 | This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (December 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) |
Technology intermediaries are an important actor of the innovation system. According to Howells [1] their role is to act as brokers or third parties in order to build the bridges between the various participations within the open system.
Innovation intermediaries focus their efforts on building bridges and closing gaps between the key actors of an innovation system which include enterprises, universities and public research organizations. [2]
Firms are becoming more open when it comes to collaborations outside the boundaries of a firm. Though the shift to open innovation is no guarantee for a firm's success. Many companies are not able to take advantage out of the opened innovation process for different reasons. Outsourcing those activities to technology intermediaries might be a potentially useful solution. [3]
Technology intermediaries or “tech intermediaries” are created to help firms to take advantage of technological developments. They help firms through their specialization in various R&D activities and R&D related activities to build up absorptive capacity. They can do so by helping to build the ability to scan the market for emerging technologies as well as the ability to absorb the technology and perform corresponding R&D activities. They are working as some kind of competence poles and are established to initiate innovation in specific sectors. Furthermore, they are acting as intermediaries between creators and diffusers of knowledge. [3]
Technology intermediaries are examined by different authors and therefore various denominations like “technological communities”, “bridging organizations”, “open innovation intermediaries” or “intermediaries” are existing. [1] [2] [4] [5] [6] They introduce various relations between the different actors of the innovation system. They are considered “instrumental in closing gaps between the principal actors”. [2]
There are many types of technology intermediaries existing, which are very different in their nature and perform various functions. The performed activities are ranged from the diffusion and technology transfer to innovation management and the establishment of systems and methods, but also technology services that are provided to companies. [2] The variety of intermediaries ranges from specialized government agencies and energy-service firms, electric power utilities to university liaison departments or regional technology centers. But also non-governmental organizations, research and technology organizations and cross-national networks can act as technology intermediary. [7]
In many European countries, technology intermediaries emerge as forms of collective technology centers. They are financed mostly both by industry as well as by the public sector. Examples are the “collective research centers” in Belgium or the “Centers Techniques Industries” in France. [3] Belgium's “collective research centers” were established in 1947 after the Second World War. Policy makers wanted to use them to boost scientific and technological research in specific fields of the economy. The intermediaries are privately held by the member companies. Because of their long-term direction and their existence for 30 to 60 years, they are considered to be useful for their members and obtained an appropriate position. The following chapters take the “collective research centers” as an example for technology intermediaries that have been examined extensively by André Spithoven and his colleagues in their scientific works. According to Spithoven et al. (2011) their operations to build absorptive capacity can be generalized to other technology intermediaries. [2] [3]
Regarding the use of knowledge, one can distinguish between two rough activities of companies within the frame of open innovation, namely inbound open innovation and outbound open innovation. [3]
Inbound open innovation is also often referred to as “Outside-in Process”, meaning that know-how of external sources, such as suppliers or consumers, gets transferred through the boundaries into the firm to improve the pace and quality of its innovation process. If used properly, this may allow for long-lasting innovativeness and competitive advantage. Therefore, companies shift “from innovation initiatives that are centered on internal resources to those that are centered on external networks“. [8] We therefore face a shift “[…] from innovation that is firm-centric one that is networking-centric.” [8]
In fact, the effective and efficient usage of external knowledge is more complex than obvious on first glance. External knowledge does not percolate smoothly through the boundaries of the firm. [3] More likely, knowledge that is stemming from external sources has to be, first of all, identified to be relevant, then brought into appropriate context and in the end actually be used. In fact, whether the firm is able to take advantage of inbound open innovation depends largely on absorptive capacity. [3] According to Cohen and Levinthal, [9] the concept of absorptive capacity is critical to the innovativeness of a firm. It is a three-step capability consisting of the following: Firstly, the ability to recognize new knowledge and technologies outside the own firm boundaries and to recognize their relevant value for own purposes. Secondly the ability to assimilate them and, finally, the ability to apply them to commercial ends. In short: Absorptive capacity is the ability to appropriate external knowledge. Understanding absorptive capacity, therefore, is the key to understanding the concept of inbound open innovation. Even if there are different views existing, the definition of Cohen and Levinthal can be taken as a frame for the concept of absorptive capacity. [3] [9]
According to Spithoven et al. (2011), absorptive capacity at the firm-level can be generated in various ways. Three main ways for an organization to do so, are:
A critical factor, therefore, is the communication at the inter-organizational level. [3]
Understanding that absorptive capacity does not necessarily have to take place within merely the firm-level, but can happen at the inter-organizational level, raises the question of the type of roles technology intermediaries may play. The following three main interrelated activities of collective research centers have been named by their CEOs to increase innovative capacity of the network members: [3]
The large fraction of R&D-related activities within research centers, in comparison to the proportion of pure R&D-activities, proofs the importance of their roles. Their activities do not substitute in house R&D of the member firms, but are directed at complementing them with otherwise too expensive R&D-related activities. Furthermore, collective research centers specifically absorb knowledge that does not transfer easily from science to industry. Their own high R&D activity intensity enables them to absorb very specialized knowledge and transfer it to their members in ways that lead to easier applicable information. [3]
Howells points out various functions of intermediaries. These include to foresight, doing diagnostic work and scan information but also process information and knowledge. They may act as a gatekeeper or broker as well. A further part of their functions may be to take care of testing, regulation and validation, do the accreditation process and furthermore protect the results. Besides they may deal with the commercialization and the evaluation of potential outcomes. Of course it depends on the respective intermediary, if they are involved or not involved in specific functions. [1]
The respective environment of technology intermediaries is the industry in which they operate. Technology transfer intermediaries can help overcome the barriers to commercialization by mediating between inventors, developers and marketers. According to Spithoven, similarities between and differences across sectors and industries are existing because of differences in the ability to build absorptive capacity. [2] Many studies examined the concepts of open innovation and absorptive capacity in large enterprises with a high level of R&D. [3] If absorptive capacity within a firm is developed by the before mentioned activities, how can companies, that are lacking the resources to execute those activities in the appropriate manner, participate successfully in the inbound open innovation process?
This becomes especially relevant for companies operating in the traditional sector as it generally meets the following characteristics:
Those characteristics easily reveal the inherent problem: Firms of traditional sectors, generally speaking, lack the resources to participate sufficiently in activities that enhance or develop absorptive capacity. SMEs in low tech sectors are confronted with a rather similar problem, namely a low level of absorptive capacity because of their limited R&D and innovation capacity. [2] Moreover, “innovation in SMEs is hampered by lack of financial resources, scant opportunities to recruit specialized workers, and small innovation portfolios so that risks associated with innovation cannot be spread. SMEs need to heavily draw on their networks to find missing innovation resources, and due to their smallness, they will be confronted with the boundaries of their organizations rather sooner than later”. [10] These are crucial issues for their innovativeness and future competitiveness regarding their participation in the open innovation process. [3]
Hence, for this type of industry, technology intermediaries are potential ways to overcome the lack of business, financing and marketing expertise. They can help SMEs in traditional and low tech sectors in improving their ability to scan the market for technology and furthermore to absorb the acquired knowledge and technology. [2] For instance, the “collective research centers” of Belgium are doing knowledge absorption and diffusion in their role as technology intermediaries. The member companies are lacking qualified personnel and the necessary technological information to absorb knowledge. Therefore, one of the main activities of the collective research centers is building R&D capacity and offering technology transfer services. “Through these activities, they help members build absorptive capacity, that will enable them to scan the market for technology and absorb technology from the environment.” [2]
Innovation in its modern meaning is "a new idea, creative thoughts, new imaginations in form of device or method". Innovation is often also viewed as the application of better solutions that meet new requirements, unarticulated needs, or existing market needs. Such innovation takes place through the provision of more-effective products, processes, services, technologies, or business models that are made available to markets, governments and society. An innovation is something original and more effective and, as a consequence, new, that "breaks into" the market or society. Innovation is related to, but not the same as, invention, as innovation is more apt to involve the practical implementation of an invention to make a meaningful impact in the market or society, and not all innovations require an invention. Innovation often manifests itself via the engineering process, when the problem being solved is of a technical or scientific nature. The opposite of innovation is exnovation.
Research and development, known in Europe as research and technological development (RTD), refers to innovative activities undertaken by corporations or governments in developing new services or products, or improving existing services or products. Research and development constitutes the first stage of development of a potential new service or the production process.
In business administration, absorptive capacity has been defined as "a firm's ability to recognize the value of new information, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends". It is studied on individual, group, firm, and national levels. Antecedents are prior-based knowledge and communication. Studies involve a firm's innovation performance, aspiration level, and organizational learning. It has been said that in order to be innovative an organization should develop its absorptive capacity.
The National Innovation System is the flow of technology and information among people, enterprises and institutions which is key to the innovative process on the national level. According to innovation system theory, innovation and technology development are results of a complex set of relationships among actors in the system, which includes enterprises, universities and government research institutes.
Coopetition or co-opetition is a neologism coined to describe cooperative competition. Coopetition is a portmanteau of cooperation and competition. Basic principles of co-opetitive structures have been described in game theory, a scientific field that received more attention with the book Theory of Games and Economic Behavior in 1944 and the works of John Forbes Nash on non-cooperative games. Coopetition occurs both at inter-organizational or intra-organizational levels.
Open innovation is a term used to promote an information age mindset toward innovation that runs counter to the secrecy and silo mentality of traditional corporate research labs. The benefits and driving forces behind increased openness have been noted and discussed as far back as the 1960s, especially as it pertains to interfirm cooperation in R&D. Use of the term 'open innovation' in reference to the increasing embrace of external cooperation in a complex world has been promoted in particular by Henry Chesbrough, adjunct professor and faculty director of the Center for Open Innovation of the Haas School of Business at the University of California,.
Collaborative innovation is a process in which multiple players contribute towards creating and developing new products, services, policies, processes, or business solutions. It might include the involvement of customers, suppliers and multiple stakeholders such as agencies and consultants
The URBAN AND REGIONAL INNOVATION Research (URENIO) is a University Lab in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, School of Engineering at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. URENIO is a non-profit research organization that started its operation in 1995. URENIO is mainly involved in competitive projects from the European R&D Framework Programs (FP), the Competitiveness and Innovation Program (CIP), the territorial cooperation programs, the OECD, and the United Nations.
Research and development intensity or simply R&D intensity, is generally defined as expenditures by a firm on its research and development (R&D) divided by the firm's sales. There are two types of R&D intensity: direct and indirect. R&D intensity varies, in general, according to a firm's industry sector, product knowledge, manufacturing, and technology, and is a metric that can be used to gauge the level of a company's investment to spur innovation in and through basic and applied research. A further aim of R&D spending, ultimately, is to increase productivity as well as an organization's salable output.
Innovation economics is a growing economic theory that emphasizes entrepreneurship and innovation. In his 1942 book Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, economist Joseph Schumpeter introduced the notion of an innovation economy. He argued that evolving institutions, entrepreneurs and technological changes were at the heart of economic growth. However, it is only in recent years that "innovation economy," grounded in Schumpeter's ideas, has become a mainstream concept".
Innovation management is a combination of the management of innovation processes, and change management. It refers to product, business process, marketing and organizational innovation. Innovation management is the subject of ISO 56000 series standards being developed by ISO TC 279.
The technological innovation system is a concept developed within the scientific field of innovation studies which serves to explain the nature and rate of technological change. A Technological Innovation System can be defined as ‘a dynamic network of agents interacting in a specific economic/industrial area under a particular institutional infrastructure and involved in the generation, diffusion, and utilization of technology’.
Innovation Intermediaries is a concept in innovation studies to help understand the role of firms, agencies and individuals that facilitate innovation by providing the bridging, brokering, knowledge transfer necessary to bring together the range of different organisations and knowledge needed to create successful innovation. The term open innovation intermediaries was used for this concept by Henry Chesbrough in his 2006 book as "companies that help other companies implement various facets of open innovation".
Communities that support innovation have been referred to as communities of innovation (CoI), communities for innovation, innovation communities, open innovation communities, and communities of creation.
Organizational ambidexterity refers to an organization's ability to be efficient in its management of today's business and also adaptable for coping with tomorrow's changing demand. Just as being ambidextrous means being able to use both the left and right hand equally, organizational ambidexterity requires the organizations to use both exploration and exploitation techniques to be successful.
In social sciences research on commercial R&D laboratories, boundary spanning is a term to describe individuals within an innovation system who have, or adopt, the role of linking the organization's internal networks with external sources of information. While the term was coined by Tushman, the concept was being developed by social scientists from the late 1950s onwards. Most of the early work was conducted in large American corporations with well established R&D laboratories. The term has since been used in relation to less well defined innovation networks.
Vincent Mangematin is a French researcher and professor in management, specialized in Strategy, Strategic management of Innovation and Technology Management. He is currently professor and scientific director at Grenoble Ecole de Management.
The Ethiopian Science and Technology Information Center (STIC), founded in 2011 in Addis Ababa, has the function of providing information to support scientific and technological (S&T) activities in the country. STIC has published information on the financing of research and development and on the nature and progress of innovative projects, and in 2014 was planning to introduce bibliometric monitoring of publications in S&T. The center has also provided ICT facilities including a digital library, a patent information system, an automated personnel management system, and a S&T-related database.
The composition-based view (CBV) was recently developed by Luo and Child (2015). It is a new theory that explicates the growth of firms without the benefit of resource advantages, proprietary technology, or market power. The CBV complements some existing theories such as resource-based view (RBV), resource management view, and dynamic capability – to create novel insights into the survival of firms that do not possess such strategic assets as original technologies and brands. It emphasizes how ordinary firms with ordinary resources may generate extraordinary results through their creative use of open resources and unique integrating capabilities, resulting in an enhanced speed and a high price-value ratio that are well suited to large numbers of low- to mid-end mass market consumers. The CBV has been commented as “a new view with significant application” for emerging market firms and for small and medium sized enterprises in many countries. The view cautions though that composition-generated advantages are temporary in nature and that composition itself mandates special skills in distinctively identifying, leveraging, and combining open or existing resources inside and outside the firm.
Innovation management measurement helps companies in understanding the current status of their innovation capabilities and practices. Throughout this control areas of strength and weakness are identified and the organizations get a clue where they have to concentrate on to maximize the future success of their innovation procedures. Furthermore, the measurement of innovation assists firms in fostering an innovation culture within the organization and in spreading the awareness of the importance of innovation. It also discloses the restrictions for creativity and opportunity for innovation. Because of all these arguments it is very important to measure the degree of innovation in the company, also in comparison with other companies. On the other hand, firms have to be careful not to misapply the wrong metrics, because they could threaten innovation and influence thinking in the wrong way.