Innovation, institutions and cultures: Exploring the European context

Piana, Bice Della; Vecchi, Alessandra; Vivacqua, Enrica

doi:10.5771/0935-9915-2015-1-5

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Logic, design and representation (Hull 1996 ; van Waarden 2001 ; Coriat and Weinstein 2002 ; Baark 2007 ; Considine and Lewis 2007 ; Lee and Yoo 2008 ; Daly 2008 ; Magnier-Watanabe and Senoo 2009 ; Colwell and Narayanan 2010 ; Lindelöf 2011 ; Lazer et al 2011 ; Azadegan et al 2013 ; Bin et al 2013 ; Waldorff 2013 ; McCarthy et al 2014 ; Bunda et al 2014 ; Piana et al 2015 ; Llopis and D’Este 2016 ; Kooijman et al 2017 ; Cestino and Berndt 2017 ; Vickers et al 2017 ; Chen et al 2018 ; Martin et al 2018 )…”

Section: Management Priorities For Institutional Innovationunclassified

“…These sources offer a discourse suggesting diversity of capabilities as a source of innovative strength for institutions. Thus, context assumes an important role for institutional innovation with varying interests in institutional (Colwell and Narayanan 2010 ; Lindelöf 2011 ), country (Lee and Yoo 2008 ), and cultural (McCarthy et al 2014 ; Piana et al 2015 ) contexts.…”

Section: Management Priorities For Institutional Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systematic review of institutional innovation literature: towards a multi-level management model

AlMalki

Durugbo

2022

Manag Rev Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Institutional innovation creates smart institutions that idiosyncratically thrive in a world of exponential change. Through policy-driven interventions and experiential learning, managers of institutions become adept at delivering praxis- and crisis-driven innovations required for survival and success. Similarly, the management of institutional innovation remains an interest in research due to links of this form of innovation to economic growth, and the demands of on-going major socioeconomic transformations due to technological advances, increased occurrences of major crises, and emerging socioeconomic challenges. Accordingly, a key question arising from the literature concerns the range of determinants and priorities that influence institutional innovation for delivering society value. Thus, the onus is on scholarship to capture and advance knowledge for harnessing the potency of institutional innovation. The purpose of this article is to analyse the current state of research on institutional innovation. Using the systematic review methodology, we identify and critically appraise 485 peer-reviewed scientific publications between 1969 and 2021. The review finds key determinants and management priorities with a view to developing a multi-level management model of institutional innovation. Guided by insights from the review, the article sets a research agenda for future management studies of institutional innovation.

show abstract

Section: Management Priorities For Institutional Innovationunclassified

Section: Management Priorities For Institutional Innovationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of institutional innovation literature: towards a multi-level management model

AlMalki

Durugbo

2022

Manag Rev Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

SMEs innovativeness and institutional support system: the local experiences in qualitative perspective. Polish case study

Lewandowska

Stopa

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research background: Many contemporary empirical studies and most economic growth theories recognize the importance of innovation as one of the most progressive determinants of socio-economic growth, both in the regional and local perspective. However, much of the empirical literature has discussed the issue of innovativeness and institutional environment without the significant results for small enterprises, especially in peripheral regions. Purpose of the article: The aim of this paper is to evaluate the institutional support system and its impact on SME innovativeness in Podkarpackie region. In analyzing this case, we raise the following two questions: (1) what are the types of innovation strategies of SMEs in Podkarpackie? (2) what are the factors affecting innovation and potential barriers to further use of institutional support systems aimed at the implementation of innovation in enterprises? Methods: Based on the empirical research, we have analyzed the data (individual in-depth interviews) and found out how the entrepreneurs, R&D, business environment institutions, regional and local authorities assess the use of programs and projects dedicated to innovation in the scope of the institutional support system and what are the barriers encountered by entrepreneurs that limit the implementation of innovation. Findings & Value added: The results of our research show that institutional sup-port systems mitigate negative consequences of peripheral localization of the enterprises, where specific innovation strategy has no influence on SME assessment of innovation effectiveness. Innovation is too costly, and SMEs are too weak in peripheral regions, therefore there is great need for reasonable and flexible institutional support systems. However, the peripheral situation influences this institutional system itself, strengthening the mechanisms of self-censorship.

show abstract

Innovation, institutions and cultures: Exploring the European context

Cited by 2 publications

References 32 publications

Systematic review of institutional innovation literature: towards a multi-level management model

Systematic review of institutional innovation literature: towards a multi-level management model

SMEs innovativeness and institutional support system: the local experiences in qualitative perspective. Polish case study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About