Variations in SME Characteristics and the Use of Service Intermediaries for R&D

Abstract

Large companies are increasingly looking externally for opportunities to enhance innovation which has resulted in closer study of innovation systems. We examined the role of service intermediaries (universities, technology centers and consultants) within these systems using a sample of predominately small and medium sized enterprises located in Valencia Spain.As with studies of large companies, absorptive capacity (e.g., research and development expenditures) was positively related to the likelihood that a firm would engage in service collaborations. However, the rate of collaboration was higher relative to studies dominated by larger companies. Also, there were differences in the pattern of firm characteristics associated with the use of specific services. For example, the level of SME export activity related positively to the use of technology centers, but negatively with university collaborations.Keywords: innovation systems; firm collaboration; intermediary organizations; technology centers THE USE OF SERVICE INTERMEDIARIES FOR R&D 3 Innovation Systems and Firm Collaboration Among SMEsInnovation, the process by which new products, processes and/or services are introduced into the marketplace (Edwards & Gordon, 1984) is essential to the survival of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). As noted by Howells (2006) among others, increased collaboration and outsourcing over time has resulted in innovation systems that are relatively more open and distributed (Chesbrough, 2003;Gassmann, Enkel & Chesbrough, 2010). This investigation concerns the role of service intermediaries (e.g., universities, technology centers and consultants) in these systems, who through their interaction with multiple parties can facilitate the innovation process, especially in environments where firms and services are geographically clustered (Davenport, 2005;Howells, 2006;Zhang and Li, 2010).In changing contexts and when competition between firms increases, the generation of competitive advantage is going from material factors to intangible resources such as knowledge and innovation. However, the generation and diffusion of innovation requires access to suitable conditions. One of these conditions is the ability of the environment in which enterprises operate, and especially SMEs, to create "resources for innovation" (in the form of technical advisory services, R&D services, etc). These resources for innovation are channeled through intermediary organizations that perform actions of connection between users and providers (Bellini, 2002).In considering the possibility that a firm will benefit from open innovation, the institutional infrastructure in its immediate environment is an important consideration (MolinaMorales, 2005). The territorial environment of firms varies in terms the presence of universities, technology centers, engineering, and consultancy services (Benneworth & Dawley, 2004) which can influence the potential for synergistic interaction (Edquist, 1997;Lundvall, 1992 demonstrated that company ties to service in...

Examining organizational innovations in different regional settings

“…Specifically, the institutional infrastructure in territorial environments (Roig-Tierno et al, 2015) provides a remarkable range of possibilities for collaboration among the agents in the innovation system, to identify, adjust, and adapt knowledge (Castrogiovanni et al, 2012). Additionally, this institutional infrastructure both provides direct services to firms, and acts as an intermediary to strengthen the interaction and collaboration among companies (Inkinen & Suorsa, 2010).…”

Perceived usefulness of innovation programs for high‐tech and low‐tech firms

“…In general, these institutions not only provide direct services but also play an intermediary, linking role between different elements of the system (Howells, 2006; Inkinen and Suorsa, 2010). As Sapsed et al (2007) argue, this intermediary role is a mechanism of dialogue, connection and collaboration among the system elements (Castrogiovanni et al , 2011). Its functions include:transferring applications to the agents of the system;testing, evaluating and validating technologies;adaptation and conversion of knowledge to create new applications; andidentification of knowledge and technology with potential interests for the system.A variety of notions are used to name those that carry out these tasks, such as: brokers (Provan and Human, 1999) bridging institutions (Sapsed et al , 2007), third parties (Mantel and Rosegger, 1987) or bridges (Bessant and Rush, 1995).…”

“…Some research indicates that between 16 percent and 25 percent of the innovative firms are collaborating with universities (Theter, 2002; Un et al , 2010). Castrogiovanni et al (2011) argue that two considerations on the university‐firm relationship must be taken into account. First, the role played by universities is conditioned by the context where they operate.…”

“…As Zhang and Li (2010) point out, the use of these services can vary according to the provider. In the context of internationalization, some service providers can be more useful than others, for example, services offered by the universities (Castrogiovanni et al , 2011).…”

“…In other words, older, larger firms belonging to manufacturing industry, often perceive the highly applicable and absorbable knowledge offered by programs organized by technology centers as more useful. As Castrogiovanni et al (2011) point out, internationalization enhances the opinions of business owners and managers on university programs. As a corollary, one may assert that these three piece of evidence endorse the existence of asymmetries in the perception of usefulness depending on the service provider and the specific characteristics of the firms.…”