Search results

This paper aims to provide evidence of the major role of non‐technological activities in the innovation process. It seeks to highlight the effects of marketing and organizational innovation strategies on technological innovation performance.

The paper tests theoretical hypotheses on a sample of 555 firms of the Fourth Community Innovation Survey (CIS 4) in 2006 in Luxembourg. Data are analyzed through a generalized Tobit model.

Evidence is found to support the impact of innovation in the marketing and organization fields on a firm's capacity to innovate, but not on the innovative performance. The paper also statistically shows that the effects of non‐technological innovation differ depending on the phase of the innovation process.

The causal link and the question of time frame between the various innovations could be further investigated, especially through longitudinal studies. Further research should also focus on the differences between large versus small firms, and service versus industrial firms.

The effects of non‐technological innovation are not the same according to whether the firm is in the first step of the innovation process (i.e. being innovative), or in a later step (i.e. innovative performance). Managers should be aware of these various effects in order to efficiently adopt non‐technological innovation strategies.

Few works have taken into account the role of other innovative strategies such as marketing and organization. As far as is known, this is the first study based on recent CIS data that looks at the interrelations between different types of innovation.

The main purpose of this paper is to provide large‐scale empirical evidence on the value‐enhancing and cost‐increasing effects of knowledge management (KM) techniques.

The authors conduct structural equation analyses, using data from the Community Innovation Survey 2007 and from annual accounts of 705 innovative Belgian firms.

Results confirm that the use of KM techniques has an indirect positive impact on financial performance via increased innovation performance. In addition, a direct cost‐increasing effect of KM practices on financial performance is observed. In the short term, this direct cost‐increasing effect exceeds the indirect value‐generating effect of KM techniques.

This study investigates the short‐term effects of KM techniques. Future research should study the long‐term costs and benefits. Data were collected in Belgium and may not reflect the impact of KM practices in other geographic, economic or cultural settings.

The findings clearly indicate that the implementation of KM techniques entails significant costs. Within a two‐year time frame, the financial costs of KM techniques are more visible than their potential benefits. An exclusive focus on the short‐term implications of the use of KM techniques is hence likely to give a too pessimistic view on their potential financial contribution.

This article is the first large‐scale study that disentangles both the value‐enhancing and cost‐increasing effects of KM techniques on financial performance and that uses time lags and accounting data (as opposed to self‐reported performance measures) to do so.

This paper aims to analyse the impact of innovation on the productivity of firms in India using the data from the World Enterprise Survey. This paper first classifies three different types of innovation measures then further analyses their relation with the productivity of the firms.

The methodology used for this study has incorporated the structural Crépon-Douget-Mairesse (CDM) model wherein productivity is measured using both the innovation inputs and the innovation outputs. Three main equations have been used to quantify this relation includes the knowledge intensity function, innovation function and the productivity equation.

Findings indicate that decision to invest in research and development (R&D) is influenced negatively by financial obstacles and trade obstacles and positively influenced by telecommunication obstacles, government obstacles and the size of the firm in India. Similarly, financial obstacles and the size of the firm are affecting the firm’s research expenditure per employee. Also, financial obstacles seem to hinder the research intensity and larger firms seem to have higher research intensity. The size of the firm contributes significantly to product innovation. However, R&D spending seems to be negatively related to the innovation outcome. The findings relating to productivity shows neither product nor process innovation outputs, independently are not contributing significantly to the productivity of firms. However, product and process innovation, together serve as innovation outputs is a significant contributor to firm productivity. On the other hand, organisational innovation contributes significantly to the productivity of the firms in a negative manner.

The findings relating to productivity shows neither product nor process innovation outputs, independently are not contributing significantly to the productivity of firms (which has been measured by sales per worker is impacted by the capital and the labour inputs). However, product and process innovation, together serve as innovation outputs is a significant contributor to firm productivity. On the other hand, organisational innovation contributes significantly to the productivity of the firms in a negative manner. The reason could be due to the fact that the definition of organisational innovation incorporates both dissolutions and mergers.

Prior research on open innovation has not investigated changes in knowledge acquisition strategies of firms over time overlooking how learning from past knowledge acquisition can change subsequent search strategies. Also, prior research has focused principally on product innovation overlooking process innovation. The purpose of the paper is to introduce the concept of dynamic openness, which is defined as temporal changes in external knowledge search strategy. We explore four dynamic openness strategies – closing down, opening up, persistent open and persistent closed – and examine the impact of these strategies on both product and process innovation.

The authors used a panel dataset of 16,021 firms based on five waves (2009–2017) of the UK Community Innovation Survey (UKIS). All models are estimated using firm and year fixed effects (FE) method to control for endogeneity that arises from unobserved heterogeneity. Endogeneity and robustness tests were carried out to ensure the validity of results.

The results show that firms do use dynamic openness strategies over time leveraging learning from past searches. Specifically, the study indicates that closing down is not an effective strategy for either type of innovation. For process innovation, firms should pursue opening up strategy rather than persistent open strategy, whereas for product innovation firms could pursue either strategy, highlighting important contextual differences.

The paper contributes to the literature on knowledge acquisition in open innovation: (1) by theorizing the underlying reasons – learning from past collaborations, absorptive capacity and external knowledge heterogeneity – why firms pursue one dynamic openness strategy over another and (2) by extending literature by delineating the dynamic openness strategies that firms should pursue in process innovation vs product innovation.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the generation–innovation relationship in family firms. The study acknowledges that the degree of family influence on a firm varies over generations and tests if the generation–innovation relationship is affected by two defining characteristics of family influence (family management and intention to transfer family control). Based on recent research that deconstructed a family’s influence, this paper seeks to contribute to disentangling the ambivalent findings on family firm innovation.

The study draws on the Community Innovation Survey and analyzes a comprehensive data set of German family firms. The analysis builds on a structural equation model and tests if the two defining characteristics of family influence serve as mediators in the generation–innovation relationship.

The study suggests that family firms raise their innovation output over generations. Yet, a considerable fraction of the increase occurs via indirect paths – particularly via the intent to transfer family control to succeeding generations. The results indicate that increased family influence has positive and negative effects on innovation, reinforcing the need for careful application of the family firm definition.

The sample is exclusively composed of German firms and the generalizability of the findings is limited. Future researchers may also overcome further limitations related to the survey data used.

The results urge family firm leaders to recognize the vital role of succession planning and non-family management involvement in an innovation context.

The study deconstructs the varying degree of family influence over generations and adds to the fields of family firm innovation, family firm definitions and typologies.

The purpose of this paper is to look at the effect of profit sharing (PS) on the ability of the firm to take care of the environment.

In a large cross-section of French firms, the authors find strong associations between PS and various innovations with environmental benefits. With cross-sectional data from the Community Innovation Survey and FARE, the authors estimate simultaneous equations for these effects, with endogenous PS.

This relationship between PS and environmental innovation is plausible, since workers benefit more than outside owners from a better local environment. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper provides the first empirical evidence, so the results suggest PS supports environmental policy, in addition to its other, better known incentive benefits.

Further studies, using panel data, are needed.

Financial participation may be considered as an additional tool to protect the environment.

This is the first paper looking at the impact of PS on the ability of the firm to take care of the environment. In this critical period when policy makers are searching for ways to limit global warming and protect the environment, the authors have presented here the first evidence that financial participation helps to support these policies.

The purpose of this paper is to test the major determinants of technological (product and process) innovation persistence and provides evidence of the significant role of organizational innovation.

Data came from two waves of the Luxembourg Community Innovation Survey (CIS): CIS2006 for 2004-2006 and CIS2008 for 2006-2008. The longitudinal data set resulted in a final sample of 287 firms. A multinomial probit model estimates the likelihood that each firm belongs to one of three longitudinal innovation profiles: no, sporadic, or persistent innovators.

The determinants have differentiated impacts on process and technological innovation persistence. Organizational innovation influences technological innovation persistence. In the analysis of detailed organizational practices, strong evidence emerged that knowledge management exerts a crucial effect on product innovation persistence; workplace organization instead is associated with process innovation persistence.

The relationships of innovation persistence, organizational innovation, and firms’ economic performance demand further exploration. The different persistence patterns of complex (process and product) and simple (process or product) innovators also are worth investigating.

Organizational innovation matters for technological innovation persistence. However, the effects of non-technological innovation differ depending on whether the firm wants to innovate in processes or products. Managers must acknowledge these various effects and select appropriate strategies.

Few works account for the impact of organizational innovation strategies on technological innovation. This study is the first, based on recent CIS data, to address the role of organizational innovation practices for technological innovation persistence, which appears necessary for the sustainable dynamics of firms, industries, and regions.

This work provides new insights into possible managerial choices and development directions for practising open innovation (OI) in companies. The purpose of this paper is to explore the different practices, actors and tools adopted for opening up the innovation process, in particular, by small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that are still facing difficulties in its implementation.

The paper is based on a literature review and an exploratory survey of a sample of 85 European SMEs.

The study identifies a total of 23 practices, 20 actors and 11 tools involved in the OI processes of companies. It highlights, through literature and empirical evidence, how different combinations of practices, actors and tools are put into practice.

The developed framework offers new insights both from OI literature and from practitioners’ point of view into the supporting decision-making processes regarding which practices to implement, tools to adopt and actors to collaborate with. A wider investigation is recommended to include more variables to define the differences among the combinations of practices, actors and tools in terms of types of innovation (e.g. product, process, etc.), the openness degree and other contextual factors.

The originality of this paper is based on the fact that it focusses on a practical perspective of OI implementation, building a framework of reference from previous literature and empirical investigation.

The Brittelstand are innovative, family-owned firms that offer national and international opportunities in the United Kingdom (UK). These fast-growing businesses are customer-oriented and proud of family ownership and embeddedness of the businesses within communities. While Brittelstand firms are as likely to deploy open innovation models as non-Brittelstand firms, these firms' engagement with customers in regional and national markets and the ability to benefit from this collaboration contrasts with these firms' willingness to engage in open innovation.

Using longitudinal data and regression analysis on 13,876 firms with 24,286 observations over 2004–2020, the authors develop and test a theoretical framework of open innovation in the Brittelstand. The authors' model explains the willingness and ability of the Brittelstand firms to engage in open innovation and benefit from it.

The authors' results show that Brittelstand firms are less willing than non-Brittelstand firms to collaborate with customers and universities, contrasting prior research on family firms, and distinguishing the innovation model of the Brittelstand from a family business model. The Brittelstand firms who are able to engage in collaboration with customers in domestic markets will outperform the firms' non-Brittelstand counterparts in innovation outputs.

In line with other studies, this study is associated with several limitations that open opportunities for further research that replicate and/or extends this study. First, this study is unbalanced panel data and the fact that some firms appear in the model only once from 2004–2020. The longitudinal study will allow to enforce causality of the relationship and examines the dynamics of open innovation in the Brittelstand. Second, the indicator on the extent and mechanisms of collaboration with customers could be better explained and measured, for example, using a scale indicator instead of a binary variable for knowledge collaboration across different types of partners and four geographical dimensions.

First, Brittelstand firms who are less likely to employ open innovation models nationally and with customers. However, those Brittelstand firms who decide to collaborate with customers nationally are more likely to increase the innovation sales compared to those firms that do not engage in such collaborations? This is an interesting and unexpected finding, which means that low willingness of cross-country and cross-regional collaboration for Brittelstand firms is not optimal and engagement in collaboration with customers in domestic markets is beneficial for innovation. Managers and policymakers may use this finding to design and re-design open innovation strategies managers and policymakers with customers within and across regions in the UK. Second, managers may benefit from the integrated view on the two drivers of firm innovation – collaboration with customers and the local embeddedness of such collaboration.

The authors' results show that Brittelstand firms outperform the firms' non-Brittelstand counterparts by adopting an open model of innovation with customers in domestic markets. This means that the most dynamic and fast growing Brittelstand firms are those who collaborate with customers for new ideas and innovation.

This study describes the phenomenon of the Brittelstand and investigates the link between open knowledge sourcing across different geographical proximities and partners and innovation outputs. First, the authors contribute to open innovation and resource-based view (RBV) literature in family firms by theorizing and empirically testing the open innovation model for the Brittelstand firms. The authors also debate that the Brittelstand firms should overcome this inertia of willingness to collaborate across heterogeneous external partners and convert regional/national embeddedness of the firms with customers into strengths for greater product innovation. Second, the authors contribute to family business literature by explaining how and why the Brittelstand firms can achieve greater innovation outputs. In doing so, the authors draw on the concept of familiness and local embeddedness.

This paper aims at investigating the rather unexplored issue of how green innovators address the knowledge needs emerging when initiating a sustainability path, comparing their knowledge strategies with those of non‐green innovators.

The authors investigate this issue using data from the 2008 Italian Community Innovation Survey (CIS). Focusing on manufacturing firms, they identify the main characteristics and knowledge assets of firms introducing environmental innovations (EIs) as opposed to those of other innovators.

The authors' results suggest that the development of EIs entails a higher recourse to external knowledge, in the form of use of external sources of information, acquiring R&D from external firms and cooperation. Relationships with partners that do not belong to the supply chain – including KIBS, universities, research institutions and competitors – are far more important than for other innovations. On the contrary, differences between the two categories are less marked when it comes to investments in internal knowledge resources. Finally, proactive environmental innovators have very different knowledge strategies than reactive ones, which resemble non‐green innovators.

The main contribution of this paper is that it investigates the unexplored issue of how firms assess and develop the knowledge needed to develop EIs. By comparing them with the strategies of non‐green innovators, the analysis performed in the paper allows understanding the peculiarities of such innovations. Furthermore, the authors contribute to the literature by verifying how knowledge management strategies vary according to the differential importance that sustainability has for the firm's innovative strategy.