The emergence and development of knowledge intensive mining service suppliers in the late 20th century

During the late 20th Century the mining industry went through an important technological rejuvenation that drove high rates of innovation, productivity growth and organisational change. This process included the emergence of knowledge-intensive mining services (KIMS) suppliers, who performed functions outsourced by mining companies, gradually strengthening their capabilities, enlarging their geographical scope and becoming a globally organised sector. But this was uneven across different mining economies. For instance, while numerous Australian KIMS suppliers emerged and achieved international competitiveness, few did this in Chile. Focusing on Chile, this thesis explores the reasons for the limited development of KIMS suppliers in a developing mining economy. It examines the technological learning that shaped the KIMS sector evolution in Chile by contrasting it with the Australian experience, using a two level learning model that integrates: (1) the interaction between industry-level factors that shaped the potential for learning at the micro-level; and (2) the interaction at the micro-level between accumulated capabilities and learning efforts by firms to exploit the potential for learning. KIMS learning is examined over four stages: (i) Gestation (1940s - early 1970s); (ii) Emergence and Development (mid-1970s to early 1980s); (iii) Internationalisation (late 1980s to late 1990s); and (iv) Consolidation (early 2000s and still going on). Over these stages, KIMS sector learning was much more limited in Chile than Australia, either because there was a lower learning potential and/or because firms carried out limited learning efforts to exploit the potential. At the first stage mining companies in Chile played a weak role as incubators of KIMS capabilities. Consequently, during the second stage there were few KIMS suppliers capable of profiting from the rejuvenation being experienced by the global industry. Also, with limited stimuli from the growth of mining in Chile, suppliers undertook limited learning efforts. So, the third stage found Chilean KIMS suppliers unprepared to exploit the learning potential that came with internationalisation; and the learning opportunities inherent in the significant expansion of Chilean mining production were captured by foreign KIMS suppliers, including Australians. Accordingly, Chilean KIMS suppliers started the Consolidation Stage without the capabilities to overcome the increasing barriers to participation in the industry‟s continuing high learning potential

The role of international and domestic R&D outsourcing for firm innovation

Firms are increasingly outsourcing their high-tech services. Theory suggests that R&D outsourcing allows firms to specialize in core knowledge-intensive tasks, thereby increasing innovation, but R&D outsourcing may also undermine internal capabilities. Our goal is to empirically assess the relative importance of these two possibilities, distinguishing between national and international R&D outsourcing and firms’ exporting status. We examine R&D purchases of more than 10,000 Spanish firms for the period 2004-2014. We show that R&D outsourcing improves firm innovation. Product innovation rises mostly with domestic outsourcing, while process innovation increases with both domestic and international R&D outsourcing. In addition, we find that international outsourcing provides an extra premium, mostly for exporters. Our results contribute to a better understanding of how firms organize the production of knowledge and innovation

Value Capture in the Global Electronics Industry: Empirical Evidence for the "Smiling Curve" Concept

This research asks who captures the greatest value in the global electronics industry by testing the concept of the "smiling curve", which predicts that the greatest value is captured by upstream and downstream firms, and the lowest value is captured in the middle of the value chain. We test the concept using the Electronic Business 300 data-set for 2000-2005. We find that lead firms and component suppliers earn higher gross margins and net margins compared to contract manufacturers. However, the differences are minimal for return on assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE). We also find that active component suppliers gain higher profits than passive component suppliers. These findings suggest that the smiling curve is right if value is defined in terms of gross margins, but the cost of sustaining a position on either end of the curve is so high that returns on investment are similar across the curve. © 2012 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

Innovation behaviour and the use of research and extension services in small-scale agricultural holdings

[EN] Farmers¿ views on research and extension services (RES) included in the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System are rarely investigated. This study analyses the relationship between key factors of innovation behaviour (market orientation, learning orientation, and innovation attitude) and the use of RES through structural equation modelling, focusing on small-scale agricultural holdings. Market orientation and learning orientation appear to be positively correlated, confirming that synergies between both factors provide a background for innovativeness. Learning orientation and farm-holders¿ education level, improve knowledge exchange and make the agriculture innovation process more inclusive. However, farmers¿ innovation attitude is not clearly correlated with the use of RES. Motivations about ¿the will to do innovations¿ are represented by a construct that does not appear to have a determinant effect as a mediator in farmer¿s decisions about using RES.Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (Project AGL2015-65897-C3-3-R "Knowledge innovation services and agri-food systems. Innovation and transfer networks.")Ramos-Sandoval, R.; García Alvarez-Coque, JM.; Mas Verdú, F. (2016). Innovation behaviour and the use of research and extension services in small-scale agricultural holdings. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research. 14(4):1-14. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2016144-8548S114144García Álvarez-Coque, J. M., Alba, M. F., & López-García Usach, T. (2012). Innovation and sectoral linkages in the agri-food system in the Valencian Community. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 10(1), 18. doi:10.5424/sjar/2012101-207-11Alfranca, O. (2005). Private R&D and Spillovers in European Agriculture. International Advances in Economic Research, 11(2), 201-213. doi:10.1007/s11294-005-3016-7Anderson, V., & Boocock, G. (2002). Small firms and internationalisation: learning to manage and managing to learn. Human Resource Management Journal, 12(3), 5-24. doi:10.1111/j.1748-8583.2002.tb00068.xAudretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location. Research Policy, 34(7), 1113-1122. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.009Avermaete, T., Viaene, J., Morgan, E. J., Pitts, E., Crawford, N., & Mahon, D. (2004). Determinants of product and process innovation in small food manufacturing1The content of the paper is the responsibility of the first three authors. firms1. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 15(10), 474-483. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2004.04.005Chaston, I., Badger, B., Mangles, T., & Sadler‐Smith, E. (2001). Organisational learning style, competencies and learning systems in small, UK manufacturing firms. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(11), 1417-1432. doi:10.1108/eum0000000006224Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (2002). Journal of Market-Focused Management, 5(1), 5-23. doi:10.1023/a:1012543911149Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., Sambrook, S., & Davies, D. (2012). Innovation in food sector SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 19(2), 300-321. doi:10.1108/14626001211223919Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173Baron, R. A., & Tang, J. (2011). The role of entrepreneurs in firm-level innovation: Joint effects of positive affect, creativity, and environmental dynamism. Journal of Business Venturing, 26(1), 49-60. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.06.002Bell, S. J., Whitwell, G. J., & Lukas, B. A. (2002). Schools of Thought in Organizational Learning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(1), 70-86. doi:10.1177/03079459994335Birner, R., Davis, K., Pender, J., Nkonya, E., Anandajayasekeram, P., Ekboir, J., … Cohen, M. (2009). From Best Practice to Best Fit: A Framework for Designing and Analyzing Pluralistic Agricultural Advisory Services Worldwide. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 15(4), 341-355. doi:10.1080/13892240903309595Byrne B, 2006. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.) Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31(6), 515-524. doi:10.1016/s0019-8501(01)00203-6Capitanio, F., Coppola, A., & Pascucci, S. (2009). Indications for drivers of innovation in the food sector. British Food Journal, 111(8), 820-838. doi:10.1108/00070700910980946Chang, Y.-Y., & Hughes, M. (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small- to medium-sized firms. European Management Journal, 30(1), 1-17. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2011.08.003Chaston, I., Badger, B., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2001). Organizational Learning: An Empirical Assessment of Process in Small U.K. Manufacturing Firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 39(2), 139-151. doi:10.1111/1540-627x.00013Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128. doi:10.2307/2393553Day, G. S. (1994). The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 37. doi:10.2307/1251915Diederen P, van Meijl H, Wolters A, Bijak K, 2003. Innovation adoption in agriculture: innovators, early adopters and laggards. Cahiers d'Économie et Sociologie Rurales 67: 30-50.Edelman, L. F., Brush, C. G., & Manolova, T. (2005). Co-alignment in the resource–performance relationship: strategy as mediator. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3), 359-383. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.01.004Esparcia, J. (2014). Innovation and networks in rural areas. An analysis from European innovative projects. Journal of Rural Studies, 34, 1-14. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2013.12.004Farrell MA, 1999. Antecedents and consequences of a learning orientation. Market Bull 10 (38): 38-51.Fearne, A., María García Álvarez‐Coque, J., López‐García Usach Mercedes, T., & García, S. (2013). Innovative firms and the urban/rural divide: the case of agro‐food system. Management Decision, 51(6), 1293-1310. doi:10.1108/md-12-2011-0482García Álvarez-Coque JM, López-García Usach T, Sanchez García M, 2013. Territory and innovation behaviour in agri-food firms: does rurality matter? New Medit 3: 1-10.García Álvarez-Coque JM, Mas-Verdú F, Sanchez García M, 2014. Determinants of Agri-food Firms' Participation in Public Funded Research and Development. Agribusiness (0): 1-16.Garcia Martinez, M. (2000). Innovation in the Spanish food & drink industry. The International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 3(2), 155-176. doi:10.1016/s1096-7508(00)00033-1García-Quevedo, J., Mas-Verdú, F., & Montolio, D. (2013). What types of firms acquire knowledge intensive services and from which suppliers? Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25(4), 473-486. doi:10.1080/09537325.2013.774348Garver MS, Mentzer JT, 1999. Logistics research methods: Employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity. J Busin Logist 20 (1): 33-57.Gellynck, X., Vermeire, B., & Viaene, J. (2007). Innovation in food firms: contribution of regional networks within the international business context. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 19(3), 209-226. doi:10.1080/08985620701218395Gellynck, X., & Kühne, B. (2008). Innovation and collaboration in traditional food chain networks. Journal on Chain and Network Science, 8(2), 121-129. doi:10.3920/jcns2008.x094Grinstein, A. (2008). The relationships between market orientation and alternative strategic orientations. European Journal of Marketing, 42(1/2), 115-134. doi:10.1108/03090560810840934Hair J, Black W, Babin B, Anderson R, 2010. Multivariate data analysis, 7th ed. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA. Chapter 11.Hall, A., Rasheed Sulaiman, V., Clark, N., & Yoganand, B. (2003). From measuring impact to learning institutional lessons: an innovation systems perspective on improving the management of international agricultural research. Agricultural Systems, 78(2), 213-241. doi:10.1016/s0308-521x(03)00127-6Hamed G, Amran R, Parastoo R, Nadhirah N, 2012. A review on the market orientation evolution. Asia Pacific Busin Innov Technol Manage Soc 40: 542–549.Han, X., Hansen, E., Panwar, R., Hamner, R., & Orozco, N. (2013). Connecting market orientation, learning orientation and corporate social responsibility implementation: is innovativeness a mediator? Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 28(8), 784-796. doi:10.1080/02827581.2013.833290Harrison, D. A., Mykytyn, P. P., & Riemenschneider, C. K. (1997). Executive Decisions About Adoption of Information Technology in Small Business: Theory and Empirical Tests. Information Systems Research, 8(2), 171-195. doi:10.1287/isre.8.2.171HOELTER, J. W. (1983). The Analysis of Covariance Structures. Sociological Methods & Research, 11(3), 325-344. doi:10.1177/0049124183011003003Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Managing the International Strategic Sourcing Process as a Market-Driven Organizational Learning System. Decision Sciences, 29(1), 193-216. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1998.tb01349.xHurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, Market Orientation, and Organizational Learning: An Integration and Empirical Examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42. doi:10.2307/1251742INE, 2009. Censo Agrario 2009. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Espa-a.Isaksen, A., & Nilsson, M. (2013). Combined Innovation Policy: Linking Scientific and Practical Knowledge in Innovation Systems. European Planning Studies, 21(12), 1919-1936. doi:10.1080/09654313.2012.722966Jacobs, B., Nahuis, R., & Tang, P. J. G. (2002). De Economist, 150(2), 181-210. doi:10.1023/a:1015696202835JOHNSON, J. D., MEYER, M. E., BERKOWITZ, J. M., MILLER, V., & ETHINGTON, C. T. (1997). Testing Two Contrasting Structural Models of Innovativeness in a Contractual Network. Human Communication Research, 24(2), 320-348. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1997.tb00417.xKarantininis, K., Sauer, J., & Furtan, W. H. (2010). Innovation and integration in the agri-food industry. Food Policy, 35(2), 112-120. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.10.003Keskin, H. (2006). Market orientation, learning orientation, and innovation capabilities in SMEs. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(4), 396-417. doi:10.1108/14601060610707849Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2009). Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(6), 849-860. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2008.10.001Klerkx, L., Aarts, N., & Leeuwis, C. (2010). Adaptive management in agricultural innovation systems: The interactions between innovation networks and their environment. Agricultural Systems, 103(6), 390-400. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.03.012Klerkx, L., van Mierlo, B., & Leeuwis, C. (2012). Evolution of systems approaches to agricultural innovation: concepts, analysis and interventions. Farming Systems Research into the 21st Century: The New Dynamic, 457-483. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4503-2_20Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1. doi:10.2307/1251866Laforet, S. (2008). Size, strategic, and market orientation affects on innovation. Journal of Business Research, 61(7), 753-764. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.08.002Langemeier MR, Jones RD, 2000. Measuring the impact of farm size and specialization on financial performance. J Am Soc Farm Manag Rural Apprais 63 (1): 90–96.Läpple, D., Renwick, A., & Thorne, F. (2015). Measuring and understanding the drivers of agricultural innovation: Evidence from Ireland. Food Policy, 51, 1-8. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.11.003Leeuwis, C., & Van den Ban, A. (Eds.). (2004). Communication for Rural Innovation. doi:10.1002/9780470995235Lin, C., Peng, C., & Kao, D. T. (2008). The innovativeness effect of market orientation and learning orientation on business performance. International Journal of Manpower, 29(8), 752-772. doi:10.1108/01437720810919332Mas-Verdú, F. (2006). Services and innovation systems: European models of Technology Centres. Service Business, 1(1), 7-23. doi:10.1007/s11628-006-0002-yMavondo, F. T., Chimhanzi, J., & Stewart, J. (2005). Learning orientation and market orientation. European Journal of Marketing, 39(11/12), 1235-1263. doi:10.1108/03090560510623244Micheels ET, Gow HR, 2014. The effect of market orientation on learning, innovativeness, and performance in primary agriculture. Can J Agric Econ (0): 1–25.Morriss, S., Massey, C., Flett, R., Alpass, F., & Sligo, F. (2006). Mediating technological learning in agricultural innovation systems. Agricultural Systems, 89(1), 26-46. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2005.08.002Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20. doi:10.2307/1251757Nunnally JC, 1978. Psychometric theory, 701 pp. McGraw Hill, NYOECD, 2006. The new rural paradigm: Policies and governance. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.OECD, 2013. Agricultural innovation systems: A framework for analysing the role of the government, OECD Publ., Paris.Oreszczyn, S., Lane, A., & Carr, S. (2010). The role of networks of practice and webs of influencers on farmers’ engagement with and learning about agricultural innovations. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(4), 404-417. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.03.003Pascucci S, De-Magistris T, 2012. Factors affecting farmers' likelihood to use advisory and extension services. New Medit 11 (3): 2-11.Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717-731. doi:10.3758/bf03206553Rama R, Alfranca O, 2003. Introduction: innovation in the food industry and biotechnology. Int J Biotechnol 5: 213-221.Rhee, J., Park, T., & Lee, D. H. (2010). Drivers of innovativeness and performance for innovative SMEs in South Korea: Mediation of learning orientation. Technovation, 30(1), 65-75. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.04.008Schwartz, M., & Hornych, C. (2010). Cooperation patterns of incubator firms and the impact of incubator specialization: Empirical evidence from Germany. Technovation, 30(9-10), 485-495. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2010.05.001Segarra-Blasco, A., & Arauzo-Carod, J.-M. (2008). Sources of innovation and industry–university interaction: Evidence from Spanish firms. Research Policy, 37(8), 1283-1295. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.05.003Sinkula, J. M., Baker, W. E., & Noordewier, T. (1997). A Framework for Market-Based Organizational Learning: Linking Values, Knowledge, and Behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 305-318. doi:10.1177/0092070397254003Sivo, S. A., Fan, X., Witta, E. L., & Willse, J. T. (2006). The Search for «Optimal» Cutoff Properties: Fit Index Criteria in Structural Equation Modeling. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74(3), 267-288. doi:10.3200/jexe.74.3.267-288Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1995). Market Orientation and the Learning Organization. Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63. doi:10.2307/1252120Sophonthummapharn, K. (2009). The adoption of techno‐relationship innovations. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 27(3), 380-412. doi:10.1108/02634500910955254Spielman, D. J., Ekboir, J., Davis, K., & Ochieng, C. M. O. (2008). An innovation systems perspective on strengthening agricultural education and training in sub-Saharan Africa. Agricultural Systems, 98(1), 1-9. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2008.03.004Ton, G., Klerkx, L., de Grip, K., & Rau, M.-L. (2015). Innovation grants to smallholder farmers: Revisiting the key assumptions in the impact pathways. Food Policy, 51, 9-23. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.11.002Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1991). Cultural Leadership in Organizations. Organization Science, 2(2), 149-169. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.2.149Tsai, K.-H., & Wang, J.-C. (2005). Does R&D performance decline with firm size?—A re-examination in terms of elasticity. Research Policy, 34(6), 966-976. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.017Turan D, Ascigil S, 2014. Antecedents of innovativeness: Entrepreneurial team characteristics and networking. J Innov Manage 2 (1): 83-103.Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. doi:10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.1192

Open Innovation: Organizational Practices and Policy Implications

Durant la darrera dècada, a causa de la necessitat de recuperacióeconòmica desprésde la crisi d’Internet i la recessió mundial, la innovacióoberta ha emergit com la nova estratègia d’innovació per a organitzacions en el sector privat i el públic. La innovacióoberta ha guanyat importància en les estratègies d’innovació de les empreses multinacionalsa causa del ràpidcreixement dels mercats d’idees i tecnologies, els mateixos que són una alternativa per a la comercialització de solucionstecnològiquesmitjançantllicències i patents. D’altra banda, atesa la necessitat de sistemes públics d’innovació que facilitin la col•laboració entre empresesnacionals i internacionals, els governs han dissenyat nous programes i estratègies per capturar els beneficis en inversionsde R+D. Aquesta tesi doctoral està composta per set articles de recerca que tracten la innovació oberta des dediversos nivells d’anàlisi.Es tracta d’un estudi profundsobre la innovacióobertades del nivell de projectes fins al nivell de sistemes regionals d’innovació, queproporciona, així,una contribució única i suficient per explicar científicament el fenomen d’estudi. També ofereix recomanacions valuoses per a directius i gestors d’innovació en el sector públic i el privat. Els estudis que es presenten en aquesta tesi doctoral inclouen una exploració de diversos tipus d’intermediaris d’innovació a Europa i als Estats Units, l’anàlisi de la qual posaen evidència l’existència de diversos enfocaments i propostes de valor que adopten elsintermediaris d’innovació. En primer lloc, dos estudis diferents se centren en el model de negoci dels intermediaris d’innovaciód’una cara,one-sided, i de dues cares, two-sided. Aquests dos estudis de cases basen en informació obtinguda a partir d’entrevistes, enquestes i documentació pública. En segon lloc, un altre cas d’estudi,elaborat a l’empresa NineSigma –unintermediari d’innovació–, revela com els intermediaris no tan sols sónútils per obtenir noves respostes a problemes tecnològics en els mercats d’idees i tecnologies, sinó també per ajudar les empreses en l’articulació i lacodificació del coneixement.Tots aquests estudis han revelat que les empresescerquen el coneixement extern per accelerar els seus processos d’innovació, ja que les solucions obtingudes els permetencomercialitzar els productes en els mercatsmés ràpidament. En tercer lloc, un cinquè estudi confirma l’ús de la innovacióoberta com a estratègia de col•laboració per accelerar el procés d’innovació.Això no obstant, la col•laboració amb socis científics no beneficia el fet d’accelerar projectes d’innovació tecnològica. Així mateix, aquest estudi suggereix que els projectes de risc corporatiu,venture capital, i unitats de negocis establertes com a core businesses beneficien de la col•laboraciódirecta amb socis de mercat i universitats. Finalment, els dos estudis finals proporcionen directrius de polítiques d’innovacióa la Unió Europea i al sistema d’innovació del Mediterrani, en què la innovacióoberta i la innovació de serveis imodels de negoci representen la novetat en un estudi d’escala política. En general, aquesta tesi doctoral intenta connectar els estudis emergents d’innovacióoberta amb les teories de gestió de la innovació, com són els intermediaris d’innovació, les capacitats dinàmiques, la velocitat de la innovació, elrisc corporatiu i les polítiques d’innovació. Les principals contribucions acadèmiques d’aquesta tesi són: a) una tipologia del model de negoci de diversos intermediaris d’innovació;b) una contribució al model de Zollo i Winter (2002) sobre els mecanismes d’aprenentatge a partir del’ús dels intermediaris; c) laconfirmació empíricaque la innovacióoberta accelera la velocitat dels processos d’innovació;d) la primera publicaciósobre el sistema d’innovació del Mediterrani, i e) noves polítiques d’innovació per ala Unió Europea. Finalment, l’estudi de la innovacióoberta a diversos nivells, des demúltiples perspectives teòriques, l’ús de dades qualitatives i quantitatives, i els diferents mètodes d’anàlisi han facilitat el descobriment de noves oportunitats de recerca,que es presentenal final d’aquesta tesi.Durante la última década, debido a la necesidad de recuperación económica después la crisis de Internet y recesión mundial, la innovación abierta ha emergido como la nueva estrategia de innovación para organizaciones en el sector privado y público. La innovación abierta ha ganado importancia en las estrategias de innovación de las empresas multinacionalesdebido al rápido crecimientos de los mercados de ideas y tecnologías, los mismos que son una alternativa para la comercialización de soluciones tecnológicas a través delicencias y patentes. Por otra parte, dada la necesidad de sistemas públicos de innovación que faciliten la colaboración entre empresas nacionales e internacionales, los gobiernos han diseñando nuevos programas y estrategias para capturar los beneficios en inversionesde I+D. La presente tesis doctoral está compuesta por siete artículos de investigación que abordan la innovación abierta desde diferentes niveles de análisis. Los mismos proporcionan un profundo estudio sobre la innovación abierta, desde el nivel de los proyectos hasta el nivel de sistemas regionales de innovación, proporcionando así una contribución única y suficiente para explicar científicamente el fenómeno de estudio y proporcionar recomendaciones valiosas para directivos y gestores de innovación en sectores públicos y privados. Los estudios presentados en esta tesis doctoral incluyen una exploración de diferentes tipos de intermediarios de innovación en Europa y EE.UU., donde el análisis pone en evidencia la existencia de diferentes enfoques y propuestas de valor adoptados por los intermediarios de innovación. Primero, dos diferentes estudios se centran en el modelo de negocio de los intermediarios de innovación de una cara “one-sided” y dos caras “two-sided”. Estos dos estudios de caso se basan en información obtenida mediante entrevistas, encuestas y documentación pública. Posteriormente, un caso de estudio más elaborado en la empresa NineSigma - un intermediario de innovación - revela cómo los intermediarios no son sólo útiles para obtener nuevas respuestas a problemas tecnológicos en los mercados de ideas y tecnologías, sino también para ayudar a las empresas en la articulación y codificación del conocimiento.Todos estos estudios han revelado que las empresas buscan el conocimiento externo para acelerar su proceso de innovación, ya que las soluciones obtenidas les permitiría comercializar más rápidamente los productos en los mercados. Tercero, un quinto estudio confirma el uso de la innovación abierta, como estrategia de colaboración para acelerar el proceso de innovación. Sin embargo, la colaboración con socios científicos no beneficia ha acelerar proyectos de innovación tecnológica. Asimismo, este estudio sugiere que los proyectos de riesgo corporativo “venture capital” y de unidades de negocios establecidas ¨core Business” se benefician de la colaboración directa con socios de mercado y universidades. Finalmente, los dos estudios finales proporcionan directrices de política de innovación en la Unión Europea y en el Sistema de Innovación del Mediterráneo, donde la innovación abierta, la innovación de servicios y modelos de negocio representan la novedad en un estudio a nivel de la política. En general, esta tesis doctoral intenta conectar los estudios emergentes de innovación abierta y las teorías de gestión de la innovación, tales como los intermediarios de innovación, las capacidades dinámicas, la velocidad de la innovación, riesgo corporativo y la política de innovación. Las principales contribuciones académicas en esta tesis son: a) una tipología del modelo de negocio de diferentes intermediarios de innovación; b) una contribución al modelo de Zollo y Winter (2002) sobre los mecanismos de aprendizaje a través del uso de los intermediarios; c) laconfirmación empíricaque la innovación abierta acelera la velocidad de los procesos de innovación; d) la primera publicación sobre el Sistema de Innovación del Mediterráneo; y e) nuevas políticas de innovación para la Unión Europea. Finalmente, el estudio de la innovación abierta a diferentes niveles, desde múltiples perspectivas teóricas, el uso de datos cualitativos y cuantitativos y los diferentes métodos de análisis han facilitado el descubrimiento de nuevas oportunidades de investigación las que son presentadas al final de esta tesis.Over the last decade, open innovation has impacted and enhanced firms’ collaboration strategies and public policy programs as this new ‘paradigm shift’ emerged from business’ needs to recover from the dot-com crash and belt-tightening of global recession. In this new wave of innovation, companies refocused on organic growth and in customer and consumer markets to enrich their business units and new corporate venturing initiatives. Also, open innovation gained importance in firm’s innovation strategies as technology and idea markets became a path to commercialize undeveloped solutions via licenses and patents. Moreover, given the need of innovation systems that require the collaboration among firms locally and internationally, public governments are designing new programs and strategies to capture the benefits of investment in R&D programs. This doctoral thesis addresses the aforementioned issues and provides a multi-level research framework that is comprised by seven complementary research articles. These provide a broad perspective on open innovation, from the project level to the innovation system level of analysis, each analyzing a unique area in enough depth to provide all the necessary insights and future valuable guidelines to managers and policy makers. The studies include an exploration of different types of innovation intermediaries in Europe and the US where the analysis reveals different approaches and value propositions adopted by innovation intermediaries. Two further studies focus on the business model of one-sided and two-sided innovation intermediaries and how these create and capture value for firms in technology and idea markets. These two independent case studies rely on archival information, interviews and surveys. A further in-depth case study of NineSigma – an innovation intermediary – reveals how intermediaries are not only beneficial to capture ideas from technology and idea markets but also to assist firms in articulating and codifying firms’ scientific problems. All these studies revealed firms’ seek for external knowledge to speed up their innovation process, as earlier results would allow them to launch faster products to market or determine the commercial unavailability of corporate venturing initiatives. The fifth study confirms open innovation collaboration speeds up the innovation process but collaboration with scientific partners do not help to speed up projects. Also, this study suggests when corporate venturing and core business unit can benefit from collaborating with external market and scientific partners. The two final studies provide innovation policy guidelines for the European Union and Mediterranean System of Innovation where open innovation, service innovation and business models represent the novelty in a policy level study. Overall, this doctoral thesis addresses the disconnection between open innovation studies and established streams of literature such as innovation intermediaries, dynamic capabilities, innovation speed, corporate venturing and innovation policy. The paramount academic contributions in this thesis include: a) an overarching business model typology of different innovation intermediaries, which is meant to be used to decide between collaborating with one-sided vs. two-sided innovation intermediaries; b) a contribution to Zollo and Winter’s (2002) framework on how innovation intermediaries help firms articulating and codifying knowledge and the managerial tensions and benefits of an intermediated external knowledge acquisition strategy; c) empirical support to the claim that open innovation speeds up the innovation process as well as the most advantageous type of collaboration to accelerate the speed of technology transfer, from research labs to business units, for corporate venturing and core business units; d) the first publication on the Mediterranean System of Innovation; and e) new policy initiatives for the European Union where the insights of open innovation and business models enlarged the common theoretical contributions on innovation systems. In this thesis the study of open innovation at different levels, the multiple theoretical perspectives, the use of qualitative and quantitative data and the different methods of analysis facilitated the discovery of future research opportunities. For this reason, this thesis concludes with recommendations for further scholarly research on open innovation, possible connections to established literatures and new methods and insights for managers interested on adopting open innovation in their own firms

The development of subsidiary technological capability: network linkages and subsidiary autonomy

This research contributes to the literature on subsidiary evolution by exploring the developments of subsidiary technological capabilities. It has been widely acknowledged that subsidiaries have unique in-house capabilities that are embedded in two contexts: 1) the internal technology sources including the headquarter ("HQ") and affiliated-units, such as the research and development ("R&D") centres; 2) the external technology sources comprised of local, regional or global entities, such as local universities. This study examines the relationship between subsidiary capability and autonomy and the mediating effects of communication systems, by linking internal and external networks through which the subsidiary both exploits and creates particular technological capabilities, and through which the parent company HQ, exercises its control. Through a synthesis of the international business and innovation management literature review, a set of measures of technological capability, autonomy and communication have been drawn. A capability taxonomy configured for the semiconductor industry by Ernst et al. (1998) was adapted to specifically examine integrated circuit ("IC") design, production and marketing capabilities amongst five different Taiwan-based foreign wholly-owned subsidiaries in the electronics industry (particular in the integrated circuits sector). These are compared using quantitative and qualitative measures on factors such as the types and levels of technological capabilities, the degree of autonomy and the intensity of communication they have developed. The findings demonstrated that the heart of subsidiary technological-capability creating lies in exploiting the parent company's core- competitive assets and capabilities and creating its capability development using local knowledge systems, and regional and global cooperative partners. The extent to which such developments of subsidiary technological capabilities are dispersed throughout and leveraged on the multinational enterprise ("MNE")'s differentiated network, depends on the intensity of internal and external communication systems for assimilating information or knowledge. Moreover, single subsidiaries have different degrees of decision-making autonomy, which influence both the nature of the internal NINE network, and the extent of influence of the internal and external network linkages on the developments of subsidiary technological capabilities. Overall, this research concludes that subsidiary autonomy is a cyclical process between the parent company and subsidiary, which is affected by the development of a subsidiary's technological capability. The capability- creating of a subsidiary is driven by the interactions between internal and external leverages which broaden the level and types of technological capabilities (namely, marketing-, design-and production-related) in terms of the scope of responsibility, in-house capability and the capacity for assimilation and creation of 4new' technology

External knowledge sourcing from startups:An analysis of the pre-collaboration phase

As digitalization has caused major changes within various traditional industries, firms are forced to explore new technological paths and access knowledge beyond their boundaries. This dissertation focuses on knowledge provided by startups. Besides introducing search approaches and successful search strategies to identify startups, this work also provides insights into how corporations may become attractive partners for startups. In addition, the quality of startup ideas is compared with ideas originating from established suppliers. Finally, this dissertation examines the implications of engaging with startups

Strategic Sourcing: Developing a Progressive Framework for Make-Or-Buy Decisions

Purpose: Make-or-buy decisions represent a critical dilemma faced by many firms. The appropriate decision between designing and manufacturing parts or services in-house, buying them from external providers or combining both is a fundamental firm process. This paper seeks to address this question by updating the traditional make-or-buy literature with new academic insights, developing a make-or-buy framework with a tool for its operationalisation to help managers evaluate sourcing decisions. Design/methodology/approach: First, a literature review of the principal theories and approaches about make-or-buy decisions is discussed. Second, the development of the make-or-buy framework is described and explained based on the results of qualitative interviews with practitioners and a set of interviews of an in-firm case study. Third, the results and the implementation of the framework are outlined. Findings: Our study not only validates the proposed framework through a set of in-firm make-or-buy decisions, but also provides a structure for its implementation and design a decision matrix with a pairwise comparison tool for helping practitioners to put the framework into practice. Research limitations/implications: This paper aims to contribute to the study of the make-or-buy literature in supply chain management through the graphical representation of why and how make-or-buy decisions are made. Interestingly, the paper presents relevant dimensions and factors to be studied and evaluates possible outcomes when approaching make-or-buy decisions. Originality/value: Our results suggest that practitioners should combine this framework with a pairwise comparison matrix and a multi-criteria decision analysis based on the TOPSIS methodology to assess strategic sourcing decisions

Industrial clusters in local and regional economies: a post Porter approach to the identification & evaluation of clusters in North Dublin

In a departure from the predominantly Porter (1990, 1998) influenced cluster studies that weie pei formed on Irish manufacturing throughout the 1990s i.e. studies which examined primarily market based relationships in the national context, this dissertation has focused on local and regional industry concentrations and the nature of inter-firm relationships within those concentrations Underpinning this approach is a bioad theoretical framework that combines three streams of related literature industrial districts, Porter's clusters and regional systems of innovation This alternative approach is applied to the local economy of North Dublin wheie analysis of region-specific employment data using location quotients indicates a number of spatially concentrated industrial sectors We then pose the question Do spatial concentrations o f industry in North Dublin constitute clusters? Using a case study approach we answer this question in relation to three traditional sectois Fish piocessing and preservation, Paper print and publishing, and Bakery food products We find that, for the most part, spatial concentrations do not constitute clusters, at least not in the Portenan sense of the term Despite this, elements or characteristics of clustcis are identified in two of the three sectors Using a simple analytical framework based on contextual and transactional environments we compare and contrast the inter-firm dynamics of each of these tiaditional sectors We identify a number of factors of each of the sector’s tiansactional and contextual environments that have shaped the nature of interaction between and among firms and attribute the disparate trajectories in firms’ interactive piocesses to these sectoral difference