Pathways for knowledge exchange in SMEs in software‐driven knowledge‐intensive business services

Abstract

This paper presents pathways for knowledge exchange as regards innovation in R&D‐active SMEs in software‐driven knowledge‐intensive business services in a capital city environment. A semistructured qualitative analysis focusing at social capital enablers for knowledge exchange reveals that interpersonal social proximity is the primary driver for knowledge exchange. Structural enablers for knowledge exchange include accessibility for clients, geographical proximity to research partners, temporary places for formal and informal meetings, specialization and diversification in terms of human resources skills, and informal interpersonal networks. Market and government‐related goals, access to public funding and possibilities for lobbying, as well as openness to a multicultural environment, are all underlying cognitive factors. Relational social capital dimensions include organized trust in terms of neutral ground, goodwill trust‐based interpersonal weak ties, and mutually embedded businesses and processes with institutions.

Intra‐cluster Knowledge Exchange and Frequency of Product Innovation in a Digital Cluster

“…Therefore, our results imply that spatial proximity is less relevant for frequent product innovation. This is consistent with the most recent studies on the role of different knowledge dimensions on knowledge exchange (see Hansen ; Teirlinck ). These studies report that nonspatial knowledge dimensions are key drivers for knowledge exchange in innovation, and at the same time, substitute geographical proximity.…”

“…Consequently, managers in small digital firms, located in peripheral regions, should particularly focus on non‐spatial dimensions of knowledge exchange. This corroborates recent findings in Hansen () and Teirlinck (), whereby social proximity is recognized as a driving force for knowledge exchange in innovation. Regarding policy implications, our findings indicate that regional governments should design policies to foster knowledge exchange among small digital firms in peripheral regions.…”

“…Our findings have theoretical implications such that we develop a conceptual framework that suggests the link between knowledge exchange and the frequency of product innovation. With respect to different knowledge dimension, our study contributes to the most recent evidence on the importance of nonspatial dimensions (Hansen ; Teirlinck ), and their potentially substituting role in relation to geographical dimension. Concerning managerial implications, our findings suggest that managers of small digital firms, located in peripheral regions, should “act near” before reaching out with respect to nonspatial knowledge dimensions, as well as links with external knowledge providers.…”

“…To compensate the limited availability of resources, SMEs open up their innovation process and explore external knowledge sources. In this respect, SMEs are further constrained regarding the breadth and depth of their knowledge search (Teirlinck ). But, at the same time, SMEs should use a broader set of external knowledge sources, given their limited internal resources (Radicic and Pugh ).…”

“…The second contribution stems from our focus on knowledge intensive digital firms as product innovation is more likely to be frequent in knowledge‐intensive business services (KIBS) or embedded in the knowledge‐based networked economy (KBNE) (Musolesi and Huiban ; Passiante, Elia, and Massari ). The role of knowledge‐intensive business services, as producers of innovation and new technology, has recently been given consideration (Musolesi and Huiban ; Passiante et al ; Teirlinck ). Moreover, in relation to peripheral regions, we take into account an unprecedented growth of IT and proliferation of digital connectedness in the periphery instead of the center, with view to making contribution to “peripheral entrepreneurialism” and regional learning (DeMartino, Reid, and Zygliodopolous ; Julien ; Rae ).…”