Intermediation in innovation

Hoppe, Heidrun C.; Ozdenoren, Emre

doi:10.1016/j.ijindorg.2005.03.003

Cited by 79 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 25 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hanft and Korper (1980) have found that societal side effects, in terms of the use of scarce resources, may outweigh the benefits of an innovation. Similarly, Gerwin and Tarondeau (1982), Walton et al (2002), Hoppe and Ozdenoren (2005) and Portzsolt et al (2009) have found out that the benefits of innovation remain often, if not undesirable, at least obscure.…”

Section: Consequence Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

The uncertainty of innovation: a systematic review of the literature

Jalonen

2011

jmr

121

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Innovation is defined as a process that is fraught with uncertainty. This article's aim is to diminish lack of knowledge of the factors that create uncertainty in innovation processes. The basic thrust of the present argument is that the potential value integral to innovation may or may not be materialized in the future. Given that the future entails uncertainty, it is reasonable to expect that uncertainty is inherent in every innovation process. Uncertainty results from the fact that, on the one hand, events in the future do not follow the course of past events, and, on the other, knowledge of the future is always incomplete. Using a systematic approach to reviewing the literature, eight factors which create uncertainty in processes of innovation were identified, namely: technological uncertainty, market uncertainty, regulatory/institutional uncertainty, social/political uncertainty, acceptance/legitimacy uncertainty, managerial uncertainty, timing uncertainty, and consequence uncertainty.

show abstract

Section: Consequence Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

The uncertainty of innovation: a systematic review of the literature

Jalonen

2011

jmr

121

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, the discussion on external knowledge complementarities and firm-level innovation can be summarized in the hypothesis that the deployment of external knowledge should be positively associated with innovation performance (Nooteboom et al, 2007). This hypothesis is supported in different strands of the literature, including marketing (Gemünden et al, 1996), innovation systems (Edquist, 1997;Freeman, 1995;Lundvall, 1992), business management (Jaruzelski and Dehoff, 2007) and several areas of economics and policy research (de Man and Duysters, 2005;Dodgson, 1993;Drejer and Holst Jørgensen, 2005;Frenz and Letto-Gillies, 2009;Hagedoorn, 2002;Håkansson, 1989;Hoppe and Ozdenoren, 2005;Mention, 2011;Panda and Ramanathan, 1996 Mention (2011) and Tether (2002) suggest that cooperation with universities and research organizations has a positive influence on more radical forms of innovation, other studies, such as that by Frenz and Letto-Gillies (2009), suggest that cooperation is much less useful than in-house efforts.…”

Section: Jena Economic Research Papers 2012 -037mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cooperation Behaviour and Innovation Performance in the Nigerian Manufacturing Industry

Egbetokun

2012

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractAnalysing the relationship between firms' openness to external knowledge and their innovation performance is nothing new. What is new is studying how this relationship fares in latecomer economic contexts such as Nigeria, and that is the focus of this paper. Using unique micro-level innovation data, it is shown, as the existing literature suggests, that firms are more likely to innovate when they access external knowledge either through formal or through informal interactions. However, innovative firms that exploit external knowledge do not necessarily enjoy greater innovation benefits than those that do not. Thus, while openness to external knowledge might help firms to become better at innovating, it does not assist them in reaping the benefits derivable from their innovation efforts. Moreover, different innovation types are essentially the same with respect to the effect that network resources have on them. Thus, it makes little sense to engage network partners selectively for certain innovation types at the expense of others.

show abstract

“…As innovation processes are generally associated with uncertainty along both market and technology dimensions (Hoppe and Ozdenoren 2005;Macho-Stadler et al 2007), it is difficult to know what mechanisms best cater to this process. In the specific case of AE, contextual factors might play an important role in determining the outcome of a particular initiative (Henrekson and Rosenberg 2001).…”

Section: Public Choice Policy Robustness and Policy Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The same researchers also found that older TTOs seem to be less efficient, suggesting an absence of learning effects, or even negative learning. Moreover, the complexity of the entrepreneurial environment and the number of possible choices and strategies can often lead to the failure of TTOs (Hoppe and Ozdenoren 2005). While effective AE initiatives may rely on TTOs, the critical boundary condition is not the presence of a TTO per se but the degree to which the TTO complements the researcher in some crucial dimension.…”

Section: Tto and Its Capabilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public policy for academic entrepreneurship initiatives: a review and critical discussion

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides a critical review and discussion of current literature on technology transfer, incubators, and academic entrepreneurship. Drawing upon the notion of robustness in social systems and public choice theory, we review, code, and taxonomize 166 studies to assess the likelihood that these initiatives will generate innovation and economic growth. We find that academic entrepreneurship initiatives are characterized by conflicting goals, weak incentive structures for universities and academics, and are contextually dependent upon factors such as university strength. Our results suggest that there are critical boundary conditions that are unlikely to be fulfilled when universities and policymakers enact policies to support academic entrepreneurship initiatives. Policymakers therefore need to be cautious in the potential design of such initiatives. We discuss how technology transfer from universities might be better achieved through alternative mechanisms such as contract research, licensing, consulting and increased labor mobility among researchers.Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article

show abstract

Intermediation in innovation

Cited by 79 publications

References 25 publications

The uncertainty of innovation: a systematic review of the literature

The uncertainty of innovation: a systematic review of the literature

Cooperation Behaviour and Innovation Performance in the Nigerian Manufacturing Industry

Public policy for academic entrepreneurship initiatives: a review and critical discussion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About