|
on Innovation |
| By: | John Gabriel Goddard (IMRI (Institut pour le Management de la Recherche et de l’Innovation), Université Paris-Dauphine); Marc Isabelle (CEA & IMRI (Institut pour le Management de la Recherche et de l’Innovation), Université Paris-Dauphine) |
| Abstract: | When public research laboratories and industry meet to produce and exchange knowledge and technologies, they face decisions about how to frame these collaborations to make the best use of each partner’s resources, ensure a productive and fair outcome, and defuse any tensions and conflicts. In this paper we examine these questions through a survey of 130 public laboratories in France. This study contributes new insights into the characteristics of contractual and intellectual property agreements within collaborative R&D settings, which reflect both the strategies adopted by laboratories to manage their intellectual assets and the requirements of their private partners. |
| Keywords: | university-industry collaborations, knowledge and technology transfer, public-private research partnerships, economics of science, France |
| JEL: | L24 L30 O31 O32 O34 |
| Date: | 2006–07 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:imr:wpaper:wp06_03&r=ino |
| By: | Harun Bulut; GianCarlo Moschini (Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD)) |
| Abstract: | In line with the rights and incentives provided by the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, U.S. universities have increased their involvement in patenting and licensing activities through their own technology transfer offices. Only a few U.S. universities are obtaining large returns, however, whereas others are continuing with these activities despite negligible or negative returns. We assess the U.S. universities' potential to generate returns from licensing activities by modeling and estimating quantiles of the distribution of net licensing returns conditional on some of their structural characteristics. We find limited prospects for public universities without a medical school everywhere in their distribution. Other groups of universities (private, and public with a medical school) can expect significant but still fairly modest returns only beyond the 0.9th quantile. These findings call into question the appropriateness of the revenue-generating motive for the aggressive rate of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities. |
| Keywords: | Bayh-Dole Act, quantile regression, returns to innovation, skewed distributions, technology transfer, university patents. JEL numbers: C13, L31, L33, O31, O32 |
| Date: | 2006–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ias:cpaper:06-wp432&r=ino |
| By: | Lundin, Nannan (European Institute of Japanese Studies); Sjöholm, Fredrik (European Institute of Japanese Studies); Qian , Jinchang (National Bureau of Statistics of China) |
| Abstract: | Science & Technology (S&T) is high on the Chinese policy agenda but there are large uncertainties on the actual S&T development. For instance, previous studies tend to focus only on large and medium-sized enterprises (LMEs). The situation in Chinese small firms is far less explored. This paper aims to examine the role of S&T-based small firms. More precisely, we examine how much S&T that has been accounted for by small firms and how their S&T intensity differs across industries and ownership groups. We also analyze how various firm characteristics differ over size categories and S&T status. This study is based on newly processed micro level data provided by the National Bureau of Statistics with information on a large number of S&T indicators for small-, medium-, and large-sized manufacturing firms in China in 2000 and 2004. Our results suggest that small firms in Chinese S&T resemble their role in many other countries. They account for a comparably small share of total S&T and most small firms are not engaged in any S&T. However, those small firms that do engage in S&T tend to be more S&T intensive and have a higher output in terms of patents than larger Chinese S&T firms. |
| Keywords: | Technology; SMEs; China; S&T; R&D |
| JEL: | O30 O31 O53 |
| Date: | 2006–08–15 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hhs:eijswp:0227&r=ino |
| By: | Lee Davis |
| Abstract: | This paper investigates in an exploratory manner the licensing strategies pursued by firms whose business model is based on developing and licensing out their intellectual property rights (IPRs). These are not traditional suppliers, since they do not engage in production or commercialization, but focus solely on invention. While considerable anecdotal evidence exists about these IP vendors, there has been no systematic investigation of how they use licensing to appropriate value from their investments in R&D. In this paper, we suggest that the licensing strategies they pursue can be differentiated along two main dimensions: whether the driving force behind the inventive process is “technology push” or “market pull”, and the degree to which the innovative activities carried out by the IP vendor are mutually dependent upon the innovative activities of the other relevant market players. On this basis, four main licensing strategies are identified. We investigate the relative benefits and costs of these four strategies, and the factors affecting licensing choices. |
| Keywords: | Intellectual property; licensing; strategy |
| JEL: | O31 O32 O34 |
| Date: | 2006 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:aal:abbswp:06-12&r=ino |
| By: | Jansen, J.J.P.; Bosch, F.A.J. van den; Volberda, H.W. (Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), RSM Erasmus University) |
| Abstract: | Research on exploration and exploitation is burgeoning, yet our understanding of the antecedents and consequences of both activities remains rather unclear. We advance the growing body of literature by focusing on the apparent differences of exploration and exploitation and examining implications for using formal (i.e. centralization and formalization) and informal (i.e. connectedness) coordination mechanisms. This study further examines how environmental aspects (i.e. dynamism and competitiveness) moderate the effectiveness of exploratory and exploitative innovation. Results indicate that centralization negatively affects exploratory innovation while formalization positively influences exploitative innovation. Interestingly, connectedness within units appears to be an important antecedent of both exploratory and exploitative innovation. Furthermore, our findings reveal that pursuing exploratory innovation is more effective in dynamic environments whereas pursuing exploitative innovation is more beneficial to a unit’s financial performance in more competitive environments. Through this richer explanation and empirical assessment, we contribute to a greater clarity and better understanding of how ambidextrous organizations coordinate the development of exploratory and exploitative innovation in organizational units and successfully respond to multiple environmental conditions. |
| Keywords: | Exploratory and Exploitative Innovation;Coordination Mechanisms;Environment;Performance; |
| Date: | 2006–08–14 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:dgr:eureri:30008842&r=ino |
| By: | Alan Hughes |
| Abstract: | This paper assesses the current nature of university-industry links in the UK and US using the recent unique IPC-CBR innovation benchmarking survey of the UK and the US. It argues for a more diverse approach to the complex nature of university-industry links than is currently the case. The paper in addition provides a brief overview of SET policy in the UK locating university-industry links within the overall UK policy framework. It argues for a greater degree of coordination of existing policy levers rather than new initiatives and for an effective use of public procurement in relation to SET policy. |
| Keywords: | Science and Technology Policy, University Industry Links, UK-US comparisons |
| Date: | 2006–06 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:cbr:cbrwps:wp326&r=ino |
| By: | Rotmans, J. (Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), RSM Erasmus University) |
| Abstract: | There are no easy, off-the-shelf solutions for persistent societal problems, because these are caused by fundamental flaws in our societal systems. Such systemic errors demand radical changes in our thinking and actions, i.e. transitions and system innovations. Transitions require a long period (one to two generations), and take time, patience, money, confidence, but also courage, daring and perseverance to gain the upper hand over various types of resistance. Research into transitions is by definition multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary. For this we need knowledge and experience from systems analysis, social administration, history, innovation science, economics, business administration and technology. The nature of research into transitions is fundamental, explorative, creative and practical. A conceptual framework for research into transitions is presented that consists of four interlinked conceptual building blocks, which in turn provide an outline of a transition theory in its embryonic stages. These concepts are rooted in common notions from complexity theory, new forms of governance and social theory. Central here is the concept of transition management, for which a new management framework is developed. Transition management is an attempt to tackle persistent stubborn problems by steering them in a more sustainable direction, through a visionary, cyclical process of putting issues on the agenda, learning, orchestrating and experimenting. Not based on management and control but through clever, subtle changes and adjustments at several levels concurrently. Transition management is a very promising management concept that can initially be applied to a wide range of complex societal problems: from health care to energy provision, and from social security to mobility. Transition management can also be applied to complex processes of change in a business context. |
| Keywords: | transitions;system innovations;transition management;sustainable development;societal innovation;governance;complex systems;social theory;corporate social responsibility;interdisciplinary; |
| Date: | 2005–06–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:dgr:euriar:30007951&r=ino |
| By: | Stam, E. (Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), RSM Erasmus University) |
| Abstract: | How do changes in the spatial organization of entrepreneurial firms come about? This paper provides a conceptualisation of the process of locational change. A process model of locational change is constructed on the basis of an empirical study of 109 locational events during the life course of 25 young firms in knowledge intensive sectors (knowledge services and biomedicals). This process model of locational change maps both internal and external variation and selection processes. This model contributes to the development of a causal process theory of the spatial development of (new) firms. |
| Keywords: | Location;Entrepreneurial Firms;Evolutionary Theory;Decision-Making;Process Models; |
| Date: | 2006–03–27 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:dgr:eureri:30008464&r=ino |
| By: | Oort, F.G. van; Stam, E. (Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), RSM Erasmus University) |
| Abstract: | In this study indicators of agglomeration economies and their effect on entrepreneurship in the ICT industry are analysed in diverse urban contexts. Agglomeration economies have a stronger impact on new firm formation than on the growth of incumbent firms. Concentration and diversity both have a positive effect on new firm formation as well as on the growth of incumbent firms, while competition only has a positive effect on new firm formation. It is especially the effects of industrial diversity that are revealed to be sensitive to urban contexts: positive effects on new firm formation are attached to the connected cities and to the highly urbanized Randstad, and positive effects on firm growth to the intermediate zone, the connected cities and urban municipalities. |
| Keywords: | Entrepreneurship;Location;Agglomeration Economies;Spatial Externalities;Urban Regimes;ICT Iindustry; |
| Date: | 2006–03–29 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:dgr:eureri:30008467&r=ino |
| By: | Thorn, Kristian; Soo, Maarja |
| Abstract: | Universities in Latin America are increasingly considered instruments of social and economic development and face rising expectations in regard to supplying relevant skills, undertaking applied research, and engaging in commercial activity. The paper discusses trends and challenges within Latin American universities, as well as policy options available for strengthening their contributions to social and economic development. The so-called third mission of universities is often equated with knowledge transfer narrowly defined as licensing and commercialization of research. The paper adopts a broader approach and explores how the new role of universities affects all aspects of academic practice in Latin America, including advanced education and research. It concludes that policymakers and university managers in Latin America face an important challenge of defining a legal framework, sound management procedures, and notably, incentive systems that stimulate outreach and entrepreneurship among students and staff while recognizing and preserving the distinct roles of universities. |
| Keywords: | Tertiary Education,Agricultural Knowledge & Information Systems,Rural Development Knowledge & Information Systems,ICT Policy and Strategies,Secondary Education |
| Date: | 2006–08–01 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:4002&r=ino |