysse B., Wright M., Mustar P. Behavioural additionality of R&D subsidies: a learning perspective. Res. Policy 2009, 38(10):1517-1533.
18. Hall B., Van Reenen J. How effective are fiscal incentives for R&D? A review of the evidence. Res. Policy 2000, 29(4/5):449-469.
19. Lee C.-Y. The differential effects of public R&D support on firm R&D: theory and evidence from multi-country data. Technovation 2011, 31(5/6):256-269.
20. Nishimura J., Okamuro H. Subsidy and networking: the effects of direct and indirect support programs of the cluster policy. Res. Policy 2011, 40(5):714-727.
21. Davenport S., Grimes C., Davies J. Research collaboration and behavioural additionality: a New Zealand case study. Tech. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 1998, 10(1):55-67.
22. Howells J. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Res. Policy 2006, 35(5):715-729.
23. Malerba F. Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Res. Policy 2002, 31(2):247-264.
24. Sapsed J., Grantham A., DeFillippi R. A bridge over troubled waters: bridging organizations and entrepreneurial opportunities in emerging sectors. Res. Policy 2007, 36(9):1314-1334.
25. Bessant J., Rush H. Building bridges for innovation: the role of consultants in technology transfer. Res. Policy 1995, 24(1):97-114.
26. Kyonghwan K., Yongrok C., Chang Y., Hye J. The role of intermediaries on technological risk management and business development performance in Korea. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2010, 77(6):870-880.
27. Chesbrough H. The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2003, 44(3):35-41.
28. Spithoven A., Clarysse B., Knockaert M. Building absorptive capacity to organize inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation 2010, 30(2):130-141.
29. Alexander A., Martin D. Intermediaries for open innovation: a competence-based comparison of knowledge transfer offices practices. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2013, 80(1):38-49.
30. Falk R. Measuring the effects of public support schemes on firms' innovation activities. Survey evidence from Austria. Res. Policy 2007, 36:665-679.
31. Bach L., Matt M. Rationale for science and technology policy. Report to European Commission DG Research 2002, L. Georghiou, J. Rigby (Eds.).
32. Metcalfe J., Georghiou L. Equilibrium and evolutionary foundations of technology policy. Paper Presented at the OECD Workshop on "Best Practices and Approaches in Technology and Innovation Policy- New Rationale and Approaches in Technology and Innovation Policy", 30-31 May 1997, Vienna 1997.
33. Buisseret T., Cameron H., Georghiou L. What difference does it make? Additionality in the public support of R&D in large firms. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 1995, 10(4/5/6):587-600.
34. Hewitt-Dundas N., Roper S. Output additionality of public support for innovation: evidence for Irish manufacturing plants. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2010, 18(1):107-122.
35. Aerts K., Schmidt T. Two for the price of one? Additionality effects of R&D subsidies: a comparison between Flanders and Germany. Res. Policy 2008, 37(5):806-822.
36. Georghiou L. Issues in the evaluations of innovation and technology policy. Policy Evaluation in Innovation and Technology: Towards Best Practice 1997, OECD, Paris, (chapter 3).
37. Hyvarinen J., Rautiainen A.-M. Measuring additionality and systemic impacts of public research and development funding - the case of TEKES, Finland. Res. Eval. 2007, 16(3):205-215.
38. Wanzenboeck I., Scherngell T., Fischer M. How do firm characteristics affect behavioural additionalities of public R&D subsidies? Evidence for the Austrian transport sector. Technovation 2013, 33(2-3):349-363.
39. Chavez A., Sergio M. Behavioural additionality in the context of regional innovation policy in Spain. Innov. Manag. Policy Prac. 2013, 13(1):95-110.
40. Laursen K., Salter A. Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strateg. Manag. J. 2006, 27:131-150.
41. Lin B. Technology transfer as technological learning: a source of competitive advantage of firms with limited R&D resources. R&D Manag. 2003, 33(3):327-341.
42. Muscio A. The impact of absorptive capacity on SMEs' collaboration. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 2007, 16(8):653-668.
43. Waalkens J., Jorna R., Postma T. Learning of SMEs in networks: the role of absorptive capacity. Research Report 04B14 2004, University of Groningen. Research Institute SOM.
44. Cohen W., Levinthal D. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 1990, 35:128-152.
45. Zahra S., George G. Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27(2):185-203.
46. Lane P., Lubatkin M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strateg. Manag. J. 1998, 19:461-477.
47. Wong P.-K., He Z.-L. The moderating effect of a firm's internal climate for innovation on the impact of public R&D support programmes. Int. J. Entrep. Innov. Manag. 2003, 3:525-545.
48. Malerba F. Learning by firms and incremental technical change. Econ. J. 1992, 102:845-859.
49. Huang K.-F., Yu C.-M. The effect of competitive and non-competitive R&D collaboration on firm innovation. J. Technol. Transf. 2011, 36:383-403.
50. Zhang J., Baden-Fuller C. The influence of technological knowledge base and organizational structure on technology collaboration. J. Manag. Stud. 2010, 47(4):679-704.
51. Acs Z., Audretsch D., Braunerhjelm P., Carlsson B. The missing link: the knowledge filter and endogenous growth. Working Paper Presented at the Druid Summer Conference on 'Creating, Sharing and Transferring Knowledge'. The Role of Geography, Institutions and Organization. Frederiksberg, Denmark, 18-20 June 2003 2003.
52. Lazaric N., Longhi C., Thomas C. Gatekeepers of knowledge versus platforms of knowledge: from potential to realized absorptive capacity. Reg. Stud. 2008, 42(6):837-852.
53. Lane P., Salk J., Lyles M. Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures. Strateg. Manag. J. 2001, 22:1139-1161.
54. Kirat T., Lung Y. Innovation and proximity- territories as loci of collective learning processes. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 1999, 6(1):27-38.
55. Asheim B., Gertler M. The geography of innovation: regional innovation systems. The Oxford Handbook of Innovation 2005, 291-317. Oxford University Press, Oxford. J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, R. Nelson (Eds.).
56. Bennett R., Robson P. Intensity of interaction in supply of business advice and client impact: a comparison of consultancy, business associations and government support initiatives for SMEs. Br. J. Manag. 1999, 10:351-369.
57. Williamson O. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets and Relational Contracting 1985, Free Press, New York.
58. Bouty I. Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43(1):50-65.
59. Yli-Renko H., Autio E., Sapienza H. Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strateg. Manag. J. 2001, 22:587-613.
60. Granovetter M. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am. J. Sociol. 1985, 91:481-510.
61. Ring P., Van de Ven A. Development processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1994, 19:90-108.
62. Spithoven A., Knockaert M., Vereertbrugghen C. Collective research centres: a study on R&D and technology transfer involvement. Belspo Research Series 2009, 12. Belgian Science Policy Office, Brussels.
63. OECD Frascati manual. Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development 2002.
64. Belgian Science Policy Office (accessed on 01.02.2011). http://www.belspo.be.
65. Steurs G., Verbeek A., Vermeulen H., Clarysse B. What difference do IWT R&D grants make for their clients?. IWT Observatorium Brussels 2006, (accessed on 8th September 2011: http://www.iwt.be/publicatie/48-making-difference-evaluation-behavioural-additionality-rd-subsidies).
66. George G. Slack resources and the performance of privately held firms. Acad. Manag. J. 2005, 48(4):661-676.
67. Wiseman R., Bromiley P. Towards a model of risk in declining organisations: an empirical examination of risk, performance and decline. Organ. Sci. 1996, 7:524-543.
68. Nohria N., Gulati R. Is slack good or bad for innovation?. Acad. Manag. J. 1996, 39:1245-1264.
69. Bromiley P. Testing a causal model of corporate risk taking and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 1991, 34:37-59.
70. Tan J., Peng M. Organizational slack and firm performance during economic translations: two studies from an emerging economy. Strateg. Manag. J. 2003, 24:1249-1264.
71. Cyert R., March J. A Behavioural Theory of the Firm 1963, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
72. Stinchcombe A. Social Structure and organizations. Handbook of Organizations 1965, 142-193. Rand McNally, Chicago. J. March (Ed.).
73. Thompson J. Organizations in Action 1967, McGraw-Hill, New York.
74. Hair J., Black W., Babin B., Anderson R., Tatham R. Multivariate Data Analysis 1998, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.Y. 5th ed.
75. Baron R., Kenny D. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51:1173-1182.
76. Preacher K., Hayes A. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 2004, 36(4):717-731.
77. Preacher K., Hayes A. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in simple and multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 2008, 40:879-891.