Key Knowledge Providers as Sources of Business Innovation

Abstract

Studies of innovation are giving increasing attention to the relationships that businesses maintain with different participants in the innovation process. It is generally assumed that interaction with other businesses, universities and government organizations can generate knowledge that will improve the ability to innovate. However, there is little evidence of the specific roles that businesses assign to partners with regard to the provision of knowledge for innovation activities. This paper presents results from research on the dynamics of Triple Helix networks, where such networks provide the basis for building innovation capacity for businesses in catch-up geographical regions. The principal assumption is that businesses adopting an open collaboration strategy have a greater capacity to combine knowledge from different sources and adapt the knowledge to suit their innovation processes. A large set of key indicators is used to identify which regional sources are considered by businesses to be important for acquiring knowledge. The study is based on a survey of 737 businesses in the Andalusia region of Southern Spain and analysis of the results provides a typology of businesses characterized by the extent to which they focus their interest on specific groups of participants in the innovation process. The conclusions highlight and compare the role of universities with that of business networks, service providers, government and other sources.

Keywords

knowledge providers regional innovation system business networks knowledge-intensive business services Andalusia

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bidault

Despres

Butler

(1998), ‘The drivers of cooperation between buyers and suppliers for product innovation’, Research Policy, Vol 26, Nos 7–8, pp 719–732.

Calinski

Harabasz

(1974), ‘A dendrite method for cluster analysis’, Communications in Statistics – Simulation and Computation, Vol 3, No 1, pp 1–27.

Campbell

D.F.J.

(2005), University/Business Research Networks: New Challenges for Knowledge Production and Advanced Innovation Systems, Office of Science and Technology, Washington DC.

CES (2008), Informe Sobre la Situación Socioeconómica de Andalucía, Consejo Económico y Social de Andalucía, Sevilla (in Spanish).

CICE (2006), Plan Andaluz de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación Tecnológica, Consejería de Innovación, Ciencia y Empresa, Sevilla (in Spanish).

COTEC (1998), Informe Sobre el Sistema Andaluz de Innovación, Fundación COTEC, Sevilla (in Spanish).

Chung

Kim

(2003), ‘Performance effects of partnership between manufacturers and suppliers for new product development: The supplier's standpoint’, Research Policy, Vol 32, No 4, pp 587–603.

Den Hertog

(2000), ‘Knowledge-intensive business services as co-producers of innovation’, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol 4, No 4, pp 491–528.

Etzkowitz

(2002), ‘The Triple Helix of university–industry–government: Implications for policy and evaluation’, Working Paper 11, Science Policy Institute, Stockholm.

10.

Etzkowitz

Klosten

(2005), ‘The innovating region: Toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development’, R&D Management, Vol 35, No 3, pp 243–255.

11.

Everitt

B. S.

(1993), Cluster Analysis, Edward Arnold, London.

12.

Fagerberg

(2004), ‘Innovation: A guide to the literature’, in Fagerberg

, eds, Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

13.

Howells

Nedeva

Georghiou

(1998), ‘Industry–academic links in the UK: A report to the Higher Education Funding Councils of England, Scotland and Wales’, PREST, Manchester Business School, Manchester.

14.

INE (2006), Estadística de I+D en España, Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Madrid (in Spanish).

15.

Junta de Andalucía (2003), Andalucía: Segunda Modernización. Estrategias y Propuestas, Servicio de publicaciones de la Consejería de la Presidencia, Sevilla (in Spanish).

16.

Laursen

Salter

(2004), ‘Searching high and low: What types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?, Research Policy, Vol 33, No 8, pp 1201–1215.

17.

Leydesdorff

Etzkowitz

(1998), ‘The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 25, No 6, pp 195–203.

18.

Lundvall

B.A.

(1992), National Systems of Innovation: Toward a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, Pinter, London.

19.

Mansfield

(1991), ‘Academic research and industrial innovation’, Research Policy, Vol 20, No 1, pp 1–12.

20.

Martinez-Fernandez

M.C.

Martinez-Solano

(2006), ‘Knowledge-intensive service activities (KISA) in software innovation’, International Journal Services Technology and Management, Vol 7, No 2, pp 9–173.

21.

Martinez-Fernandez

M.C.

Miles

(2006), ‘Inside the software firm: Co-production of knowledge and KISA in the innovation process’, International Journal Services Technology and Management, Vol 7, No 2, pp 115–125.

22.

Miles

(2005), ‘Knowledge-intensive business services: Prospects and policies’, Foresight, Vol 7, pp 39–63.

23.

Muller

Zenker

(2001), ‘Business services as actors of knowledge transformation: The role of KIBs in regional and national innovation systems’, Research Policy, Vol 30, No 9, pp 1501–1516.

24.

Nieto

M. J.

Santamaría

(2007), ‘The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation, Technovation, Vol 27, Nos 6–7, pp 367–377.

25.

OECD (2006), The Role of Knowledge-Intensive Activities (KISA) in Innovation, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.

26.

OECD (2007), Higher Education and Regions: Globally Competitive, Locally Engaged, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.

27.

OECD (2008), Leveraging Skills and Training in SMEs, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Center for Entrepreneurship, Paris.

28.

OECD (2010), SMEs, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.

29.

Pavitt

K. L. R.

(1991), ‘What makes basic research economically useful?’, Research Policy, Vol 20, No 2, pp 109–119.

30.

Ramos-Vielba

Fernández-Esquinas

(2009), ‘Beneath the tip of the iceberg. The multiple forms of university–industry relationships’, Atlanta Conference on Science and Innovation Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2–3 October, Altanta, GA.

31.

Salter

Martin

B. R.

(2001), ‘The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: A critical review’, Research Policy, Vol 30, No 3, pp 509–532.

32.

Tether

(2002), ‘Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis’, Research Policy, Vol 31, No 6, pp 947–967.

33.

Tödtling

Lehner

Kaufmann

(2009), ‘Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge interactions?’, Technovation, Vol 29, No 1, pp 59–71.

34.

Toivonen

(2006), ‘Future prospects of knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) and implications to regional economies’, ICFAI Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol 4, pp 18–39.