|
on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Economy |
| By: | Cees van Beers; Elina Berghäll; Tom Poot |
| Abstract: | This paper investigates innovating firms’ determinants of R&D collaboration with domestic universities and public knowledge institutes in Finland and the Netherlands. Three questions – relevant for innovation policies - constitute the central part of this paper. First, are innovating foreign firms less or more involved in R&D co-operation with domestic public knowledge institutions than innovating domestic firms? Second, do innovating firms that are open to their external knowledge environment have a higher probability to co-operate with public partners than firms that are not or less open? Third, are public knowledge institutions in Finland and the Netherlands attractive R&D partners to innovative firms? Based on data from Community Innovation Surveys we find that foreign firms in the Netherlands are less likely to co-operate with domestic public knowledge institutions than domestic firms, while in Finland no significant difference can be detected. With regard to the second question our findings show that openness of innovating firms is an important determinant of R&D collaboration in both countries. Finally, the empirical results show that knowledge of public partners is considered useful by innovating firms to transform own ideas into concrete innovations in Finland, but not in the Netherlands. However, the type of knowledge – fundamental or applied - is important for R&D collaboration with Dutch public partners, but not for co-operating with Finnish public partners. This raises the issue whether Finnish innovation policies with a strong focus on R&D co-operation provide incentives for domestic public partners to put more emphasis on applied research. |
| Keywords: | Multinational enterprises; innovation; R&D collaboration; public knowledge institutions; national innovation systems |
| JEL: | O32 O38 |
| Date: | 2007 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:aal:abbswp:07-12&r=knm |
| By: | Nathalie Lazaric |
| Abstract: | The aim of this article is to understand permanence and changes inside organizational routines. For this purpose, it seems important to explain how individual and collective memorisation occurs, so as to grasp how knowledge can be converted into routines. Although memorisation mechanisms imply a degree of durability, our procedural and declarative knowledge, and our memorisation processes, evolve so that individuals and organisations can project themselves into the future and innovate. Some authors highlight the necessity of dreaming and forgetting (Bergson 1896); others believe that emotions play a role in our memorisation processes (Damasio 1994). These dimensions are not only important at the individual level but also in an organisational context (Lazaric and Denis 2005; Reynaud 2005; Pentland and Feldman 2005).I review the individual dimension of these memorisation processes, with the Anderson’s distinction between procedural knowledge and declarative knowledge. I discuss the notion of cognitive automatisms in order to show why routines should be investigated beyond their first literal assumption (Bargh, 1997). This leads to a clear understanding of the micro level that underpins organisational flexibility and adaptation (notably the motivational triggers). Within organisations, the memorisation mechanisms are at once similar and diverse. Indeed, organisations use their own filters and mechanisms to generate organisational coordination. Organizational memory has its own dimension as it does not merely consist of the sum of individual knowledge and must be able to survive when individuals leave. Routines depend on the organisational memory implemented and on the procedural knowledge and representations of it (individual and collective representations). |
| Keywords: | Knowledge; memorisation; organizations; individuals |
| JEL: | D83 O31 |
| Date: | 2007 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:aal:abbswp:07-13&r=knm |
| By: | Jung, Hanjoon Michael |
| Abstract: | We model media manipulation in which a sender or senders manipulate information through the media to influence receivers. We show that if there is only one sender who has a conditional preference for maintaining its credibility in reporting accurate information and if the receivers face a coordination situation without information about their opponents' types, the sender could influence the receivers to make decisions according to the sender's primary preference by manipulating the information through the media, which makes the report common knowledge. This is true even when the sender and the receivers have contradictory primary preferences. This result extends to the cases in which the sender has imperfect information or in which the sender's primary preference is to maintain its credibility. In the case of multiple senders, however, when there is enough media competition or when simultaneous reporting takes place, the receivers could play their favored outcome against senders' preferences, which sheds light on a solution to the media manipulation problem. |
| Keywords: | Arms Race; Common Knowledge; Information Transmission; Media Bias; Media Competition; Media Manipulation. |
| JEL: | D83 D82 C72 |
| Date: | 2007–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:5230&r=knm |
| By: | David B. Audretsch; Werner Bönte; Prashanth Mahagaonkar |
| Abstract: | Innovative nascent entrepreneurs face the problem of obtaining finance, mainly due to information problems. We use new data on capital seeking start-ups allowing distinction between planning stage and early stage. Being innovative does not affect the probability of having external finance in the planning stage but has a positive effect in the early stage. Early start-ups with patents have a significantly higher probability of having equity whereas debt is not affected. Patents, coupled with prototypes have a higher probability for external finance which may be due to reduced uncertainties and learning. The most important determinant of debt is house ownership. |
| Keywords: | Innovation; Entrepreneurship; Finance; Information Asymmetries |
| JEL: | M13 G32 O32 O47 |
| Date: | 2007 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:aal:abbswp:07-09&r=knm |
| By: | Pilar Beneito (Universitat de València); Amparo Sanchis Llopis (Universitat de València); María Engracia. Rochina Barrachina (Universitat de València) |
| Abstract: | This paper analyses the role of firms' R&D-experience in their innovative success using a representative sample of Spanish firms for the period 1990-2002. Using count data models and within an innovation production function approach, we investigate the influence of firms' R&D-experience in the achievement of innovative results. To estimate R&D-experience, partially unobserved, we estimate a duration model and use the obtained results and a non-parametric procedure to impute R&D-experience when unobserved. We obtain that R&D effectiveness increases along the R&D history of the firm. En este trabajo se analiza el papel de la experiencia en actividades de I+D sobre el éxito innovador de las empresas utilizando una muestra representativa de empresas españolas para el periodo 1990-2002. Mediante modelos de recuento (count-data models) y partiendo de la especificación de una función de producción de innovaciones, investigamos la influencia de la experiencia en I+D en la obtención de resultados innovadores. Para estimar la experiencia en I+D, que es parcialmente inobservable, estimamos un modelo de duración y utilizamos los resultados obtenidos en este modelo y un procedimiento no paramétrico para imputar la experiencia en I+D a aquellas empresas para las que no se observa. Nuestros resultados muestran que la efectividad de la inversión en I+D aumenta con el historial innovador de la empresa. |
| Keywords: | Innovación, acumulación del conocimiento, experiencia en I+D, modelos de duración, modelos de recuento innovation, accumulation of knowledge, R&D-experience, duration models, count data models. |
| JEL: | O30 O34 C23 C10 |
| Date: | 2007–10 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ivi:wpasec:2007-10&r=knm |
| By: | Stéphane Guérard; Ann Langley |
| Abstract: | Legitimation and competition are two major forces moulding organizational field and the diffusion of innovations. While discursive legitimation provides "rational justifications" for innovations, competition may incite organizations to acquire effective innovations preemptively. This paper draws on a case study of the legitimation and diffusion of a sophisticated medical technology to suggest that, in highly regulated environments, these two forces may interact, and that opposing legitimation strategies may be associated with competition. We argue that while convergent discursive legitimation strategies tend to speed up the diffusion process, divergent discursive legitimation strategies may have the opposite effect. The case suggests that the dominant logics of legitimation may shift, oscillating between convergence and divergence as an innovation diffuses. We also show how the resulting delays in diffusion may be pre-empted by a phenomenon we call institutional delinquency, that is when the moral and cognitive-cultural legitimacies of the technology among professionals and managers becomes sufficient to counteract regulatory forces. |
| Keywords: | technology, legitimation, institution, innovation, PET scanner, theorization, competition |
| JEL: | I12 D81 O32 |
| Date: | 2007–09 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hem:wpaper:0703&r=knm |