Network Structure, Knowledge Governance, and Firm Performance: Evidence from Innovation Networks and SMEs in the UK

Abstract

It is increasingly understood that learning and thus innovation often occurs via highly interactive, iterative, network-based processes. Simultaneously, economic development policy is increasingly focused on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as a means of generating growth, creating a clear research issue in terms of the roles and interactions of government policy, universities, and other sources of knowledge, SMEs, and the creation and dissemination of innovation. This paper analyses the contribution of a range of actors in an SME innovation creation and dissemination framework, reviewing the role of various institutions therein, exploring the contribution of cross-locality networks, and identifying the mechanisms required to operationalise such a framework. Bivariate and multivariate (regression) techniques are employed to investigate both innovation and growth outcomes in relation to these structures; data are derived from the survey responses of over 450 SMEs in the UK. Results are complex and dependent upon the nature of institutions involved, the type of knowledge sought, and the spatial level of the linkages in place but overall highlight the value of cross-locality networks, network governance structures, and certain spillover effects from universities. In general, we find less support for the factors predicting SME growth outcomes than is the case for innovation. Finally, we outline an agenda for further research in the area. Copyright (c) 2010 The Authors. Growth and Change (c) 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc..

Governance of Industrial Districts: Bibliometric and Cluster Analyses

“…The same conclusions apply to the articles from UK. These papers are mostly empirical but mainly use quantitative methodologies (De Propris & Wei, 2007;Clifton et al, 2010). The opposite occurs for papers authored by USA scholars as they are overwhelming conceptual and provide theories to model industrial district governance (Powell, 1990;Gereffi & Lee, 2016).…”

“…On the other hand, they identify and discuss the managerial implications of heterarchical and hierarchical district governance schemes (Provan & Kenis, 2008;Arıkan & Schilling, 2011). In particular, the former line of literature explores the role of cluster governing actors in fostering district development and outcomes by leading regional strategic direction (Clifton et al, 2010). The latter focuses on the economic power distribution as pivotal determinant of district partner relationships and discusses strengths and weaknesses of connected governance schemes by relying on case study evidence based on primary and secondary data (Sacchetti & Tomlinson, 2009).…”

“…In particular, papers on the right-hand side explore district governance at company level, focusing on the motivations (organization, cooperation, innovation, resources and competences) behind this phenomenon (bottom) and its effects in terms of network type, entrepreneurial and strategic orientation (top) (Powell, 1990;Boari & Lipparini, 1999;Håkansson & Ford, 2002). Articles on the left-hand side investigate districts as organizational models and discuss their managerial antecedents (bottom), as well as competitive and performance effects (top) (Clifton et al, 2010;Arıkan & Schilling, 2011).…”

“…Two arguments have been used to discuss the industrial networks' competitive advantage (Porter, 1998;Cooke, 2002a;Arıkan & Schilling, 2011). The former comprises the firm geographic propinquity that fosters resources and knowledge exchange (Clifton, Keast, Pickernell, & Senior, 2010), making industrial districts one of the main organizational set-up for company learning and relationship capital (Cooke, 2002a). The latter involves investments and risk sharing that give raise to district company 'coopetition' (Dei Ottati, 1994;Porter, 1998).…”

The Spatio-Relational Nature of Urban Innovation Systems: Universities, Knowledge Intensive Business Service Firms, and Collaborative Networks

“…Therefore, reference to an era of open innovation is increasingly apparent within innovation studies with the emergence of the idea that firms must combine internal and external knowledge for innovation (Chesbrough 2003;Dahlander & Gann 2010). As a result, innovation is now characterised as involving inter-organisational networks with innovative outputs the product of collaborative linkages with a range of external actors including, customers, suppliers and universities (Huggins & Johnston 2009;Clifton et al 2010;Huggins et al 2012). Consequently, knowledge from providers such as universities is considered to be a key factor within modern innovation processes and the formulation of innovation systems (Nelson & Rosenberg 1993;Freeman 1995;Freeman 1987;Cooke et al 2004;Lawton Smith & Bagchi-Sen 2006).…”