|
on Knowledge Management and Knowledge Economy |
|
Issue of 2020‒06‒08
four papers chosen by Laura Ştefănescu Centrul European de Studii Manageriale în Administrarea Afacerilor |
| By: | Mikhail Martynovich; Josef Taalbi |
| Abstract: | This study investigates how related variety in the regional employment mix affects the innovation output of a region. Departing from the idea of recombinant innovation, previous research has argued that related variety enhances regional innovation as inter-industry knowledge spillovers occur more easily between different but cognitively similar industries. This study combines a novel dataset and related variety measures based on network theory, which allows a more nuanced perspective on the relationship between related variety and regional innovation. The principal novelty of the paper lies in employing new data on product innovations commercialised by Swedish manufacturing firms between 1970 and 2013. In this respect, it allows a direct measure of regional innovation output as compared to patent measures, usually employed in similar studies. The second contribution of this paper is that we employ network-topology based measures of related variety that allow us to measure relatedness as the recombination rather than direct flow of knowledge. We argue that this measure comes closer to the notion of innovation as spurred by recombination and show that this measure is a superior predictor of innovation activity. |
| Keywords: | related variety, relatedness, innovation, network analysis |
| JEL: | L16 O31 R11 R12 |
| Date: | 2020–03 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:egu:wpaper:2015&r=all |
| By: | Link, Albert (University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Department of Economics) |
| Abstract: | The purpose of this paper is to identify covariates with publication activity, a form of knowledge transfer, from SBIR publicly funded research. The paper offers an argument about the policy relevance of studying knowledge transfers from publicly funded research that occurs in private sector firms. Relevant explanatory variables are the length of the funded research project, university involvement in the project, the firm's history of SBIR funding, and the academic background of firms' founders. |
| Keywords: | Technology transfer; Public sector R&D; Entrepreneurship; Program evaluation; SBIR program; |
| JEL: | H54 L26 O31 O32 O38 |
| Date: | 2020–05–21 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:ris:uncgec:2020_005&r=all |
| By: | Maurseth, Per Botolf (Department of Economics); Svensson, Roger (Research Institute of Industrial Economics (IFN)) |
| Abstract: | Inventors generally know more about their inventions than what is written down in patent applications. Because they possess this tacit knowledge, inventors may need to play an active role when patents are commercialized. We build on Arora (1995) and model firm-inventor cooperation in the commercialization of a given invention. Tacit knowledge warrants inventor activity. However, imperfect IPRs may reduce inventors’ incentives to engage in the commercialization process. We analyze when first-best inventor activity is achieved in a two-stage contract. In the empirical part, we analyze when inventor activity is important for the successful commercialization of patents by using a detailed patent database. The database contains unique information on inventor activity, patent commercialization modes and the profitability of commercialization. In the empirical estimations, we find that inventor activity has a strong positive correlation with profitability when a patent is sold or licensed to another firm. When a patent is sold or licensed in the second phase, it is still inventor activity in the first phase that matters for profitability. Thus, our interpretation is that tacit knowledge and close cooperation between inventors and external firms are often crucial for the successful commercialization of patents. |
| Keywords: | Tacit knowledge; Inventor activity; Patents; Commercialization |
| JEL: | O31 O33 O34 |
| Date: | 2020–05–28 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hhs:iuiwop:1341&r=all |
| By: | Runsten, Philip (Dept. of Management and Organization); Werr, Andreas (Dept. of Management and Organization) |
| Abstract: | Contemporary organizations rarely systematically address team effectiveness. The main managerial focus is still on designing organizations through their structures and to “fill” roles with individuals having “matching” skills. Yet, almost all outputs of organizations are the results of collaborative activities between individuals. Organizational performance is to a large extent the result of the average collaborative quality at the team level, and there is a large variation in how well people collaborate. At the same time, research has consistently confirmed that teams can be worked with, and reach improvements, through different kinds of interventions, one of the most promising being team debriefs. Against this background this study develops and tests a team intervention that is generally applicable, team-led and self-guiding. The intervention is based on an application containing a training module and a self-guiding team-led debrief process. The intervention is tested in a longitudinal study of 50 experiment and 20 control teams from 22 international and Swedish private and public organizations. Results indicate a 15 to 22% increase in team performance. Seven experiment teams (“the second best”), clustered mainly in the high performing third of the sample developed negatively, while the top performing teams developed at sample average. Possible causes and how to identify these “second best” teams are discussed. |
| Keywords: | teams; collective intelligence; team intelligence; group intelligence; learning; psychological safety; transactive memory system; collective mind; heedful interrelating |
| JEL: | M50 M54 M59 |
| Date: | 2020–05–20 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hhb:hastma:2020_003&r=all |