|
on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Economy |
|
Issue of 2013‒05‒11
ten papers chosen by Laura Stefanescu European Research Centre of Managerial Studies in Business Administration |
| By: | Lilian Santos (Faculdade de Economia, Universidade do Porto); Aurora A.C. Teixeira (CEF.UP, Faculdade de Economia, Universidade do Porto; INESC Porto; OBEGEF; UTEN) |
| Abstract: | The acknowledged importance of innovation and the increasingly decisive role played by the service sector make innovation an issue of major relevance to the economy. Using a sample of 6593 companies that answered the Community Innovation Survey 2008, we assessed the determinants of innovation of Portuguese companies by comparing the service sector and other sectors of activity (specifically, manufacturing industry, utilities and construction). Among the main results obtained, we highlighted: 1) the non-linear impact of human capital on the innovation performance of companies – Master degree emerges as a critical factor in corporate innovation, whereas the PhD level is negatively related to companies innovation performance; 2) knowledge-sourcing activities (systematic R&D achievements, innovation-based training, purchase of machinery and equipment for innovation) appear as central to firms’ innovation process; 3) although university-company relationships are weak and have a neglible impact on the generality of companies’ propensity to innovate, they tend to be rather important for the innovation performance of services companies; 4) participation in innovation activities in cooperation with foreign partners appears as a key factor in the innovative performance; 5) companies in the service sector in general, and in Knowledge-Intensive Business Services in particular, that effectively and continuously invest in R&D activities are most innovative. |
| Keywords: | Innovation performance; Services; Types of innovations; Innovation determinants; Portugal |
| JEL: | O31 O32 L25 L80 |
| Date: | 2013–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:por:fepwps:494&r=knm |
| By: | Daria Ciriaci (Inter-American Development Bank); Daniela Palma (Inter-American Development Bank) |
| Abstract: | The rise of knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) may be considered as one of the decisive trends of economic evolution of industrialised countries in recent decades. This paper uses the concept of vertical integrated sectors and the subsystem approach to input-output matrix analysis to study the vertical integration of knowledge-based business services into manufacturing sectors. To date, companies increasingly rely on outside innovation for new products and processes and have become more active in licensing and selling results of their innovation to third parties. At the same time, they may rely on the marketing and financial consulting offered by third parties. As a consequence, considering manufacturing and KIBS as vertically inter-related sectors, the hypothesis of a virtuous circle can be expressed in the following way: the higher the degree of integration between KIBS and manufacturing sectors along what we could define as a ‘knowledge-based value chain’, the easier the knowledge diffusion and the competitiveness of the economic system as a whole. The study covers Germany, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom over the period 1995-2005. Results decisively support both the existence of structural differences among the countries considered, and a significant heterogeneity to the extent to which manufacturing outsources to knowledge-intensive business services. |
| Keywords: | Knowledge-intensive business services; subsystem approach; input-output analysis; knowledge diffusion |
| JEL: | L60 L84 O33 O32 P00 |
| Date: | 2012–05 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ipt:iptwpa:jrc71097&r=knm |
| By: | Chiara Franco (Catholic University of Milan); Alberto Marzucchi (Catholic University of Milan); Sandro Montresor (JRC-IPTS) |
| Abstract: | The paper aims at extending the analysis of the firm’s absorptive capacity (AC) by taking stock of its manifold nature. Innovation cooperation is recognised as one of its antecedents, along with R&D, but with different possible outcomes, depending on the kind of partner. Human capital is claimed to be as important as other organisational mechanisms for the AC impact on innovation. The empirical application, carried out on about 10,500 firms located in 3 EU countries (i.e. Germany, Italy and Spain), confirms the role of these factors. Interacting with research organisations, for example, increases the firm’s AC providing it occurs within the national boundaries. The transformation of AC into actual innovation is favoured by the human capital of the firm, while it is actually hampered by socialisation mechanisms of an organisational nature. |
| Keywords: | Absorptive capacity, Innovation cooperation, Human capital |
| JEL: | O33 O32 J24 |
| Date: | 2012–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ipt:iptwpa:jrc77090&r=knm |
| By: | Fernando Hervas Soriano (JRC-IPTS); Joerg Zimmermann (JRC-IPTS) |
| Abstract: | This report presents the findings of the seventh survey on trends in business R&D investment. These are based on 187 responses of mainly larger companies from the 1000 EU-based companies in the 2011 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard. These 187 companies are responsible for R&D investment worth almost €56 billion, constituting around 40% of the total R&D investment by the 1000 EU Scoreboard companies. The main result is that these top R&D investing companies expect their global R&D investments to grow by 4% annually from 2012 to 2014. The average share of sales coming from new innovative products and services was 18%, varying from 33% in high R&D intensity sectors to 10% in low R&D intensity ones. The differences between the sectors were not in all cases related to R&D intensity or net sales of the companies but rather seemed to reflect different sectoral innovation cycles. Collaboration agreements are considered a more important form of knowledge sharing activities than licencing (except for high R&D intensity sectors), which could be a sign of the increasing importance of open innovation. For the impact of factors and policies on the company’s innovation activities, national public support had the most positive effect, followed by availability of qualified personnel and EU public support. As in previous surveys, labour costs and conditions of IPR (enforcement, time and costs) continued to be perceived as negative factors for company innovations. This reveals the importance of fostering an efficient IPR regime for companies’ innovation activities. |
| Keywords: | Industrial Economics, Corporate R&D and innovation; productivity; business trends; technological innovation; intangible assets; competitiveness; growth and employment; company growth; Europe 2020 strategy. |
| Date: | 2012–07 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ipt:iptwpa:jrc72991&r=knm |
| By: | David Carey; Christopher Hill; Brian Kahin |
| Abstract: | The US innovation system has many strengths, including world class research universities and firms that thrive in innovation-intensive sectors. However, fissures have begun to appear, notably in the areas of human capital development, the patent system and manufacturing activity, while public investments in R&D and research universities are at risk of being curtailed by budget cuts. Revitalizing the dynamism of innovation has become a priority for US policymakers. To this end, it is important that federal and state governments sustain financial support for knowledge creation. The US workforce’s skills will need to be upgraded, especially in STEM fields, and measures taken to provide more favourable framework conditions for developing advanced manufacturing in the United States. While the recent patent reform is a big step in the right direction, patent reform needs to be taken further by ensuring that the legal standards for granting injunctive relief and damages awards for patent infringement reflect realistic business practices and the relative contributions of patented components of complex technologies.<P>Renforcer l'innovation aux États Unis<BR>Le système d’innovation des États-Unis possède de nombreux atouts, en particulier des universités de recherche de rang mondial et des entreprises dynamiques dans les secteurs à forte intensité d’innovation. Cependant, certaines failles commencent à apparaître, notamment en termes de formation du capital humain, de brevets et d’activité manufacturière, et les investissements publics en faveur de la R-D et des universités de recherche risquent de pâtir des réductions budgétaires. Pour les décideurs américains, réactiver la dynamique de l’innovation est devenu une priorité. À cette fin, il importe que le gouvernement fédéral et les exécutifs des États continuent de soutenir financièrement la création de connaissances. Il faudrait améliorer le niveau de qualification de la main-d’oeuvre, en particulier dans le domaine des sciences, de la technologie, de l’ingénierie et des mathématiques (STIM), et prendre des mesures pour assurer la mise en place de conditions-cadres plus favorables au développement de la fabrication de pointe. La récente réforme des brevets représente un grand pas dans la bonne direction, mais elle doit être poursuivie en garantissant qu’en cas d’atteinte à un brevet, les critères juridiques sur lesquels se fondent les tribunaux pour prendre des décisions conservatoires et accorder des dommages-intérêts reflètent les pratiques effectives des entreprises et les contributions relatives des composantes brevetées des technologies complexes. |
| Keywords: | innovation, entrepreneurship, patents, R&D, green innovation, knowledge spillovers, MFP growth, complex technologies, cluster, advanced manufacturing, tertiary education attainment, STEM, immigration Visa, R&E tax credit, innovation, entrepreneuriat, brevets, R&D, l'innovation verte, crédits d'impôt pour R&E, externalités de connaissances, croissance de la productivité multifactorielle (PMF), pôles d'entreprises, activités manufacturières de pointe, niveau d'éducation tertiaire, STIM, visa d'immigration |
| JEL: | I2 O3 |
| Date: | 2012–11–22 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:oec:ecoaaa:1001-en&r=knm |
| By: | Alberto Marzucchi (Catholic University of Milan); Davide Antonioli (University of Ferrara); Sandro Montresor (JRC-IPTS) |
| Abstract: | The paper aims to show how policy makers can stimulate firms' cooperation with research organisations in innovation. We argue that the administration of an R&D subsidy can be effective. Furthermore, this should be more so for extra-regional than intra-regional cooperation. The firms' propensity to extend cooperation across the region is assumed to increase with the amount of support. However, the support must overcome a threshold, for firms to cover the fixed costs of distant interactions. These research hypotheses are tested with respect to a sample of firms in a region of Italy. Propensity score matching is applied to identify the impact of the subsidy receipt. A generalised propensity score technique is employed to investigate the effect of an increasing amount of support. All the hypotheses are not rejected. Firms' cooperation is policy sensitive, but the size of the support is crucial for its effects. |
| Keywords: | Industry-Research Cooperation, Regional Innovation Systems, Behavioural Additionality |
| JEL: | O32 O38 R11 R58 |
| Date: | 2012–11 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ipt:iptwpa:jrc76320&r=knm |
| By: | Link, Albert N. (University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics); Scott, John T. (Dartmouth College) |
| Abstract: | In this paper we overview a key national program that supports the development of new technology and innovation in small, entrepreneurial firms. The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program was established by the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982. We conclude from our years of study of the SBIR program that it is indeed bending the arc of innovation. The majority of firms that received SBIR project funding reported that they would not have undertaken the project in the absence of SBIR support. And, it seems clear to us that the SBIR support has had a positive impact on the employment trajectory of firms and on their ability to commercialize innovations resulting from their funded research. |
| Keywords: | SBIR program; innovation; technology; entrepreneurship |
| JEL: | L26 O31 O32 O38 |
| Date: | 2013–05–02 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ris:uncgec:2013_008&r=knm |
| By: | d'Artis Kancs (JRC-IPTS); Boriss Siliverstovs (ETH Zurich - KOF Swiss Economic Institute) |
| Abstract: | The present paper studies the relationship between R&D investment and firm productivity growth by explicitly accounting for non-linearities in the R&D-productivity relationship and inter-sectoral firm heterogeneity. In order to address these issues, we employ a two step estimation approach, and match two firm-level panel data sets for the OECD countries, which allows us to relax both the linearity and homogeneity assumptions of the canonical Griliches (1979) knowledge capital model. Our results suggest that: (i) R&D investment increases firm productivity with an average elasticity of 0.15; (ii) the impact of R&D investment on firm productivity is differential at different levels of R&D intensity – the productivity elasticity ranges from -0.02 for low levels of R&D intensity to 0.33 for high levels of R&D intensity; (iii) the relationship between R&D expenditures and productivity growth is non-linear, and only after a certain critical mass of R&D is reached, the productivity growth is significantly positive; (iv) there are important intersectoral differences with respect to R&D investment and firm productivity – high-tech sectors’ firms not only invest more in R&D, but also achieve more in terms of productivity gains connected with research activities. |
| Keywords: | R&D investment, firm productivity, generalised propensity score |
| JEL: | C14 C21 D24 F23 O32 |
| Date: | 2012–12 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ipt:iptwpa:jrc77247&r=knm |
| By: | Peter Voigt (University of Barcelona); Pietro Moncada-Paterno-Castello (JRC-IPTS) |
| Abstract: | The paper investigates how sector composition and the magnitude of R&D investment in the EU may differ in 2020 in comparison to the past, if a selection of top R&D-investing SMEs were assumed to be on a fast growth track while the top R&D-investing large-scale companies continue to grow as before. The background of this research objective is the emerging focus on SMEs – and in particular the fast-growing among them – with regard to the "Europe 2020" policy strategy. The study relies on the sample of top R&D-investing firms as given by the latest available "EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard" editions, building there from an unbalanced panel. Scenarios were developed by distinguishing SMEs' assumed growth paths vs. that of large scale companies. A lin-ear prediction model has been used to calculate the scenario simulations. Overall, the study indicates that if one expects the (R&D-intensive) small firms to be a driving force for a substantial structural change in the EU economy, from being driven by medium-tech sectors towards a high-tech based economy, it requires either a significant longer-term horizon of the assumed fast growth track than the simulated 10 years, or small firms' growth figures which even exceed the assumed annual 30% (as in the most optimistic scenario). Neither case appears to be particularly realistic. Hence, we need more top R&D investors in Europe to further intensify their engagement in R&D (increasing volume and R&D intensity) as well as numerous small firms that start and/or significantly increase their existing R&D activities and thus seek to become large firms and (global) leading R&D investors. Accordingly, a broad R&D and innovation (policy) strategy is needed with policy interventions which also target well all these options; i.e. stimulating firm growth and R&D and innovation-intensity across firm-sized classes. |
| Keywords: | Industrial Economics, Corporate R&D and innovation; productivity; business trends; technological innovation; intangible assets; competitiveness; growth and employment; company growth; Europe 2020 strategy. |
| JEL: | L11 L25 R38 |
| Date: | 2012–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ipt:iptwpa:jrc69761&r=knm |
| By: | Kiira Kärkkäinen; Stéphan Vincent-Lancrin |
| Abstract: | This report highlights innovative technology-supported pedagogic models in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, explores what to expect from collaboration in a designed network, and, thereafter, sketches lessons for promoting educational innovation through collaboration.<P> How can technology-supported learning help to move beyond content delivery and truly enhance STEM education so that students develop a broad mix of skills? How can collaboration be encouraged and used to help develop, spread, accelerate and sustain innovation in education? The HP Catalyst Initiative – an education grant programme by the Hewlett Packard (HP) Sustainability and Social Innovation team – is used as a case study to answer these questions.<BR>Le rapport met en lumière des modèles pédagogiques utilisant la technologie pour l'enseignement des science, de la technologie, de l'ingénierie et des mathématiques (STEM), explore ce que l'on peut attendre de la collaboration dans un réseau créé artificiellement, et, ensuite, en tire des leçons pour promouvoir l'innovation éducative à travers la collaboration... |
| Date: | 2013–04–17 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:oec:eduaab:91-en&r=knm |