Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

1 s2.0 S0048733316000020 Main

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 10

Research Policy 45 (2016) 747–756

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/respol

STI and DUI innovation modes: Scientific-technological and


context-specific nuances
Mario Davide Parrilli a,∗ , Henar Alcalde Heras b
a
Department of Accounting, Finance and Economics, Faculty of Management, Bournemouth University, United Kingdom
b
Orkestra and Deusto Business School, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, we join the debate on business innovation modes that originates from the wider literature
Received 12 April 2014 on innovation systems. These specific contributions identify and study the impact of different innova-
Received in revised form 9 October 2015 tion modes, particularly the mode focused on scientific and technologically-based innovation (STI) vs.
Accepted 5 January 2016
the mode based on learning-by-doing, by-using, and by-interacting (DUI). Echoing the seminal contri-
Available online 23 January 2016
bution by Jensen et al. (2007) and a range of other studies, we confirm the importance of the combined
STI&DUI interaction mode, which has a stronger impact on innovation output (technological and non-
Keywords:
technological) than the two separate individual modes. Additionally, we propose a novel hypothesis on
Innovation modes
STI&DUI
the effectiveness of firm’s interaction modes. We argue that the independent STI mode has a stronger
Technological nuance effect on technological innovation, whereas the independent DUI mode has a stronger impact on non-
Context-specificity technological innovation. In addition, in line with works on the geography of innovation, and innovation
Technological and non-technological systems, we try to determine the impact of regional vs. global DUI and STI interactions on technological
innovation and non-technological innovations. In this case, we expect that in diverse geographic locations, businesses
tend to adopt their own context-specific interaction modes, which produce a differentiated impact on
innovation output. This study is applied to a large sample of firms in the context of the Basque Autonomous
Community in Spain.
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction stronger effect on technological innovation (i.e. product and pro-


cess), whereas the DUI mode tends to have a stronger impact on
In this paper, we join the debate on business innovation modes non-technological innovation (i.e. commercial and organisational).
(i.e., approaches to produce effective innovation outputs) that is In line with the work of Fitjar and Rodriguez-Pose (2013) on the
derived from the wider literature on innovation systems (Lundvall, geography of innovation, we also attempt to determine the context-
1992, 2007; Jensen et al., 2007). These contributions identify specificity of these business interactions and innovation modes and
and study the impact of different innovation modes, particularly their impact on the range of innovation outcomes. Through this
the mode focused on scientific and technology-based innovation analysis, we assess the impact of the proposed technology-based
(STI) vs. the mode based on learning-by-doing, by-using, and by- divide in synergy with the potential effect of cultural, institutional
interacting (DUI). Echoing the seminal contribution by Jensen et al. and social idiosyncrasies on the geographical reach (global vs. local)
(2007) and a range of other studies (Isaksen and Karlsen, 2010; of STI and DUI interaction modes. The latter is justified by the litera-
Aslesen et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2011; Parrilli and Elola, 2012; ture on innovation systems and the so-called “innovation paradox”
Fitjar and Rodriguez-Pose, 2013; Nunes et al., 2013), we analyse from which the debate on STI and DUI modes originates (see next
in particular whether the combined STI&DUI interaction mode section). This study is applied to a large sample of firms in the con-
has a stronger impact on innovation output than the two sep- text of the Basque Autonomous Community in Spain, a small region
arate individual modes. Following this classification, this study that borders France. Basques’ cultural and production distinctive-
proposes a novel hypothesis on the effectiveness of business inno- ness might lead local economic agents to develop a dense set of
vation modes. We argue that the STI interaction mode alone has a thick and significant local interactions. This feature might gener-
ate a context-specific approach to innovation in which the regional
linkages are weighted and developed more than global linkages.
∗ Corresponding author. The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2
E-mail address: dparrilli@bournemouth.ac.uk (M.D. Parrilli). provides a theoretical discussion of the relevance of innovation

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.001
0048-7333/© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
748 M.D. Parrilli, H. Alcalde Heras / Research Policy 45 (2016) 747–756

modes for business innovation. In Section 3, we discuss the method- Coenen, 2006). This knowledge output is typically associated with
ology applied in this study. In Sections 4 and 5, we present the high-technology industries and firms that operate in pharmaceut-
empirical evidence related to both the impact of innovation modes icals, biotechnology, and nanomaterials, among others.
on different types of innovation and the effect of different geo- In contrast, the second approach stresses the importance of
graphical scales on innovation. Finally, Section 6 provides some practice and interaction-based innovation that relies on learning-
concluding remarks and identifies further steps for research. by-doing, by-using, and by-interacting (DUI). Innovation in the firm
is mostly generated by the capacity of the firm to develop informal
and formal exchanges internal to the firm, but also interactions
2. Theoretical rationale and debate with suppliers, customers and competitors (Fitjar and Rodriguez-
Pose, 2013). These practices typically generate a type of synthetic
2.1. Innovation modes and types of innovation knowledge base that is exploited in a large number of engineering-
based industries, such as machine tools, shipbuilding, automotive,
This work on business innovation modes is directly derived and energy, among others. Therefore, different types of interactions
from a strand of literature on the economics of innovation. The are at the base of the STI and DUI modes of innovation.
extensive literature on the economics of innovation takes an aggre- Overall, (firms in) Sweden, Finland, Japan, and the US, among
gated and/or systemic view of business and territorial innovation others, tend to focus on the STI mode, whereas Denmark, Norway,
dynamics. In addition to the relevant macroeconomic strand on Italy, and Spain traditionally tend to follow the DUI route to innova-
new growth theories (Romer, 1994; Aghion et al., 1998; Greunz, tion. Of course, these features are never definitive; they can change
2005), the study of sector/industry classifications and transforma- over time, as indicated by the Swedish case and the Basque case
tions (Pavitt, 1984; Dosi et al., 1990; Perez, 2009), and research (Zabala and Edquist, 2012; Asheim and Parrilli, 2012; Parrilli and
on technological learning and formation of technological capabil- Elola, 2012). Nevertheless, it is crucial to recognise such coun-
ities (Dosi, 1988; Lall, 1998; Bell, 2006), there is the meaningful try/region idiosyncrasies, as this analytical operation may help to
development of a literature on the formation of different types determine whether any of these innovation modes is more suc-
of innovation systems (Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1993; Cooke and cessful than others in specific geographical and cultural contexts
Morgan, 1994; Malerba, 2002). The topic discussed in this paper and whether it is appropriate to identify and take specific routes to
derives precisely from this latter strand of crucial literature on the improve the business innovation pattern developed in a selected
economics of innovation (i.e. innovation systems). In particular, the territory in a specific moment in time.
selected topic refers to the type of knowledge bases and innovation This debate has recently led to another hypothesis. Given the
approach developed by businesses in countries and regions, includ- success of the afore-mentioned national economies (most of which
ing territories that generate significant innovation and economic are among the first 10 in the UN development index, UNDP, 2013)
performance based on relatively small investments in science and the logical and differentiated strengths of these two innovation
and technology (Lundvall, 1992, 2007; Archibugi and Lundvall, modes, some leading scholars anticipated that these “primordial”
2001). modes are not mutually exclusive. They proposed that these modes
This discussion helps to explain the so-called “innovation para- might complement each other in the production of higher out-
dox” (Edquist, 2005; Asheim and Gertler, 2005). The situation of comes in terms of both innovation and economic performance
countries that are capable of generating comparatively higher inno- (Jensen et al., 2007; Isaksen and Karlsen, 2010; Aslesen et al.,
vation and economic output than others based on a given amount 2011). This approach has been successfully tested in the context
of inputs (e.g. R&D expenditure) represents a “positive innova- of Denmark (2007), and Norway (Aslesen et al., 2011; Isaksen and
tion paradox” that at least partially explains the success achieved Karlsen, 2010). With more nuanced results, it has also been tested
by Denmark and Norway over the past few decades. The inabil- in Portugal (Nunes et al., 2013), Belarus (Apanasovich, 2014), and
ity to generate such output based on comparatively higher inputs China (Chen et al., 2011).
represents a “negative innovation paradox” that at least partially Despite the rationality of such an approach, other studies have
describes the case of Sweden for many years (Asheim and Parrilli, been performed that have delivered contradictory outcomes. For
2012). Many countries and regions might find themselves in sim- example, the study of Parrilli and Elola (2012) in the Basque Country
ilar situations, thus justifying the importance of such a debate. and Malaver and Vargas (2013) in Colombia indicate that currently
For example, a positive paradox might be found in the context of the STI mode is more relevant than the DUI mode and that the
Italian industrial districts and the Basque Country from the 1980s combination of the two does not add any particular benefit vis-
until the 2000s (Asheim and Parrilli, 2012). This discussion frames à-vis the adoption of the STI mode alone. This finding is partially
the behaviour of firms within country or regional perspectives – explained by certain features which are required to combine the
and their cultural idiosyncrasies – that should be considered when two approaches effectively, for example the existence of a well-
analysing the business contribution to the innovation output of educated workforce that is capable of interacting effectively with
their regional and/or national economies. scientists and engineers.
On these bases, Jensen et al. (2007) explicitly identified the sci- A further theoretical issue raised in this debate refers to the con-
ence and technology-based innovation mode (STI) that develops a cept of innovation output. Research on business innovation modes
relevant output based on high R&D expenditures, including invest- mainly focused on the technological or R&D-based type of inno-
ments in highly skilled scientific human resources and advanced vation, which implies product and technical process innovation
technologies and infrastructures. The STI innovation mode sup- (Jensen et al., 2007; Chen et al., 2011; Parrilli and Elola, 2012; Fitjar
ports interactions with centres producing new knowledge – mainly and Rodriguez-Pose, 2013). However, this type of analysis has been
research centres and universities, scientific brokers and founda- criticised, suggesting that the ability to produce innovations is more
tions for the diffusion of scientific research – which generate the likely to be based on firm-specific routines and firm-individual
codified and explicit knowledge that can be used by the firm to pro- heuristics (e.g. routines, capabilities, skills and experiences of firms)
duce innovations (Fitjar and Rodriguez-Pose, 2013). This approach instead of single, homogenous R&D-based innovation strategies
tends to generate analytical knowledge (i.e. scientific principles, (Som et al., 2012). Following this literature strand, the latest
discoveries, and formulas) and, to a lesser extent, synthetic knowl- edition of the Oslo Manual of the European Commission and the
edge bases (i.e. recombination of different analytical knowledge OECD, which presents the methodological basis for innovation
bases with a practical, engineering-based purpose; see Asheim and studies such as the European Community Innovation Survey (CIS),
M.D. Parrilli, H. Alcalde Heras / Research Policy 45 (2016) 747–756 749

follows an enlarged definition of innovation. It considers that, DUI linkages matter only slightly, whereas the global DUI linkages
besides new products, services or production methods, markets are the most important. The latter are even more important than
or new sources of supply and new types of organisation struc- both types of STI linkages. It is an interesting and challenging result
tures can be interpreted as innovations if they help to increase that modifies previous approaches and assessments of the critical
competitiveness and economic performance. According to this agents for innovation. Consistent with previous theoretical con-
view, innovations can be classified as ‘technological’ when they tributions (Gertler, 2003; Bathelt et al., 2004; Parrilli, 2012), this
refer to new products or manufacturing processes, and ‘non- research demonstrates the importance of tacit knowledge sources
technological’ when they refer to marketing and organisational aside from the well-known criticality of global codified knowledge
innovations. This technical classification is important for our dis- sources.
cussion, as non-technological innovation forms are more likely Local and global types of interaction exhibit advantages and lim-
to require a lower level of scientific and technological focus and itations. The decision about which linkages are most important is
expenditure. These “softer’ innovation forms are likely to rely on not a straightforward issue but instead a topic that should be ana-
different types of human capital, such as skilled production or lysed and tested empirically in several geographical contexts. Both
human resource managers, marketing experts, and well-connected types of collaboration present relevant advantages, although differ-
distributors, among others. Following the initial definition of Jensen entiated. Local partnerships favour exchanges of tacit knowledge,2
et al. (2007:13), these innovations are more likely to rely on the DUI in addition to helping to reduce lead/delivery times and transaction
mode. costs due to physical, cultural/social, and institutional proximity
If this is true, we might expect a different impact from the (Malmberg and Maskell, 2002). Other external economies are mea-
two types of innovation modes on innovation output depending sured in terms of information flows and the presence of skilled
on whether we consider product and process vis-à-vis organisa- human resources, especially in the context of clusters of spe-
tional and commercial outcomes. This might also help in explaining cialised firms (Schmitz, 1995). However, physical proximity and
the aforementioned ‘innovation paradox’, as those countries that local/regional partners might favour knowledge lock-ins, which
do not invest significantly in R&D might be investing more in also restrict the learning capacity of local businesses (Boschma,
activities oriented to the generation of non-technological innova- 2005; Fitjar and Rodriguez-Pose, 2013; Alcalde, 2014). Collabora-
tion. Beyond the hypothesis that the combined STI&DUI interaction tion with foreign partners may particularly favour access to distant
mode is likely to have the highest impact on all types of inno- codified knowledge (Bathelt et al., 2004) and promote flexible work
vation output, two additional hypotheses are proposed regarding models as long as firms are able to gain access to diverse exter-
the two individual innovation modes. In technological innova- nal knowledge pools, new culture, and new markets (Chung and
tion, we expect the STI interaction mode to have a stronger Kim, 2003), which in turn increase the likelihood of innovating and
impact, whereas for non-technological innovation, we expect accessing new global markets (Venkataraman, 1997; Amara and
the DUI mode to produce a more relevant effect. The empiri- Landry, 2005). Simultaneously, such relationships are likely to lead
cal test of such hypotheses provides new knowledge within this to an increase in transaction costs as well as to stronger manage-
debate. ment control as a means to avoid critical knowledge spillovers that
benefit external firms and competitors (Laursen and Salter, 2006).
Hypothesis 1. The combined STI + DUI mode of interaction is likely
These synthetic arguments lead us to query about the impact of
to generate the greatest impact on all types of innovation output
regional vs. global collaboration for effective innovation processes.
vis-à-vis the individual interaction modes.
This impact is tested in the present work, with a particular empha-
Hypothesis 2. The STI mode of interaction is likely to have greater sis on a wide range of innovation outputs (both technological and
impact (than the DUI mode) on technological innovation (product non-technological) as well as to the novelty of such outcomes (i.e.
and process). radical innovation).
Additional issues may be considered aside from these crucial
Hypothesis 3. The DUI mode of interaction is likely to have greater considerations of innovation modes over geographical distances.
impact (than the STI mode) on non-technological innovation (com- The results generated by the Norwegian study (Fitjar and
mercial and organisational). Rodriguez-Pose, 2013) may also depend on some context-specific
idiosyncrasies. Together with former cultural and/or institutional
2.2. The context-specificity of innovation modes interpretations of innovations system’s paradoxes (Edquist, 2005;
Asheim and Gertler, 2005), this work leads to a further complemen-
Some scholars have applied this debate to the geographical tary hypothesis that we discuss here. Some countries and regions
localisation of the innovation agents with which businesses inter- might find themselves localised in quite integrated international
act and collaborate. Fitjar and Rodriguez-Pose (2013) have analysed geographical contexts in terms of cultural and social linkages, and
whether these different innovation modes, taken separately, gen- institutional and cognitive frameworks. This might facilitate collab-
erate distinct innovation capacities and outcomes.1 In particular, orations and synergies between production and innovation agents
they focus on the dichotomy between regional and global relation- across (global) distance. Other countries and regions might be
ships within the supply chain (i.e. with clients and suppliers) and localised in less integrated contexts, which lead to higher cogni-
outside the supply chain (i.e., competitors) – both DUI – and com- tive, institutional, social, and cultural distances that lead the way
pare these relationships with the STI type of relations developed to more difficult exchanges and cooperation across borders. This
on the regional and global scales. Their results indicate that the may lead to a different weight and reliance on regional vs. global
DUI linkages diverge sharply across regional and global distances, relations, which become context-specific. The first situation might
whereas the STI linkages matter in a similar positive way. The local

1 2
We also attempted to combine STI and DUI collaborations on a geographical The reality can be more nuanced. Local collaborations can also bring in codi-
scale, but this analysis was generating an excessive number of combinations (three fied knowledge flows, whilst global interactions can convey tacit knowledge inputs.
types of innovation mode with two types of collaborations with two types of geo- However, in general it is not unreasonable to think that tacit knowledge needs phys-
graphical scale: 12 different combinations). For simplicity, we preferred to consider ical proximity (Malmberg and Maskell, 2002), thus occurs typically in exchanges
only six combinations, including the three types of collaborations multiplied by the across local agents, whereas codified knowledge needs less physical proximity, thus
two types of geographical scale. can be transferred very often at a distance, e.g. through intense use of ICT systems.
750 M.D. Parrilli, H. Alcalde Heras / Research Policy 45 (2016) 747–756

be the case of Norway, which is highly integrated with other Scan- Manual to distinguish between two different types of innovations
dinavian countries, such as Denmark, Sweden, and Finland. In this according to its technological dimension:
case, the cultural/social, institutional, and cognitive proximity, in
addition to excellent infrastructural assets and synergies, ease the - Technological innovation. Technological innovation indicates
development of effective global DUI and STI linkages (as it seems to whether the firm has introduced product innovation (good or
emerge from Fitjar and Rodriguez-Pose study in Norway). In other service that is new or significantly improved with respect to its
geographical contexts, where cognitive, social and institutional characteristics or intended uses) or process innovation (which
proximities and synergies with other countries and regions are less involves the implementation of a new or significantly improved
automatic, the global (DUI and STI) exchanges might become less production or delivery method, new techniques, equipment,
effective, whereas more effective innovation relationships might be and/or software).
activated through regional interactions. This situation may occur in - Non-technological innovation. Non-technological innovation
regions and countries that find themselves more inward-oriented refers to firms which developed commercial innovations (i.e.
for cultural and historic reasons, as in the case of the Basque Coun- implementation of a new marketing method involving significant
try, among others. changes in product design or packaging, product placement,
Hypothesis 4. In more bounded, context-specific geographical product promotion, or pricing) or organisational innovation
location, i.e. the Basque Country, businesses adopt stronger local (i.e. implementation of a new organisational method in a firm’s
patterns of interaction for innovation, which are likely to have an business practices).
impact on innovation outputs.
Thus, we considered two dichotomous variables to gauge each
This dichotomist behaviour across different countries and innovation outcome during the period of reference. In addition, we
regions might be less neat in practice, since different behaviours wanted to measure the effect of the innovation modes on the “radi-
are at work simultaneously in any specific context. In addition, cality” of innovation.3 In this manner, we may have some additional
this hypothesis does not imply restricting oneself to the current indications regarding the business capacity to introduce effective
regime (e.g. effective regional exchanges) is the optimal solution. novelties in the product market (Christensen, 1993).
In the long run, it might be critical to modify the traditional form
of developing collaborations as a means to create new innovation
capabilities. However, these context-specificities might explain - Radical innovations refer to new or significantly improved prod-
why a selected regional or national production system is cur- ucts (goods or services) introduced in each year, which represent
rently more oriented towards effective innovation processes at the a novelty not only for the company but also for the market in
regional level vis-à-vis the global. We test this hypothesis in this which the firm operates.
empirical work.
3.2.2. Independent variables
The BIS is limited in terms of the internal innovation features
3. Methodology
(e.g. use of teamwork, bottom-up communications, R&D depart-
ments), but collects information on the types of collaboration that
3.1. Sample and data
we might associate with the STI or DUI innovation mode. As posited
before, different types of interactions are at the base of the STI
The source of the empirical analysis is the Community Innova-
and DUI modes of innovation. Thus STI and DUI-modes of inno-
tion Survey (CIS). This is a firm-level panel of data compiled by
vation are linked to different forms of interaction both within the
EUSTAT (Basque Institute of Statistics) from 2006 to 2011 and sam-
firm and with its external environment (Jensen et al., 2007; Chen
pled to be representative at the regional level (Eurostat, 2006). The
et al., 2011; Fitjar and Rodriguez-Pose, 2013). For the characteris-
data are generated by a self-administered survey questionnaire
tics of our database, we rely on the latter type of information (i.e.
based on the homogenised and thoroughly tested European CIS.
types of collaboration) to address our concern about the utilisa-
CIS data are used for generating official innovation statistics of the
tion and effectiveness of different business innovation modes. The
EU and its member countries that have been used extensively for
BIS allows us to control for different collaborator profiles accord-
analysis in economics (Cassiman and Veugelers, 2002; Cefis and
ing to their nature. The independent variables are built around
Marsili, 2006; Czarnitzki, 2005; Hollanders et al., 2009), in man-
three different types of partnerships: the “STI.Exclusive” mode of
agement studies (Laursen and Salter, 2006; Frenz and Ietto-Gillies,
cooperation (the firm only collaborates with science-based part-
2009; Schmiedeberg, 2008), and in economic geography (Simmie,
ners: universities, research centres, and scientific laboratories), the
2004; Ebersberger et al., 2011). Participation in the Basque Country
“DUI.Exclusive” mode of cooperation (the firm only collaborates
Innovation Survey (BIS) is compulsory for sampled firms, and non-
with clients, competitors, and suppliers), and the STI&DUI mode of
respondents are fined. This results in a comparatively large dataset
cooperation (including both types of cooperation simultaneously).4
that is not plagued by a non-response bias. The data refer to activ-
These variables take the value of 1 if the firm has collaborated with
ities conducted during the six-year reference period from 2006 to
this type of partner within each period and 0 otherwise. These
2011. The panel contains 3165 firms that incurred in R&D expend-
mutually exclusive variables avoid potential problems of multi-
itures. We include innovating and non-innovating businesses to
collinearity and capture the impact of each partner more clearly by
avoid biased results (Tether, 2002; Cassiman and Veugelers, 2002).
separating it from the effects attributable to other partner types in
heterogeneous networks (Nieto and Santamaría, 2007; Alcalde and
3.2. Measures Guerrero, 2014). Regarding the fourth hypothesis, we distinguish

3.2.1. Dependent variables


According to other critical studies (Christensen, 1993; OECD,
3
2006), this study presents a categorisation of innovation perfor- Due to data limitations, radical innovation captures product innovation novel-
ties. The Basque BIS does not measure any other type of radical innovation.
mance according to the mission of the final outcome. To test the 4
Other possible partners are excluded as their nature is mixed and does not help
hypotheses that different modes of innovation result in different in clearly separating the different impacts of STI and DUI innovation/collaboration
types of innovation, we rely on the latest (3rd) edition of the Oslo modes (e.g. consultants, public institutes).
M.D. Parrilli, H. Alcalde Heras / Research Policy 45 (2016) 747–756 751

Table 1 4. The impact of STI and DUI interaction modes on the


Descriptive statistics: innovation modes and outputs in 2006–2011.
types of innovation
Variable Obs. Mean Std. Dev. Min. Max.

Inno.tech 18,990 0.32 0.47 0.00 1.00 4.1. Descriptive statistics


Inno. Non-tech 18,990 0.27 0.44 0.00 1.00
Inno. Radical 18,990 0.10 0.30 0.00 1.00 Tables 1 and 2 refer to the whole sample over a period of six
STI.Exclusive 18,990 0.03 0.17 0.00 1.00 years. These general statistics show that “technological innova-
DUI.Exclusive 18,990 0.01 0.11 0.00 1.00
tions’ tend to happen more often than any other types of innovation
STI&DUI 18,990 0.06 0.23 0.00 1.00
DUI Regional 18,990 0.06 0.24 0.00 1.00 (32%). Radical innovations, which are part of the former, only rep-
DUI Global 18,990 0.05 0.23 0.00 1.00 resent 10%, while “non-technological innovations” are produced by
STI Regional 18,990 0.07 0.27 0.00 1.00 around 27% of the sampled firms. Firms that combine STI&DUI type
STI Global 18,990 0.04 0.22 0.00 1.00
of interactions are the most common firms (6%) except those which
R&D expen. 18,990 0.30 15.28 0.00 1920.00
Size 18,990 2.91 1.59 0.00 8.26 do not (appear to) adopt any type of (formal) collaboration.
International market 18,990 0.25 0.43 0.00 1.00 Table 3 shows the most typical business innovation patterns
Group Nationality 18,990 0.40 0.67 0.00 2.00 in 2011. The first indication is about the type of innovation per-
Source: Own elaboration on the basis of Eustat (BIS, 2011). formed by businesses. As in the more general statistics (Table 1,
2006–2011), also in this case most firms produce technological
types of innovation (31.8%), of which radical innovations represent
between regional and global5 cooperation across the following cat- again around 10%. Non-technological innovations are produced by
egories: the STI mode of cooperation (includes interactions with 25.2% of the firms. A wide number of firms seem not to produce any
universities, research centres, and scientific laboratories), the DUI type of innovation (43% or more). In terms of the interaction modes
mode of cooperation (related to interactions with clients, suppli- adopted by firms, the STI&DUI is the most relevant mode for all
ers, and competitors). Therefore, we added 4 independent dummy types of innovation (23.7% for technological innovation, with 34.3%
variables in the analysis. These variables take the value of 1 if the for radical innovation, and 24.9% for non-technological innovation).
firm has collaborated with this type of partner within each period STI.EXCLUSIVE and DUI.EXCLUSIVE achieve significantly lower lev-
and 0 otherwise. els with DUI.EXCLUSIVE ranking quite higher than STI.EXCLUSIVE.
To test the effect of cooperation variables on innovation, we use In all these cases, it is visible a larger number of firms that do
lagged variables (2 periods) to allow for the delay between the start not adopt any of the afore-mentioned types of interaction. This is
of the collaboration and obtaining effective innovations. because they tend to focus on less interactive modes of innovation,
while stressing their internal capacities such as R&D departments,
scientific human capital or more experience-based features (e.g.
3.2.3. Control variables
teamwork, bottom-up and top-down communications, job rota-
As it is typical in firm-level analyses, the model controls for a
tion, etc.).
set of factors that are likely to relate both to innovation and the use
This descriptive analysis is useful to understand what kind of
of partners. These include firm “SIZE” (measured as the logarithm
interaction modes firms tend to use. However, these data do not
of net sales), “INTERNATIONAL MARKET” (which controls for the
give us any strictly significant correlation between these modes and
firms’ capacity to operate in international markets and to absorb
the final innovation output. For this we need to run a proper econo-
new sources of knowledge as a means to become more innova-
metric analysis, which is presented in the following sub-section.
tive; see Filippetti et al., 2011), and a categorical variable (“GROUP
Thus, in connection with our first general hypothesis, we tested
NATIONALITY”) coded 0 if it is a single-unit firm, coded 1 if an
the effective impact of these innovation modes on innovation per-
enterprise is part of a national business group, and coded 2 if an
formance, with special reference to our first, second, and third
enterprise is part of a multinational business group. The last vari-
hypotheses. This evidence helps to discriminate between those col-
ables (“INTERNATIONAL MARKET” and “GROUP NATIONALITY”)
laboration modes that have a more significant impact and those
control for the “global” dimension of these firms. More specifi-
that have a negligible or uncertain impact.
cally we control for the capacity to identify and absorb external
knowledge according to the connection with international mar-
kets and foreign production based on belonging to a foreign-owned 4.2. Econometric results
company.
We include a measure of R&D intensity (RDEXPEN), measured We used a logit model because the dependent variables are
as firm R&D expenditure divided by firm sales, used as a proxy for a dichotomous categorical variables, which express the ability of the
firm’s technology base derived from current and past R&D activities firm to achieve different types of innovation. According to database
(Ahuja and Katila, 2001; Laursen and Salter, 2006). This variable properties we adapt logit model to panel characteristics following
captures the notion of absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, this assumptions:
1990) in so far as firms that conduct their own R&D are better Pr(yit =
/ 0|xit ) = P(xit ˇ + i )
able to use externally available resources. Finally, we also include
controls for the firm sector (a set of dummy variables referring to for i = 1, . . ., n panels, where t = 1, . . ., ni , i are i.i.d., N(0, v2 ), and
two-digit NACE codes) and six-year variables (from 2006 to 2011). P(z) = {1 + exp(−z)}−1 .
Tables 1 and 2 report the descriptive statistics for the whole period Underlying this model is the variance components model
2006–2011.
yit =
/ 0 ⇔ xit ˇ + i + εit > 0

where εit are i.i.d. logistic distributed with mean zero and variance
5
Based on the available database, we differentiate between ‘regional’ collabora- ε2 = 2 /3, independently of i .
tions and ‘global’ collaborations, where the second include both collaborations with Specifically, we fit logistic regression models for each type of
other regions in Spain and abroad. This is consistent with our hypothesis that in the
Basque case there is a higher emphasis on regional collaborations, whereas the other
innovation outcome (e.g. technological, non-technological) and the
geographical collaborations represent a different option that can be pulled together degree of novelty (radical). Table 4 presents the results of this
as a distinct approach to innovation collaborations. analysis.
752 M.D. Parrilli, H. Alcalde Heras / Research Policy 45 (2016) 747–756

Table 2
Correlation matrix.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Inno.tech 1.00
Inno. Non-tech 0.48 1,00
Inno. Radical 0,48 0.34 1,00
STI.Exclusive 0,20 0.14 0,14 1,00
DUI.Exclusive 0.14 0.10 0.08 −0.02 1.00
STI&DUI 0.33 0.30 0.36 −0.04 −0.03 1.00
R&D expen. 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.00
Size 0.30 0.26 0.19 0.14 0.08 0.23 0.00 1.00
International market 0.24 0.17 0.2 0.11 0.07 0.18 0.00 0.29 1.00
Group Nationality 0.10 0.12 0.12 0.03 0.06 0.11 0.01 0.25 0.006 1.00
DUI Regional 0.34 0.30 0.33 – – – 0.00 0.23 0.18 0.08 1.00
DUI Global 0.33 0.28 0.35 – – – 0.00 0.23 0.17 0.07 0.77 1.00
STI Regional 0.36 0.30 0.35 – – – 0.01 0.26 0.20 0.09 0.59 0.66 1.00
STI Global 0.30 0.27 0.32 – – – 0.00 0.22 0.15 0.06 0.67 0.58 0.59 1.00

Source: Own elaboration on the basis of Eustat (BIS, 2011).

Table 3
Percentage and number of firms adopting modes of interaction and innovation types in 2011.

Inno.tech Inno.non-tech Radical innovation Number of firms % Over total


number of
firms

STI.Exclusive 6.23% (70) 4.82% (43) 9.77% (34) 87 2.46


DUI.Exclusive 14.60% (164) 15.68% (140) 21.84% (76) 185 5.23
STI&DUI 23.69% (266) 24.86% (222) 35.34% (123) 276 7.81
Number of firms 1123 893 348
% Over total number of firms 31.76 25.25 9.84

Total number of firms in 2011: 3536

Source: Own elaboration on the basis of Eustat (BIS, 2011).

Table 4
Impact of interaction modes on innovation output I.

Dependent variable Inno.tech Inno.non-tech Radical innovation

Independent variables Coefficient S.E. Coefficient S.E. Coefficient S.E.

STI.exclusive 3.98*** 0,56 2.27*** 0.47 2.23*** 0.38


DUI.exclusive 3.52*** 0.74 3.32*** 0.71 1.14*** 0.59
STI&DUI 4.16*** 0.43 3.70*** 0.41 3.27*** 0.33
R&D expen. 0.03** 0.01 −0.01 0.03 0.01** 0.02
Size 1.05*** 0.08 0.89*** 0.07 0.47*** 0.08
International market 0.98*** 0.22 0.66*** 0.21 0.62*** 0.20
Group nationality
– National 0.14 0.25 0.13 0.24 −0.03 0.24
– Foreign 0.31 0.37 −0.22 0.36 0.02 0.38
Sector Yes Yes Yes
Year Yes Yes Yes
No. of obs 5401 5401 5401
No. of groups 3164 3164 3164
Log likelihood −2477.73 −2344.84 −1362.37
Chi-square 461.3 326.42 184.53

Note: Level of statistical significance: *** p ≤ .01, ** p ≤ .05, * p ≤ .10.

The regression analysis provides a number of insightful results. is significantly correlated, although with a considerably lower coef-
In particular, technological and non-technological innovations are ficient than the combined mode and the DUI exclusive mode. This
strongly and positively correlated with the adoption of the com- preliminary result shows the relevance of STI type of interactions
bined STI&DUI interaction mode. This represents a result that is for technological innovation in which the provision of explicit
consistent with previous seminal and empirical studies conducted knowledge flows based on R&D activities are crucial means to
in Denmark (Jensen et al., 2007), Norway (Aslesen et al., 2011; develop such innovative capacities (e.g. joint R&D projects for new
Isaksen and Karlsen, 2010), Sweden (Isaksen and Nilsson, 2013), pharmaceutical or chemical products). STI drivers also matter –
and, in a more nuanced form, Portugal (Nunes et al., 2013), China though to a lesser extent – in non-technological innovation by pro-
(Chen et al., 2011), and Belarus (Apanasovich, 2014). viding a codified and systematic knowledge basis that serves the
Regarding our second and third hypotheses, we divided purpose of structuring a more comprehensive strategic approach
the evidence between technological and non-technological to organisational and commercial innovation. The DUI innovation
types of innovation. The individual STI interaction mode is mode is also significantly and positively correlated with both tech-
significantly correlated with technological innovation, in which it nological and non-technological innovation. In the first case, its
presents similar parameters to the combined STI&DUI approach. In parameter is significantly lower than both the STI&DUI and the STI
relation to non-technological innovations, the individual STI mode exclusive parameters. In the second case, it shows a slightly lower
M.D. Parrilli, H. Alcalde Heras / Research Policy 45 (2016) 747–756 753

Table 5 Table 6
Percentage of firms that adopt regional vs. global DUI type of interaction. Percentage of firms that adopt a regional vs. global STI type of interaction.

% DUI regional % DUI global % STI regional % STI global

2006 6.10 4.84 2006 8.16 4.97


2007 5.73 5.07 2007 7.59 4.50
2008 5.54 5.31 2008 6.71 4.30
2009 5.36 4.69 2009 6.54 4.56
2010 6.22 5.29 2010 7.66 4.36
2011 8.51 7.27 2011 9.47 6.62

Source: own elaboration on the basis of Eustat (BIS, 2011). Source: own elaboration on the basis of Eustat (BIS, 2011).

level than the combined mode STI&DUI and it is higher than the STI relationships. Despite the growing trend in all aspects, these data
exclusive interaction mode. also indicate that the vast majority of firms (approximately 85%)
Overall, our second and third hypotheses are well supported as do not use such relations in a significant way (consistent with the
the DUI mode is very relevant (more than the STI mode) in the data in Table 1).
context of non-technological innovation. This is justified by the Table 6 presents the graded importance of STI relationships
important learning processes that are activated through practice between the regional and global scales. The descriptive data illus-
and across-the-board interactions inside and outside the supply trate that the regional type of linkages was and is still more
chain for organisational and commercial innovations (e.g. speed- developed than the global type. Both are increasing, and the rela-
ing up delivery times, or adapting sale strategies to personalised tionship between the two is becoming more balanced (from a ratio
customer demand). of approximately 60% to a ratio of 70%). However, a better balance is
Another perspective is added when considering radical inno- yet to be found with the wider group of firms (again approximately
vation. The STI&DUI collaboration mode is highly correlated with 84%) that do not realise the importance of either the first or second
radical innovation insofar as both the STI individual mode and the geographical scale of STI activities.
DUI mode also are. However, the combined mode displays a sig- The descriptive statistics displayed in Table 7 demonstrate the
nificantly higher parameter than both individual modes, whereas prevalence of both STI and DUI-regional collaborations for all types
the STI mode parameter is significantly higher than the DUI mode of innovations: technological, non-technological, and radical. STI-
parameter (see Annex 1 which confirms the different effect on regional relationships are even more widespread than DUI-regional
radical innovation). These results are expected because radical collaborations in all innovation types, and in technological and
innovation is centred on product innovation, and the STI factors are radical innovation to the highest extent. With a significant gap,
more likely to take the lead in this case. For instance, scientists are global-STI and global-DUI collaborations are applied by businesses.
typically more inclined than suppliers or clients to study radically In general, DUI-global interactions reach a higher (percentage)
novel product combinations. Notwithstanding this evidence, the value vis-à-vis STI-global collaborations.
DUI factors also matter here as tacit knowledge, for instance when This preliminary descriptive outcome is in line with the pro-
supply and non-supply chain-based interactions provide insights posed hypothesis of a possible geographical, context-specific
that help re-arranging former product configurations (e.g. tablets nuance. In a rather geographically-circumscribed region such as the
and smartphones were done not only in R&D departments, but Basque Country, in which relationships with other national or inter-
also benefiting from important collaborations and feedbacks from national partners face some historic and political constraint, local
end-users). relationships of collaboration are highly developed, with the hope
When looking at control variables it is interesting to stress that that they help producing both technological and non-technological
the “globalised” dimension captured by “INTERNATIONAL MAR- innovations. However, we need to undergo a confirmatory econo-
KET” is highly significant across the three models. This result metric analysis as a means to verify our fourth hypothesis and
confirms the relevance of the connection with international mar- provide more evidence to the ‘context-specific nuance’ on business
kets firms’ to reinforce the capacity to identify and absorb external innovation.
knowledge as a means to become more innovative (Filippetti et al.,
2011). However, “GROUP NATIONALITY” is not a significant variable 5.2. Econometric results
across the different models; it confirms the importance of having
international market connections rather than the mere ownership The econometric analysis helps discussing our preliminary
nature. evidence in a more robust form (Table 8). Regarding both techno-
logical and radical innovations, the STI-regional interactions show
5. The relevance of geographical, context-specific linkages the highest significance level and coefficient. STI-global and DUI-
for innovation global collaboration are also quite significant, although present
lower coefficients vis-à-vis the former type of collaboration. DUI-
5.1. Descriptive statistics regional collaborations seem not to matter at all. Also the control
variables ‘size’ and ‘international markets’ are significant. In non-
In the following section, a geographical application is developed technological innovation, the DUI-global collaborations as well as
to understand what types of geographical relationships (regional the STI-regional collaborations count, whereas both DUI-regional
vs. global) are more typically used and developed by firms. This collaborations and STI-global collaborations do not. “Size”, “inter-
analysis follows the approach taken by Fitjar and Rodriguez-Pose national market” and belonging to a business group’ also exercise
(2013) in search of effective geographical patterns of collabora- a significant impact on non-technological innovation.
tion. In addition, this application enables us to deliver a preliminary This evidence is in line with the former study of Fitjar and
response to our fourth hypothesis, i.e., whether different geograph- Rodriguez-Pose (2013) that indicated that global-DUI collabo-
ical locations lead firms to adopt own patterns of collaboration that rations and then regional-STI and global-STI are relevant for
lead to varied impacts on innovation outputs. technological innovations, while DUI-regional are not. In our case,
Table 5 illustrates that within the DUI type of relationships, a peculiar difference refers to the pre-eminence of STI-regional
regional relationships are more developed than global-based DUI collaborations over the other two types, which seems to be in
754 M.D. Parrilli, H. Alcalde Heras / Research Policy 45 (2016) 747–756

Table 7
Percentage and number of firms adopting modes of interaction and innovation types in 2011.

Inno.tech Inno.non-tech Radical innovation Number of firms % Over total number of firms

DUI regional 24.93% (280) 26.76% (239) 34.77% (121) 301 8.51
DUI global 22.08% (248) 23.29% (208) 29.60% (103) 257 7.27
STI regional 27.52% (309) 27.21% (243) 41.09% (143) 335 9.47
STI global 19.41% (218) 20.38% (182) 28.74% (100) 234 6.62
Number of firms 1123 893 348
% Over total number of firms 31.76 25.25 9.84

Source: own elaboration on the basis of Eustat (BIS, 2011).


Total number of firms in 2011: 3536.

Table 8
Impact of interaction modes on innovation output II.

Dependent variable Inno.tech Inno.non-tech radical innovation

Independent variables Coefficient S.E. Coefficient S.E. Coefficient S.E.

DUI Regional 0.23 0.27 -0.23 0.28 0.09 0.3


DUI Global 1.82*** 0.55 1.88*** 0.52 1.30*** 0.4
STI Regional 2.58*** 0.46 1.82*** 0.43 1.61*** 0.32
STI Global 1.70*** 0.58 0.70 0.52 1.05*** 0.41
R&D expen. 0.01** 0.01 -0.01 0.03 0.01** 0.24
Size 1.08*** 0.08 0.93*** 0.07 0.46*** 0.07
International market 1.02*** 0.22 0.70*** 0.21 0.62*** 0.20
Group Nationality
– National 0.15 0.25 0.13 0.24 −0.08 0.23
– Foreign 0.30 0.38 −0.23 0.37 0.09 0.37
Sector Yes Yes Yes
Year Yes Yes Yes
No. of obs 5401 5401 5401
No. of groups 3164 3164 3164
Log likelihood −2483.30 −2356.29 −1365.11
Chi-square 432.75 340.71 192.71

Note: Level of statistical significance: *** p ≤ .01, ** p ≤ .05, * p ≤ .10.

Table 9
Association between innovation modes and innovation outputs.

STI interaction DUI interaction STI&DUI DUI Regional DUI Global STI Regional STI Global
interaction interaction interaction interaction interaction

Technological innovation ++ + +++ = ++ +++ +


Radical innovation ++ + +++ = ++ +++ +
Non-technological innovation + ++ +++ = +++ ++ =

Source: Table 9 is elaborated according to the results obtained in Tables 4 and 8.


Note: This table is made on the basis of two criteria: significance, and parameter levels. Three ‘pluses’ for the significant and highest positive parameter; two ‘pluses’ for the
significant intermediate positive coefficient; one ‘plus’ for the significant lowest positive parameter; ‘=’ if it is not significant at all.

line with the region-specific importance attributed to regional col- Regarding control variables it is interesting to stress that the
laborations for innovation (in accordance with our hypothesis). “globalised” dimension captured by “INTERNATIONAL MARKET” is
DUI-regional collaborations do not matter as, in technological inno- highly significant across the three models. This result confirms the
vation, the codified knowledge base is a conditio-sine-qua-non to relevance of the connection with international markets firms’ to
introduce effective innovations. The control variables “size” and reinforce the capacity to identify and absorb external knowledge
“international market” are significant, which might be explained as a means to become more innovative (Filippetti et al., 2011).
with the importance to produce and trade in international markets Moreover, it is consistent with the significance of “DUI GLOBAL”
to be able to absorb relevant knowledge that is later transformed collaborations across the different models, stressing the relevance
in innovative products and processes (Filippetti et al., 2011). of interactions with global market agents (clients, suppliers, and
In the context of non-technological innovation, STI-regional col- competitors). Instead, “GROUP NATIONALITY” is not a significant
laborations count as much as DUI-global collaborations. In this variable across the different models; this outcome confirms the
respect, our study delivers similar results to Fitjar and Rodriguez- importance of having international market connections rather than
Pose, although also in this case STI-regional collaborations are having a multinational ownership nature.
comparatively more important than in the above-mentioned study
based on Norway. This evidence remarks the importance of the 6. Concluding remarks
“technological nuance” discussed in the previous part of this study,
while at the same time delivers some nuanced – yet positive – This paper is framed within the specific debate on the innovation
evidence about the higher importance of certain types of regional modes applied by businesses that is a sub-strand of the literature
interactions (STI) than in the Norwegian case. To a certain extent, on innovation systems (Lundvall, 1992, 2007; Jensen et al., 2007;
this result provides graded evidence about our fourth hypothesis. Isaksen and Karlsen, 2010; Aslesen et al., 2011; Parrilli and Elola,
It represents a good insight to promote a round of new studies on 2012; Isaksen and Nilsson, 2013; Fitjar and Rodriguez-Pose, 2013;
the importance of geographical proximity and the related cultural González et al., 2015). Over the past few years, several issues and
idiosyncrasies for business and regional innovation prospects. research questions have been addressed, and additional questions
M.D. Parrilli, H. Alcalde Heras / Research Policy 45 (2016) 747–756 755

have risen. This work attempts to respond to some of these ques- factors) in technological and radical innovation, whereas it matters
tions. In particular, we worked on the issue of whether different more for non-technological innovation. And it is inadequate when
interaction modes are associated with specific innovation outputs, it is bounded to the regional environment (DUI-regional). These
finding a meaningful association (see synthetic results in Table 9). results may help in designing more effective innovation promo-
Our first hypothesis (STI&DUI is the most important interaction tion programmes that do aim at obtaining feasible results, and that
mode) is generally proven and confirms other studies that realised stress the importance – in a geographically and culturally-specific
the relevance of different and combined innovation modes (Jensen context – to focus on interactions that imply a codified knowledge
et al., 2007; Aslesen et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2011; Isaksen and basis as a conditio-sine-qua-non for the effective generation of both
Karlsen, 2012; Isaksen and Nilsson, 2013; Apanasovich, 2014). In technological and non-technological innovations.
this work, we focused on STI and DUI interactions/collaborations,
thus neglecting internal business organisation. On this basis, this
Acknowledgments
study adds value in the literature on innovation modes by stressing
the importance of inter-firm and inter-organisation relationships.
The authors thank the Provincial Government of Biscay for
In particular, the combined STI&DUI mode is the most beneficial in
supporting a wider project on business innovation from which
all types of innovation, including technological, radical and non-
this academic output originates. In addition, the authors acknowl-
technological innovation. Our second and third hypotheses are
edge the precious comments received by José Luis Hervás-Oliver,
more original, arguing that the STI mode is more related to techno-
Christina Chaminade and Rune Dahl-Fitjar, as well as by the anony-
logical innovation, whereas the DUI mode is more connected with
mous referees of this journal. The authors bear full responsibility
non-technological innovations. These hypotheses are accepted in
for the limitations that this work entails.
our study, which sheds further light on the ‘technological nuance’
that we hypothesise in this work.
Our fourth hypothesis relies on the geographical application of Annex 1. T-test significance STI. Exclusive and DUI.
the innovation mode debate with a special focus on the poten- Exclusive on radical innovation.
tial effect of cultural, social and institutional idiosyncrasies (the
‘context-specific nuance’) that may justify the differentiated appli- Variables Inno.radical
cation and impact of innovation and interaction modes across Obs. Mean S.E. S.D. C.I. (95%)
different countries and regions. This is also in line with the posi-
STI.Exclusive 1052 0.10 0.01 0.31 0.09 0.12
tive ‘innovation paradox’ argument for countries and regions that
DUI.Exclusive 1052 0.03 0.00 0.17 0.02 0.04
are able to reap good innovation outputs thanks to thick regional Difference 1052 0.07 0.01 0.36 0.05 0.09
collaborations. In this case, we obtain nuanced, yet positive evi- t-Test mean(diff) = mean(STI.Exclusive − DUI.Exclusive)
dence. We hypothesised a stronger pattern of ‘regional’ STI and DUI t = 6,63
collaborations for innovation output in the Basque context (vis- Pr(|T| > |t|) = 0.0001

à-vis more internationally integrated contexts, such as Norway), Note: Level of statistical significance: ***p ≤ 0.01, **p ≤ 0.05, *p ≤ 0.10.

and we observed a strong impact of regional STI linkages on both


technological and non-technological innovations, but a very poor References
impact of regional DUI linkages on any type of innovation. As a
result, the regionalisation of innovation dynamics works well for Ahuja, G., Katila, R., 2001. Technological acquisitions and the innovation
most innovation outputs in this specific region provided that it performance of acquiring firms: a longitudinal study. Strat. Manage. J. 22,
197–220.
includes important codified knowledge bases (STI). More experi- Aghion, P., Howitt, P., García Peñalosa, C., 1998. Endogenous Growth Theory. MIT
ential and supply-chain-based knowledge is not enough to help Press.
generating substantial innovations. All in all, this could denote that Alcalde, H., 2014. Collaboration patterns and product innovation in the Basque
Country. Does a firm’s nationality matter? J. Entrepren. Manage. Innov. 10 (3),
context-specificities are important, but the differentiated nature
29–55.
of knowledge in relation to innovation output (the ‘technological Alcalde, H., Guerrero, M., 2014. Open Business model innovation in early
nuance’) matters the most. entrepreneurial stages: evidence from new Spanish firms during expansionary
and recessionary periods. Int. Entrepren. Manage. J., http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
From a research perspective, more studies and applications are
s11365-014-0348-x.
needed in other geographical contexts to understand whether the Amara, N., Landry, R., 2005. Sources of information as determinants of novelty of
cultural, social and institutional idiosyncrasies matter to a higher innovation in manufacturing firms: evidence from the 1999 statistics Canada
extent or they are very much dependent on the ‘technological innovation survey. Technovation 25, 245–259.
Apanasovich, N., (Ph.D. thesis) 2014. The Impact of Business Innovation Modes on
nuance’ highlighted in this work. It would also be very interesting Innovation Performance: The Case of Belarus. University of Deusto, San
to understand whether this pattern can be identified within the Sebastian.
innovation modes themselves, i.e. beyond interactions and taking Archibugi, D., Lundvall, B.A., 2001. The Globalizing Learning Economy: Major
Socio-Economic Trends and European Innovation Policy. Oxford University
into account also the internal organisation and approach taken by Press.
the firm in its innovation activities (whether through specialised Asheim, B., Gertler, M., 2005. The geography of innovation: regional innovation
R&D departments or through more interactive intra-firm prac- systems. In: The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New
York.
tices). It would also be interesting to build novel indicators which Asheim, B., Coenen, L., 2006. Contextualizing regional innovation systems in a
specifically capture the “context-specificity” notion (e.g. territorial globalising learning economy: on knowledge bases and institutional
cohesion index, specific language, and fiscal autonomy, among oth- frameworks. J. Technol. Transfer 31, 163–173.
Asheim, B., Parrilli, M.D. (Eds.), 2012. Interactive Learning for Innovation.
ers). Finally, due to data limitations it would be necessary to refine
Palgrave-Macmillan, Basingstoke.
the control variables regarding wider ‘global’ issues. Specifically Aslesen, Isaksen, A., Karlsen, J., 2011. Modes of innovation and differentiated
future studies should consider firm’s foreign dimension according responses to globalization. J. Knowl. Econ. 2.
Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., Maskell, P., 2004. Clusters and knowledge: local buzz,
to different internationalisation modalities and connection with
global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 28
foreign production. (1), 31–56.
From a policy-making and a business practice perspective, some Bell, M., 2006. Time and technological learning in industrializing countries. J.
critical implications may be drawn. In particular, the fact that most Technol. Manage. 36, 25–39.
BISi, 2011. Basque Innovation Survey. Basque Statistical Office, Vitoria.
businesses adopt a DUI type of interaction does not imply that it Boschma, R.A., 2005. Proximity and innovation. A critical assessment. Reg. Stud. 39
is an effective interaction mode. It delivers lower impact (than STI (1), 61–74.
756 M.D. Parrilli, H. Alcalde Heras / Research Policy 45 (2016) 747–756

Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R., 2002. R&D co-operation and spillovers: some empirical Isaksen, A., Nilsson, M., 2013. Combined innovation policy: linking scientific and
evidence from Belgium. Am. Econ. Rev. 92 (4), 1169–1185. practical knowledge in innovation systems. Eur. Plan. Stud. 21 (12).
Cefis, E., Marsili, O., 2006. Survivor: the role of innovation in firm’s survival. Res. Jensen, M., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B.A., 2007. Forms of knowledge and
Policy 35, 626–641. modes of innovation. Res. Policy 36, 680–693.
Chen, J., Chen, Y., Venhaverbeke, W., 2011. The influence of scope, depth and Lall, S., 1998. Technological capabilities in emerging Asia. Oxf. Dev. Stud. 26 (2),
orientation of external technology sources on the innovative performance of 213–243.
Chinese firms. Technovation 31 (8), 363–372. Laursen, K., Salter, A., 2006. Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining
Christensen, C.M., 1993. The rigid disk drive industry: a history of commercial and innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strat. Manage. J. 27
technological turbulence. Business History Rev. 67 (4), 531–588. (2), 131–150.
Chung, S.A., Kim, G.M., 2003. Performance effects of partnership between Lundvall, B.A., 1992. National Systems of Innovation. Pinter, London.
manufacturers and suppliers for new product development: the supplier’s Lundvall, B.A., 2007. National systems of innovation: analytical concept and
standpoint. Res. Policy 32 (4), 587–603. development tool. Ind. Innov. 14, 95–119.
Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A., 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on Malaver, F., Vargas, M., 2013. Aprendizaje y formas de innovar. Mimeo,
learning and innovation. Admin. Sci. Q. 35 (1). Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá.
Cooke, P., Morgan, K., 1994. Regional innovation system in Baden–Wurttenberg. Malerba, F., 2002. Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Res. Policy 31
Int. J. Technol. Manage. 14, 394–429. (2), 247–264.
Czarnitzki, D., 2005. The extent and evolution of productivity deficiency in Eastern Malmberg, A., Maskell, P., 2002. The elusive concept of localization economies:
Germany. J. Prod. Anal. 24, 211–231. towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. Environ. Plan. 34,
Dosi, G., 1988. Sources, procedures and microeconomics effects of innovation. J. 429–449.
Econ. Lit. 26, 1120–1171. Nelson, R., 1993. NationalSsystems of Innovation: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford
Dosi, G., Pavitt, K., Soete, L., 1990. The Economics of Technical Change and University Press.
International Trade. LEM Book Series, Pisa. Nieto, M.J., Santamaría, L., 2007. The importance of diverse collaborative networks
Ebersberger, B., Herstad, S.J., Iversen, E., Kirner, E., Som, O., 2011. Open Innovation for the novelty of product innovation. Technovation 27, 367–377.
in Europe: Effects, Determinants and Policy. PRO INNO Europe: INNO-Grips II Nunes, S., López, R., Dias, J., 2013. Innovation modes and firm performance: the
Report. European Commission, DG Enterprise and Industry, Brussels. case of Portugal. In: ERSA Conference, Palermo, August 28–31.
Edquist, C., 2005. Systems of innovation: perspectives and challenges. In: OECD, 2006. The Oslo Manual of Innovation. Paris.
Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D., Nelson, R. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Parrilli, M.D., 2012. Heterogeneous social capital: a new window of opportunity for
Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York. local economies. In: Cooke, P., Parrilli, M.D., Curbelo, J.L. (Eds.), Innovation,
Eurostat, 2006. Europe in Figures – Eurostat Yearbook 2006–2007. http://ec. Global Change and Territorial Resilience. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/5611007/KS-CD-06-001-EN.PDF/ Parrilli, M.D., Elola, A., 2012. The strength of science and technology drivers in
bff24660-2fb5-4c11-a336-9d356a6fdda5?version=1.0. SME-based innovation. Small Business Econ. 39 (4), 899–909.
Filippetti, A., Frenz, M., Ietto-Gillies, G., 2011. Are innovation and Pavitt, K., 1984. Sectoral patterns of innovation: towards a taxonomy and a theory.
internationalization related? An analysis of European countries. Ind. Innov. 18, Res. Policy 13 (6), 343–373.
437–459. Perez, C., 2009. The double bubble of the turn of the century: technological roots
Fitjar, R., Rodriguez-Pose, A., 2013. Firm collaboration and modes of innovation in and structural implications. Camb. J. Econ. 33 (4), 779–805.
Norway. Res. Policy 42, 128–138. Romer, P., 1994. The origins of endogenous growth. J. Econ. Perspect. 8 (1), 3–22.
Frenz, M., Ietto-Gillies, G., 2009. The impact on innovation performance of Schmiedeberg, C., 2008. Complementarities of innovation activities: an empirical
different sources of knowledge: evidence from the UK Community Innovation analysis of the German manufacturing sector. Res. Policy 37, 1492–1503.
Survey. Res. Policy 38, 1125–1135. Schmitz, H., 1995. Collective efficiency: growth path for small-scale industry. J.
Gertler, M., 2003. Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context. J. Econ. Dev. Stud., 31.
Geogr. 3 (1), 75–99. Simmie, J., 2004. Innovation and clustering in the globalised international
González, J.L., Parrilli, M.D., Peña, I., 2015. STI–DUI learning modes, firm–university economy. Urban Stud. 41, 1095–1112.
collaboration and innovation. J. Technol. Transfer, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ Som, O., Diekman, J., Solberg, E., Schricke, E., Schubert, T., Jung-Erceg, P., Stehnken,
s10961-014-9352-0. T., Daimer, S., 2012. Organisational and Marketing Innovation: Promises and
Greunz, L., 2005. Intra and inter-regional knowledge spillovers. Eur. Plan. Stud. 13 Pitfalls. PRO-INNO Europe: INNO-Grips II Report. European Commission, DG
(3), 449–473. Enterprise and Industry, Brussels.
Hollanders, H., Tarantola, S., Loschky, A., 2009. Regional Innovation Scoreboards. Tether, B., 2002. Who co-operates for innovation, and why. An empirical analysis.
Pro-Inno Europe, Bruxelles. Res. Policy 31, 947–967.
Isaksen, A., Karlsen, J., 2010. Different modes of innovation and the challenge of UNDP, 2013. Human Development Report. New York.
connecting universities and industry. Eur. Plan. Stud. 18 (12), 1193–2010. Venkataraman, S., 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: an
Isaksen, A., Karlsen, J., 2012. Combined and complex modes of innovation in editor’s perspective. Adv. Entrepren. Firm Emerg. Growth 3, 119–138.
regional cluster development. In: Asheim, B., Parrilli, M.D. (Eds.), Interactive Zabala, J.M., Edquist, C., 2012. Innovation Systems and Knowledge-Intensive
Learning for Innovation. Palgrave-Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 115–135. Entrepreneurship: Sweden. Circle Report 3/2012. University of Lund, Lund.

You might also like