Innovation Networks 2001
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-57610-2_5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Institutions of Technological Infrastructure (ITI) and the Generation and Diffusion of Knowledge

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

2
3
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
2
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The point here is that a ‘nested offer' — able to meet the requests from a heterogeneous demand side — is articulated and visualized. That is, more in line with the classification of knowledge infrastructure integrants as proposed by Koschatzky and Héraud () and Bureth and Héraud ().Consequently, instead of incentivizing the advanced (e.g., science and technology) centers to move further up the learning curve, it may be more appropriate to focus on diffusion policies of knowledge and technology and to foresee a more central place for KIS. That could help to make more tenable and valorize the whole innovation system, leading to a better interplay between the supply and demand side — making the demand side and supply side more inclusive as well — and giving broader chances of non‐technological innovation.It may also be opportune to foster cooperation between actors of the first and second tier of knowledge infrastructure so that their complementarities become more apparent and spillovers to both sides — and to the demand side — can take place.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 75%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…The point here is that a ‘nested offer' — able to meet the requests from a heterogeneous demand side — is articulated and visualized. That is, more in line with the classification of knowledge infrastructure integrants as proposed by Koschatzky and Héraud () and Bureth and Héraud ().Consequently, instead of incentivizing the advanced (e.g., science and technology) centers to move further up the learning curve, it may be more appropriate to focus on diffusion policies of knowledge and technology and to foresee a more central place for KIS. That could help to make more tenable and valorize the whole innovation system, leading to a better interplay between the supply and demand side — making the demand side and supply side more inclusive as well — and giving broader chances of non‐technological innovation.It may also be opportune to foster cooperation between actors of the first and second tier of knowledge infrastructure so that their complementarities become more apparent and spillovers to both sides — and to the demand side — can take place.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 75%
“…The point here is that a ‘nested offer' — able to meet the requests from a heterogeneous demand side — is articulated and visualized. That is, more in line with the classification of knowledge infrastructure integrants as proposed by Koschatzky and Héraud () and Bureth and Héraud ().…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 75%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…From the territorial innovation system strand, which studies the functioning or regional and national innovation systems, KIBS have come to be seen as an integrated part of such innovation systems. In this regard, Koschatzky and Héraud (1996) and Bureth and Héraud (2001) speak of a “first tier” of science and technology support infrastructure (public research centres) and a “second tier” of knowledge providers made up by private firms that provide services with a high knowledge intensity, such as IT, marketing and engineering services. The relevance of the second tier of business support provisioning has been stressed, among others, by Tödtling et al (2009) and Kamp and Bevis (2012).…”
Section: Theorizing the Relevance Of Knowledge-intensive Business Services For Business Competitivenessmentioning
confidence: 99%