Definition of display/control requirements for assault transport night/adverse weather capability

A Helicopter Night Vision System was developed to improve low-altitude night and/or adverse weather assult transport capabilities. Man-in-the-loop simulation experiments were performed to define the minimum display and control requirements for the assult transport mission and investigate forward looking infrared sensor requirements, along with alternative displays such as panel mounted displays (PMD) helmet mounted displays (HMD), and integrated control display units. Also explored were navigation requirements, pilot/copilot interaction, and overall cockpit arrangement. Pilot use of an HMD and copilot use of a PMD appear as both the preferred and most effective night navigation combination

A Comparison of U. S. and European University-Industry Relations in the Life Sciences

We draw on diverse data sets to compare the institutional organization of upstream life science research across the United States and Europe. Understanding cross-national differences in the organization of innovative labor in the life sciences requires attention to the structure and evolution of biomedical networks involving public research organizations (universities, government laboratories, nonprofit research institutes, and research hospitals), science-based biotechnology firms, and multinational pharmaceutical corporations. We use network visualization methods and correspondence analyses to demonstrate that innovative research in biomedicine has its origins in regional clusters in the United States and in European nations. But the scientific and organizational composition of these regions varies in consequential ways. In the United States, public research organizations and small firms conduct R&D across multiple therapeutic areas and stages of the development process. Ties within and across these regions link small firms and diverse public institutions, contributing to the development of a robust national network. In contrast, the European story is one of regional specialization with a less diverse group of public research organizations working in a smaller number of therapeutic areas. European institutes develop local connections to small firms working on similar scientific problems, while cross-national linkages of European regional clusters typically involve large pharmaceutical corporations. We show that the roles of large and small firms differ in the United States and Europe, arguing that the greater heterogeneity of the U. S. system is based on much closer integration of basic science and clinical development

Firm heterogeneity in biotech: absorptive capacity, strategies, and local-regional connections

This paper focuses on the characteristics of biotech firms with various levels of research and development (R&D) activity. It is done by exploring the relationship between R&D intensity, alliances and the extent of regionalization of firms' activities using evidence from a survey of US-based biotechnology firms. We profile two firm prototypes: research-oriented firms and product-oriented firms, focusing on their characteristics, strategies and operations. These include activities devoted to exploration and exploitation through alliances with universities (more exploration) and with pharmaceutical companies (exploration and exploitation), and locational needs which facilitate both exploration and exploitation

The impact of cluster connectedness on firm innovation: R&D effort and outcomes in the textile industry

This is an Author's Accepted Manuscript of an article published in "The impact of cluster connectedness on firm innovation: R&D effort and outcomes in the textile industry" version of the article as published in the Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 2012 september,[copyright Taylor & Francis], available online at: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/08985626.2012.710260"[EN] Recent research into the clustering effect on firms has moved away from a simplistic view to a more complex approach. More realistic and complex causal relationships are now considered when analysing these territorial networks. Specifically, this paper attempts to analyse how cluster connect- edness moderates the relationship of a firm's innovation effort and the results obtained from this effort. We want to question the commonly accepted direct and positive impact of R&D effort, and moreover, we suggest the existence of a saturation effect and that the level of cluster's inter-connectedness in the cluster moderates this effect. We have developed our empirical study focusing on the Spanish textile industrial cluster. This is a complex manufacturing industry that uses relatively low-technology manufacturing and R&D. Our findings suggest that the degree to which a firm is involved with, or connected to, other firms in the cluster can moderate the effect of the R&D effort on its innovation results. More generally, we aim to contribute to the discussion on the degree to which firms should be involved in the cluster network in order to operate efficiently and gain the maximum competitive advantages. Our findings have implications both in recent cluster and network literature as well for institutional policy.Molina Morales, FX.; Expósito Langa, M. (2012). The impact of cluster connectedness on firm innovation: R&D effort and outcomes in the textile industry. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development. 24(7-8):685-704. doi:10.1080/08985626.2012.710260S685704247-8Agarwal, R., Audretsch, D., & Sarkar, M. B. (2007). The process of creative construction: knowledge spillovers, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3-4), 263-286. doi:10.1002/sej.36Aharonson, B. S., Baum, J. A. C., & Feldman, M. P. (2007). Desperately seeking spillovers? Increasing returns, industrial organization and the location of new entrants in geographic and technological space. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(1), 89-130. doi:10.1093/icc/dtl034Albino, V., Carbonara, N., & Giannoccaro, I. (2006). Innovation in industrial districts: An agent-based simulation model. International Journal of Production Economics, 104(1), 30-45. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2004.12.023Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Does the Knowledge Spillover Theory of Entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy, 34(8), 1191-1202. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.012Bell, G. G. (2005). Clusters, networks, and firm innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 287-295. doi:10.1002/smj.448Bell, M., & Albu, M. (1999). Knowledge Systems and Technological Dynamism in Industrial Clusters in Developing Countries. World Development, 27(9), 1715-1734. doi:10.1016/s0305-750x(99)00073-xBelussi, F., & Arcangeli, F. (1998). A typology of networks: flexible and evolutionary firms. Research Policy, 27(4), 415-428. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(98)00074-2Cantwell, J., & Piscitello, L. (2005). Recent Location of Foreign-owned Research and Development Activities by Large Multinational Corporations in the European Regions: The Role of Spillovers and Externalities. Regional Studies, 39(1), 1-16. doi:10.1080/0034340052000320824Boschma, R. A., & ter Wal, A. L. J. (2007). Knowledge Networks and Innovative Performance in an Industrial District: The Case of a Footwear District in the South of Italy. Industry & Innovation, 14(2), 177-199. doi:10.1080/13662710701253441Brass, D. J. (1984). Being in the Right Place: A Structural Analysis of Individual Influence in an Organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(4), 518. doi:10.2307/2392937Breschi, S. (2001). Knowledge Spillovers and Local Innovation Systems: A Critical Survey. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 975-1005. doi:10.1093/icc/10.4.975CALANTONE, R. (1997). New product activities and performance: The moderating role of environmental hostility. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(3), 179-189. doi:10.1016/s0737-6782(97)00004-0Chell, E., & Baines, S. (2000). Networking, entrepreneurship and microbusiness behaviour. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 12(3), 195-215. doi:10.1080/089856200413464Chung, S. (Andy), Singh, H., & Lee, K. (2000). Complementarity, status similarity and social capital as drivers of alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 21(1), 1-22. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(200001)21:13.0.co;2-pCockburn, I. M., & Henderson, R. M. (2003). Absorptive Capacity, Coauthoring Behavior, and the Organization of Research in Drug Discovery. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(2), 157-182. doi:10.1111/1467-6451.00067Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R & D. The Economic Journal, 99(397), 569. doi:10.2307/2233763Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128. doi:10.2307/2393553Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120. doi:10.1086/228943Coombs, J. E., Deeds, D. L., & Duane Ireland, R. (2009). Placing the choice between exploration and exploitation in context: a study of geography and new product development. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(3), 261-279. doi:10.1002/sej.74Crestanello, P., & Tattara, G. (2011). Industrial Clusters and the Governance of the Global Value Chain: The Romania–Veneto Network in Footwear and Clothing. Regional Studies, 45(2), 187-203. doi:10.1080/00343401003596299Dierickx, I., & Cool, K. (1989). Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage. Management Science, 35(12), 1504-1511. doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.12.1504Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660. doi:10.2307/259056Eraydin, A., & Armatli-Köroğlu, B. (2005). Innovation, networking and the new industrial clusters: the characteristics of networks and local innovation capabilities in the Turkish industrial clusters. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 17(4), 237-266. doi:10.1080/08985620500202632Evenson, R. E., & Kislev, Y. (1973). Research and Productivity in Wheat and Maize. Journal of Political Economy, 81(6), 1309-1329. doi:10.1086/260129Expósito-Langa, M., Molina-Morales, F. X., & Capó-Vicedo, J. (2011). New Product Development and Absorptive Capacity in Industrial Districts: A Multidimensional Approach. Regional Studies, 45(3), 319-331. doi:10.1080/00343400903241535Foss, N. J. (1996). Higher-order industrial Capabilities and competitive advantage. Journal of Industry Studies, 3(1), 1-20. doi:10.1080/13662719600000001George, G., Robley Wood, D., & Khan, R. (2001). Networking strategy of boards: implications for small and medium-sized enterprises. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 13(3), 269-285. doi:10.1080/08985620110058115Giuliani, E. 2005. The structure of cluster knowledge networks: Uneven and selective, not pervasive and collective. DRUID Working Paper no. 05-11Giuliani, E., & Bell, M. (2005). The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 34(1), 47-68. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.10.008Glasmeier, A. (1991). Technological discontinuities and flexible production networks: The case of Switzerland and the world watch industry. Research Policy, 20(5), 469-485. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(91)90070-7Grant, R. M. (1996). Prospering in Dynamically-Competitive Environments: Organizational Capability as Knowledge Integration. Organization Science, 7(4), 375-387. doi:10.1287/orsc.7.4.375Guerrieri, P., & Pietrobelli, C. (2004). Industrial districts’ evolution and technological regimes: Italy and Taiwan. Technovation, 24(11), 899-914. doi:10.1016/s0166-4972(03)00048-8Huggins, R., & Johnston, A. (2010). Knowledge flow and inter-firm networks: The influence of network resources, spatial proximity and firm size. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 22(5), 457-484. doi:10.1080/08985620903171350Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and Differential Returns: Sex Differences in Network Structure and Access in an Advertising Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(3), 422. doi:10.2307/2393451Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 461-477. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199805)19:53.0.co;2-lLechner, C., Frankenberger, K., & Floyd, S. W. (2010). Task Contingencies in the Curvilinear Relationships Between Intergroup Networks and Initiative Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 865-889. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.52814620Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 1477-1490. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1030.0136Madill, J. J., Haines, G. H., & Riding, A. L. (2004). Networks and linkages among firms and organizations in the Ottawa-region technology cluster. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16(5), 351-368. doi:10.1080/0898562042000188414Maskell, P. (1998). Low-Tech Competitive Advantages and the Role Of Proximity. European Urban and Regional Studies, 5(2), 99-118. doi:10.1177/096977649800500201Maskell, P. (2001). Towards a Knowledge-based Theory of the Geographical Cluster. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 921-943. doi:10.1093/icc/10.4.921McEvily, B., & Marcus, A. (2005). Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 26(11), 1033-1055. doi:10.1002/smj.484McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging ties: a source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20(12), 1133-1156. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199912)20:123.0.co;2-7Xavier Molina-Morales, F., & Teresa Martínez-Fernández, M. (2006). Industrial districts: something more than a neighbourhood. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 18(6), 503-524. doi:10.1080/08985620600884750Molina-Morales, F. X., & Martínez-Fernández, M. T. (2009). Too much love in the neighborhood can hurt: how an excess of intensity and trust in relationships may produce negative effects on firms. Strategic Management Journal, 30(9), 1013-1023. doi:10.1002/smj.766Morrison, A. (2008). Gatekeepers of Knowledgewithin Industrial Districts: Who They Are, How They Interact. Regional Studies, 42(6), 817-835. doi:10.1080/00343400701654178Morrison, A., & Rabellotti, R. (2009). Knowledge and Information Networks in an Italian Wine Cluster. European Planning Studies, 17(7), 983-1006. doi:10.1080/09654310902949265Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 77-91. doi:10.1002/smj.4250171108Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242. doi:10.2307/259373O’Connor, G. C. (1998). Market Learning and Radical Innovation: A Cross Case Comparison of Eight Radical Innovation Projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(2), 151-166. doi:10.1111/1540-5885.1520151Oba, B., & Semerciöz, F. (2005). Antecedents of trust in industrial districts: an empirical analysis of inter-firm relations in a Turkish industrial district. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 17(3), 163-182. doi:10.1080/08985620500102964Parrilli, M. D. (2009). Collective efficiency, policy inducement and social embeddedness: Drivers for the development of industrial districts. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 21(1), 1-24. doi:10.1080/08985620801886513Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Resources and Relationships: Social Networks and Mobility in the Workplace. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 673. doi:10.2307/2657354Porter, M. E. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-11336-1Pouder, R., & St. John, C. H. (1996). Hot Spots and Blind Spots: Geographical Clusters of Firms and Innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1192-1225. doi:10.5465/amr.1996.9704071867Torre, A., & Rallet, A. (2005). Proximity and Localization. Regional Studies, 39(1), 47-59. doi:10.1080/0034340052000320842Rosenkopf, L., & Almeida, P. (2003). Overcoming Local Search Through Alliances and Mobility. Management Science, 49(6), 751-766. doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.6.751.16026Rosenthal, S. S., & Strange, W. C. (2003). Geography, Industrial Organization, and Agglomeration. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(2), 377-393. doi:10.1162/003465303765299882Rowley, T., Behrens, D., & Krackhardt, D. (2000). Redundant governance structures: an analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 369-386. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(200003)21:33.0.co;2-mRusso, M. (1985). Technical change and the industrial district: The role of interfirm relations in the growth and transformation of ceramic tile production in Italy. Research Policy, 14(6), 329-343. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(85)90003-4Sammarra, A., & Belussi, F. (2006). Evolution and relocation in fashion-led Italian districts: evidence from two case-studies. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 18(6), 543-562. doi:10.1080/08985620600884685Simmie, J. (2004). Innovation and Clustering in the Globalised International Economy. Urban Studies, 41(5-6), 1095-1112. doi:10.1080/00420980410001675823Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). SOCIAL NETWORKS AND THE PERFORMANCE OF INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 316-325. doi:10.2307/3069458STABER, U. (2007). Contextualizing Research on Social Capital in Regional Clusters. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 31(3), 505-521. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2007.00742.xStock, G. N., Greis, N. P., & Fischer, W. A. (2001). Absorptive capacity and new product development. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 12(1), 77-91. doi:10.1016/s1047-8310(00)00040-7Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., Henry, N., & Pinch, S. (2004). Knowledge, Clusters, and Competitive Advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 258. doi:10.2307/20159032Thompson, P., & Fox-Kean, M. (2005). Patent Citations and the Geography of Knowledge Spillovers: A Reassessment. American Economic Review, 95(1), 450-460. doi:10.1257/0002828053828509Tsai, W. (2001). KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER IN INTRAORGANIZATIONAL NETWORKS: EFFECTS OF NETWORK POSITION AND ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY ON BUSINESS UNIT INNOVATION AND PERFORMANCE. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996-1004. doi:10.2307/3069443Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). SOCIAL CAPITAL AND VALUE CREATION: THE ROLE OF INTRAFIRM NETWORKS. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464-476. doi:10.2307/257085Tushman, M., & Nadler, D. (1986). Organizing for Innovation. California Management Review, 28(3), 74-92. doi:10.2307/41165203Uzzi, B. (1997). Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35. doi:10.2307/2393808Varaldo, R., & Ferrucci, L. (1996). The evolutionary nature of the firm within industrial districts. European Planning Studies, 4(1), 27-34. doi:10.1080/09654319608720327Waxell, A., & Malmberg, A. (2007). What is global and what is local in knowledge-generating interaction? The case of the biotech cluster in Uppsala, Sweden. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 19(2), 137-159. doi:10.1080/08985620601061184Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. J. (2001). Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), 587-613. doi:10.1002/smj.183ZUCKER, L. G., DARBY, M. R., & ARMSTRONG, J. (1998). GEOGRAPHICALLY LOCALIZED KNOWLEDGE: SPILLOVERS OR MARKETS? Economic Inquiry, 36(1), 65-86. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.1998.tb01696.

Marginalization of end-use technologies in energy innovation for climate protection

Mitigating climate change requires directed innovation efforts to develop and deploy energy technologies. Innovation activities are directed towards the outcome of climate protection by public institutions, policies and resources that in turn shape market behaviour. We analyse diverse indicators of activity throughout the innovation system to assess these efforts. We find efficient end-use technologies contribute large potential emission reductions and provide higher social returns on investment than energy-supply technologies. Yet public institutions, policies and financial resources pervasively privilege energy-supply technologies. Directed innovation efforts are strikingly misaligned with the needs of an emissions-constrained world. Significantly greater effort is needed to develop the full potential of efficient end-use technologies

Building professional discourse in emerging markets: Language, context and the challenge of sensemaking

Using ethnographic evidence from the former Soviet republics, this article examines a relatively new and mainly unobserved in the International Business (IB) literature phenomenon of communication disengagement that manifests itself in many emerging markets. We link it to the deficiencies of the local professional business discourse rooted in language limitations reflecting lack of experience with the market economy. This hampers cognitive coherence between foreign and local business entities, adding to the liability of foreignness as certain instances of professional experience fail to find adequate linguistic expression, and complicates cross-cultural adjustments causing multi-national companies (MNCs) financial losses. We contribute to the IB literature by examining cross-border semantic sensemaking through a retrospectively constructed observational study. We argue that a relative inadequacy of the national professional idiom is likely to remain a feature of business environment in post-communist economies for some time and therefore should be factored into business strategies of MNCs. Consequently, we recommend including discursive hazards in the risk evaluation of international projects

Understanding the evolution of the entrepreneurial university:The case of English Higher Education

There has been strong policy interest in universities becoming more entrepreneurial and engaging in knowledge exchange activities as part of an expanding third mission agenda. However, our understanding of the evolution and diversity of such activities is limited. Using longitudinal data from the Higher Education Business Community Interaction (HEBCI) Survey, this study examines the evolving configuration of universities' knowledge exchange activities and stakeholders by analysing distinctive clusters of English universities. We find an increasingly diverse profile of third mission activities across different types of universities: within old, more established universities, Russell Group universities increasingly focus on research‐oriented activities typically in partnership with large firms and non‐commercial organisations; while another group engages in a broad range of knowledge exchange activities with low specialisation over time. Newer, less research intensive, universities increasingly rely on activities such as consultancy and formation of spin‐offs. A decreased engagement with small and medium enterprises and a lower share of knowledge exchange activities at the regional level are observed across the time studied for all universities.JRC.B.4-Human Capital and Employmen

University–industry linkages and academic engagements: individual behaviours and firms’ barriers. Introduction to the special section

The article introduces the special section on “University–industry linkages and academic engagements: Individual behaviours and firms’ barriers”. We first revisit the latest developments of the literature and policy interest on university–industry research. We then build upon the extant literature and unpack the concept of academic engagement by further exploring the heterogeneity of UI linkages along a set of dimensions and actors involved. These are: (1) Incentives and behaviours of individual academic entrepreneurs; (2) Firms’ barriers to cooperation with public research institutions; (3) Individual behaviours, incentives and organizational bottlenecks in late developing countries. We summarize the individual contributions along these dimensions. There are overlooked individual characteristics that affect the degree of engagement of academics and scholars in cooperating with other organizations, of which gender and the non-academic background of individuals are most crucial. The notion of academic engagement should be enlarged to aspects that go beyond the commercialization or patenting of innovation, but embrace social and economic impact more at large. From the perspective of the firm, barriers to innovation might exert an effect on the likelihood to cooperate with universities and public research institutes, most especially to cope with lack of finance or access to frontier knowledge. We finally propose a research agenda that addresses the challenges ahead