Firms size and R&D spillovers: Evidence from Italy

The recent emergence in the industrial organization literature of a wave of studies identifying small firms as more innovative than their larger counterparts poses something of a paradox? Where do small firms get their knowledge generating inputs? The purpose of this paper is to link innovative inputs to innovative outputs. This enables the identification of the extent to which spillovers exist from major sources generating new economic knowledge, such as the research and development (R&;D) laboratories of private and public firms, as well as universities, to the innovative activity of large and small enterprises. Based on twenty Italian regions over a period of nine years, the emprical evidence suggests that, while firm R&;D expenditures contribute to the generation of innovative output for all firms, as well as for large and small firms, the spillovers from university research are apparently more important for small-firm innovation than for large-firm innovation.     

Innovation, R&D cooperation and labor recruitment: evidence from Finland

This article investigates the role played by one type of firm interaction, namely R&D cooperation, and also the acquisition of labor, in the promotion of industrial innovations. We employ a unique innovation dataset from Finland which combines firm specific information about the innovation performance of the firms along with their individual characteristics, as well as firm specific information regarding the origins of their recent labor acquisitions. Analyzing this data allows us to identify the different roles which the knowledge spillovers and labor markets play in the innovation process. Our results suggest that small firms are generally more innovative than large firms; R&D cooperation is an essential feature of innovation, but the variety of cooperation is of little importance; and labor acquisition appears to be only of limited importance for innovation.

The tradeoff between firm size and diversity in the pursuit of technological progress

Conclusion Our analysis lends support to both sides of the debate concerning the optimal firm size for achieving technical advance. It provides a basis for why industries composed of many small firms will tend to exhibit greater diversity in the approaches to innovation pursued, and why greater diversity will contribute to more rapid technological change. It also provides a basis for why industries populated by larger firms will achieve a more rapid rate of technical advance on the approaches to innovation that are pursued. These arguments together suggest that a tradeoff exists between the appropriability advantage of large size and the advantages of diversity that accrue from numerous small firms. Our analysis has been more appreciative than rigorous and, indeed, often explicity speculative. While we attempted to raise important questions, our framework requires more structuring before we can be confident about any of our conclusions. Even in its inchoate form, however, our analysis demonstrates that much needs to be done before the current debate about firm size can seriously inform policy. If we accept the plausibility of our basic framework, it focuses attention on a range of issues and questions. The fundamental premise of our analysis is that firm capabilities and perceptions differ within industries. This premise is not, however, widely reflected in analyses of industry behavior and performance, which typically take some representative firm as their starting point. Indeed, the analytic utility of our particular premise deserves scrutiny. Are differences in firm capabilities and perceptions as critical to explaining the industry patterns in innovative activity and performance as we suggest? Do these differences persist? Is our abstract characterization of these differences and their effects on innovative activity up to the task of providing a basis for policy?These intraindustry differences in capabilities and perceptions underpin the hypothesized relationship in our framework between the number of firms within an industry and the number of distinct technological activities pursued by the industry as a whole. Surely this hypothesis should be tested. To establish the relationship between numbers of firms and technological diversity, we also made two important assumptions, which themselves should be examined. First, we assumed that firms independently decide upon which approaches to innovation to pursue.This assumption precludes the clustering of firms around innovative activities due to imitation, a phenomenon highlighted by Nelson (1981) and Scott (1991). To the degree that innovative activities yield relatively fast, public results, the assumption may be suspect. While our evidence indirectly suggests that such clustering may not be critical for explaining innovative activity in a wide range of industries, more research would be helpful. Second, we assumed that the number of approaches to innovation pursued by firms is independent of their size, implying large and small firms will tend to pursue the same number of approaches. This assumption probably does not apply to the smallest firms within an industry, particularly to the extent that such firms are often not full line manufacturing firms. Does it apply, however, to the medium to large firms that account for the preponderance of R&D and economic activity inthe manufacturing sector? While our evidence again provides indirect support for this claim, more empirical and theoretical research is indicated.We also made other claims and assumptions that deserve further attention. For example, we argued that greater technological diversity stimulates technical advance and provides gross increments to social welfare. Assuming it exists, the mechanism linking diversity and technical advance has never been examined empirically and is not obvious. Our assumption that expected firm growth due to innovation is increamental played an important role in permitting usto hypothesize an appropriability advantage of large size. Again, both the assumption and its alleged effect on innovative activity are worth examining. Finally, we also need to test whether the relationship between R&D and firm size within industries depends upon appropriability conditions, particularly upon the extent to which firms can sell their innovations or grow rapidly due to innovation. In conclusion, this litany of reasonable but unsubstantiated assumptions and arguments should make clear that this paper is only a modest beginning of a daunting research agenda.

---

     

Product Innovation and Small Business Growth: A Comparison of the Strategies of German,U.K. and Irish Companies

Innovation in small firms is important both because of its direct contribution to the competitiveness of those companies but also because of the potential for the small firm sector to act as the initiator, catalyst and medium for wider technical change. In this paper data from the Product Development Survey, a new international survey of firms' product innovation activity and strategy, is used to examine the relationship between product innovation and growth in German, Irish and U.K. small firms. In each country the output of innovative small firms was found to grow significantly faster than that of non-innovators. In Germany, output growth was achieved by a product innovation strategy which sharply increased productivity but reduced employment. U.K. and Irish small firms adopted a more balanced approach with increases in both employment and productivity associated with innovative behaviour. Comparison of the organisation of product innovation indicated that German small firms adopted a less market-oriented, less risky, and more formally organised approach than their U.K. and Irish counterparts. The revealed characteristics of U.K. and Irish small firms suggested that they may be the most effective initiators and catalysts for wider technological change. The larger proportion of German small firms which were innovating, however, suggested that the German small firm sector may be the more effective technology transfer medium.     

Innovation and the Quality of Labour Factor: An empirical investigation in the French food industry

The aim of our paper is to analyse the determinants of the innovation propensity of the firm. Among the numerous works devoted to this subject, the interest of our research is, firstly, to use a direct measurement of innovation, instead of the usual proxies, as R&D expenditures and patents statistics, secondly, to emphasise the role of labour factor quality as a major determinant of innovation. We first build a definition of labour factor quality, based on a double dimension: individual skill level and functional distribution of jobs inside the firm. At the end we consider that each job category can be involved in the innovation process, at the different steps of it: conception, decision, implementation. To explain the innovation propensity at the firm level, our logit model takes into account four explanatory dimensions: the quality of labour factor employed inside the firm, the firm structural characteristics (as size, for instance), the sectoral market structures and, finally, the quality of labour factor employed inside the firm sector, as a proxy for the R&D spillover effect. We use some individual firms data, including a direct measurement of innovation, that distinguished between several types: radical vs. incremental and product vs. process vs. organisational innovation. The French food industries with its 500.000 employees and 42 sectors, mostly composed of small firms, are our empirical field. The results emphasise the influence of the usual firm structure variables. Firm size, particularly, is very clearly positively related to the innovation propensity. At the same time, some more original facts appears, such as the influence of firm status: after controlling the sectoral influence, co-operative firms seem to innovate less than private ones. Labour factor quality appears to play a very significant role by itself, but mostly, helps us to analyse and specify the influence of other variables on innovation. At the end, it shows that innovation is a multiphase process, and that the relative importance of each phase greatly depends on the kind of innovation that is considered. Conception is the most important phase in the radical innovation case, which greatly involves formally high-skilled job categories as R&D employees or engineers. At the same time, the implementation phase, which seems to be particularly important in the incremental innovation case, emphasises the role of the intermediate categories know-how.At the end we can say that small industrial firms appear to be less innovative for two reasons: the usual scale effect argument is correct only in the process innovation case in relation to the capital intensity level. In some other cases as radical innovation, small firms are less innovative because of their job structure and particularly because of the lack of formal scientific capabilities (as the R&D personnel's one).     

Knowledge,innovation and firm performance in high- and low-technology regimes

Industries with greater aggregate levels of research and development (R&D) intensity are home to higher rates of firm-level innovation, according to survey data from 845 Canadian manufacturing firms. And, though innovation is more common when industry dynamism is high, innovative firms are likely to enjoy revenue growth, irrespective of the industry in which they operate. The research also shows that firm knowledge, industry dynamism and innovation interact in the way they influence firm performance. A highly skilled workforce is most beneficial to firm performance in dynamic environments, while firms in stable manufacturing industries benefit more from investments in training.     

Do Small Innovating Firms Outperform Non-Innovators?

The paper considers the relative performance [along a number of parameters] of a sample of 228 small manufacturing firms categorised by level of innovation. Whilst innovators appear no more likely to have experienced some form of sales or employment growth, they are significantly more likely to have grown more. In other words, the innovators' growth rate distributions are highly negatively skewed. With regards to export intensities, profitability and productivity levels, the findings are less clear. On the whole, the results reported here are similar to those of other small firm studies, yet vary markedly from large firm equivalents; suggesting that the nature of the returns to innovation may be contingent, at least in part, upon firm size. Moreover, the high levels of variation in firm performance should caution us against proffering innovative imperatives. If we are to counsel firms to "innovate at all costs", we must be clear about, and clearly demonstrate, the nature of the returns they may reasonably expect and the processes through which these may be optimised.     

Firm growth and innovation

In recent years, there has been an increase in empirical and theoretical work that addresses the role of innovation as one of the main sources of firm growth. The purpose of this special issue is to strengthen the role played by innovation as a determinant of firm growth. Despite the emergence of a vast empirical literature on whether innovative firms grow more quickly in terms of sales and employees, a number of crucial questions and answers remain. While a large number of applied papers observe a positive link between innovation and firm growth, the complexity of R&D activities, together with the diversity of innovation strategies and the multiplicity of growth modes, requires a multidimensional approach to examine the contribution of innovations on firm growth. To shed light on the link between firm’ growth and innovation sources, we organized a meeting of leading scholars of firm’ growth and innovation. The papers of this special issue were presented at the workshop on ‘Firm growth and innovation’ held on 28 and 29 June, 2012, in Tarragona, Spain. The papers that compose this special issue deal in depth with innovation activity, firm growth and the interaction between firm growth and innovation.     

Knowledge stock, exploration, and innovation: Research on the United States electromedical device industry

This study applies the knowledge-based view of the firm to examine the relationships between exploration, characteristics of knowledge stock, and innovative performance. The article argues that the effectiveness of exploration on innovation is contingent upon two dimensions of knowledge stock: knowledge depth and knowledge breadth. Empirical findings from the US electromedical device industry between 1990 and 2000 provide support for this contingency argument.     

Entrepreneurship and innovation in Ghana: enterprising Africa

This study adopts a multi-level theoretical framework to examine data from 496 entrepreneurs in Ghana. Seven types of innovation activity are analysed against three categories of variables: the characteristics of the entrepreneur, the internal competencies of the firm, and firm location. Across all respondents, the incidence of incremental innovation was far greater than novel innovation. The extent of innovation was related to the education level of the entrepreneur. Firm size and involvement in exporting were positively related to innovation, but firm growth is less systematically so. Innovation was greater in firms located in conurbations compared to firms located in large and small towns. We conclude with suggestions for policy to promote entrepreneurship and innovation in Ghana.      

The Exploration of Technological Diversity and Geographic Localization in Innovation: Start-Up Firms in the Semiconductor Industry

This paper examines the innovative ability of small firms in the semiconductor industry regarding their exploration of technological diversity and their integration within local knowledge networks. Through the analysis of patent data, we compare the innovative activity of start-up firms and larger firms. We find that small firms explore new technological areas by innovating in less crowded areas. The analysis of patent citation data reveals that small firms are tied into regional knowledge networks to a greater extent than large firms. These findings point to the role of entrepreneurial firms in the exploration of new technological spaces and in the diffusion of their accumulated knowledge through local small firm networks.     

The impact of firm size on innovative activity – an empirical analysis based on swiss firm data

The impact of firm size on innovation activity was investigated in detail on the basis of firm data for Swiss manufacturing. The study includes estimations of a model of innovation behaviour with firm size as an additional explanatory variable, an analysis of the relation between R&D expenditures and firm size in total manufacturing and in several 2-digit industries, as well as exploration of the size-dependence of model variables. No evidence was found for the existence of economies of scale in the innovation activity in Swiss manufacturing. On the other hand, we were able to gather several pieces of information pointing to a size-specific orientation of the innovative activity.     

Facilitators of organizational innovation: The role of life-cycle stage

One of the most serious challenges facing an entrepreneurial company, particularly a high-technology firm, is knowing how to manage innovation as the organization evolves. Macro-level facilitators/inhibitors of innovation—i.e., organizational and environmental conditions of a firm that promote or restrain innovation such as the structure of an organization, its incentive system, resources provided by its environment, or its ways of analyzing firm-external information—and their relationship to the innovativeness of the firm are considered in this study.Two basic arguments have been put forward previously as to why the innovativeness of an organization may change as it evolves. First, it has been suggested that facilitators of innovation change over time and so will firm innovativeness. That is, the relationship between the facilitator and innovation stays unchanged but the facilitator itself is transformed, causing changes in firm innovativeness as it develops. For instance, it has been suggested that mature firms become less innovative because their structure becomes overly formalized to perform other functions more efficiently, which then stifles innovative processes. Second, other researchers have proposed that the relationship between a facilitator and innovation changes as firms evolve; for instance a formal structure may support innovation in a younger firm because it allows the entrepreneur to focus her energy, whereas it may suppress innovation later since it inhibits an innovator's interaction with other environments. The results of our analysis, using data from 326 U.S. firms in different stages of their development and involved in many kinds of high-tech industries, support the second theory.However, the results for the relationships of the individual facilitators to innovation were not always as expected. We found that formally structured young firms were less innovative than informal ones and that in older organizations, formalization had no negative impact on innovation. This finding possibly can be explained with micro-level facilitators of innovation: younger firms may have more entrepreneurial personnel whose ability for innovation is more inhibited through a formal structure than the more “seasoned” employees in older, larger firms. However, this finding implies that the concern for formal structures with respect to firm innovativeness does not necessarily apply as typically assumed.Of similar significance was our finding with respect to the relationship between financial incentives and innovation. It has been suggested that younger rather than older firms use incentives such as equity to encourage an innovative environment. Results of this research, however, show that innovation is associated with stock incentives especially in older firms. This may be an indication for older firms to use differentiated incentives that reflect the individual's contribution to the firm to retain innovative personnel, whereas start-ups might rely on the excitement of working in a new venture as an incentive for innovative behavior.More in line with expectations were the results for how firms process external information. Environmental scanning and data analysis were positively associated with innovation, and this more so in older firms, presumably because they have become more remote from developments outside the organization. This result confirms the notion that much innovation by a firm is initiated externally. However, the results also indicate that the conditions of the environment itself are of lesser importance to firm innovativeness than the firm's active pursuit of information from its environment. An often discussed implication of these findings is that the boundaries of a firm must be permeable, at least from the outside in, and systematic information gathering from customers, competition, research institutions, etc. may be necessary to the success of a firm that depends on its product development. This seems especially important for older firms.As expected, the centralization of power in an organization also affected innovation. Centralization correlated positively with innovation in new ventures and negatively in older firms. This indicates the importance of the entrepreneur and strong leader in a start-up. It also suggests, though, that as the firm matures, this person has to give up some of her control and may have to relinquish the job at the head of the organization to someone else.Finally, there are some more general implications of this work to managers involved with organizational innovation. First, reliance on past experience may be detrimental to future performance. Whereas a firm evolves through different stages, means that have facilitated innovation earlier may be detrimental to it now or tomorrow, and vice versa. Second, copying successful strategies for innovation from other firms may not necessarily work—not because their implementation was worse but because the conditions of the other firm, for instance its evolutionary stage or its micro-level facilitators, were different.Researchers who study innovation should consider including life-cycle stage as a potential moderating variable. Factors that facilitate innovation at some point during an organization's evolution actually hinder it in another. Also, factors that were unimportant to innovation at the inception of a firm may facilitate it in later stages. This study supports the conclusion that the consideration of contingency factors, such as life-cycle stage, may enhance the development of a theory of organizational innovation.     

Firm size,university based research,and the returns to R&D

This paper compares university-based research relationships between small and large firms as an explanation for the difference in innovative activity across firm sizes. We test the hypothesis that there are diseconomies of scale in producing innovations in large firms due to the inherent bureaucratization process which inhibits both innovative activity as well as the speed with which new inventions move through the corporate system towards the market. By utilizing university-based research relationships, small firms are able to avoid bureaucratic inefficiencies.     

基于资源的知识型中小企业技术创新能力评价研究

知识型中小企业的技术创新能力是与其获取和开发资源的能力严格相关的,通过对企业在其生命周期内经营的特定资源的种类和数量的分析就可以评价企业的技术创新能力。与此同时,构建基于资源的知识型中小企业技术创新能力评价指标体系和模糊综合评价模型,以便对知识型中小企业技术创新能力进行综合评价。     

Open innovation practices in SMEs and large enterprises

Few studies on open innovation (OI) address OI practices in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and how their use of OI and the resulting benefits differ from those of large enterprises. The lack of resources in SMEs to engage in looking outward is said to be a barrier to OI, but at the same time this shortage is cited as a motive for looking beyond organisational boundaries for technological knowledge. We investigate how OI dimensions impact the innovative performance of SMEs in comparison to large companies. The key finding is that the effects of OI practices in SMEs often differ from those in large firms. SMEs are more effective in using different OI practices simultaneously when they introduce new products on the market, whereas this is less the case for large firms. Turnover from new products in SMEs is driven by intellectual property protection mechanisms, while large firms in this case benefit more from their search strategies.     

Networks,Firm Size and Innovation

Using survey data on Australian firms this paper investigates the determinants of innovation. Various possible determinants are investigated, including market structure, export status, the use of networks, and training. Regression analysis is conducted separately for manufacturing and non-manufacturing firms and, within each sector, by firm size categories. The results include evidence of persistence in innovative activities and that the use of networks is associated with innovation in some sector-firm size categories. Specifically, small manufacturing firms exhibit a positive association between networking and innovation. In contrast, for non-manufacturing firms this association is present for medium and large sized firms.     

Comparing Innovation Capability of Small and Medium‐Sized Enterprises: Examining the Effects of Organizational Culture and Empowerment

This study analyzes the impact of organizational culture and empowerment on innovation capability, and examines the peculiarities of these effects. The study's hypotheses are tested by applying both individual and firm‐level analyses to survey data collected from 743 employees from 93 small and medium‐sized firms located in Turkey. For medium‐sized enterprises on both the individual and firm level of analysis, results suggest that collectivism and uncertainty avoidance are positively associated with empowerment, whereas power distance is negatively related to empowerment. Assertiveness focus has no relations with empowerment and innovation capability, yet among cultural dimensions, only uncertainty avoidance is related to innovation capability. For small‐sized enterprises, findings suggest that both power distance and uncertainty avoidance are linked to both empowerment and innovation capability on the individual level, whereas two new paths between collectivism and innovation capability and between assertiveness focus and empowerment are found on the firm level. Also, empowerment is found to be positively related to innovation capability for both small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) on both the individual and firm level. In terms of managerial practice, our study helps clarify the key role played by cultural dimensions in the process of shaping an empowering and innovative work environment. Findings also reveal that managers should focus on participative managerial practices (e.g., empowerment) to promote innovation capability of SMEs.     

The project-management approach in the “systematic management” of innovative start-up firms

This paper presents the principal results obtained by applying the project- management approach to strategic planning and operations management of innovative start-up firms' key activities. This approach is used to implement Drucker's view of entrepreneurship as a systematic discipline and his recommendation that innovation be treated using his principle of systematic innovation.As is well known, the management of growth in an innovative start-up firm is a difficult problem facing that organization. During this particular stage of the firm's development, many interdependent activities need to be performed under the conditions of uncertainty and limited resources. In these cases, flexibility and contingency planning are necessary. The fact that there exists no generally accepted approach that an entrepreneur can utilize, however, results in chaotic situations in many such enterprises.The start-up firm cannot utilize the formalized management systems and procedures available and useful in large firms. In addition, a disorganized, chaotic, random management-decision process will seldom provide desirable results in such firms. Viewing the firm as a project to be managed with specific tasks, activities, precedence relations, durations, and milestones presents an opportunity to utilize project-management techniques, including the critical-path method (CPM).Recent research has demonstrated that project-management methodology and its computer- software applications are applicable to small, innovative start-up firms. By utilizing a microcomputer, one can analyze any start-up business for flaws in management or organization and can chart a more productive path for achieving the firm's strategic goals. Project management using computers is not new: it has been used for years for major aerospace, utility, and construction projects. Only recently, however, have microcomputers and software become inexpensive enough to allow small firms to utilize this approach.The project-management approach collects information about a start-up firm, including all of its planned activities consistent with its evolving business plan, and then utilizes a microcomputer and inexpensive, readily available project-management software to process the information collected. Among the outputs are a “GANTT chart,” which indicates when the various activities should begin and end; a “Job Report,” which provides the earliest and latest possible deadlines for starting and ending each activity; and a “Milestone Report,” which indicates when each key event is to be accomplished according to the strategic business plan. These status reports are extremely valuable to the CEO and to the management team as the firm is kept on course according to its strategic plan.This methodology has been applied to 20 innovative start-up firms in northern California, including a computer graphics company, a semiconductor-equipment manufacturer, and firms that develop software for professional athletes, educators, ophthalmologists, and radio-station managers. In addition, the project-management approach has been applied to plan and schedule Stanford University's current centennial fund-raising campaign.Results indicate that the CEO and the entire management team are able to plan, schedule, and control the innovative start-up firm's multiplicity of activities in a systematic way. The firm is also able to modify its strategic plan based on a review of its updated status reports and to modify its operations plans accordingly. Current research is under way to develop similar systematic methods for managing innovations in large organizations.     

Geographical FDI knowledge spillover and innovation of indigenous firms in China

In recent decades, theoretical debate on firm innovation has considered particular forms of spatial clustering and foreign direct investment as almost mutually exclusive drivers. While cluster literature pays less attention to firm heterogeneity in ownership structure, FDI literature ignores the importance of geographical dimension in spillover effects. This study combines these two lines of theoretical inquiry to investigate regional FDI knowledge spillover effects on product innovation of China's indigenous electronic firms. It is found that localized innovative-related activities of foreign-invested firms significantly facilitate product innovation of domestic firms. However, FDI horizontal spillover is more important than vertical spillover and cross-sector rather than intra-sector knowledge is significant for indigenous innovation. FDI spillover effects can be reinforced by local innovative activities of domestic firms. This study highlights the significance of geographical proximity and relatively heterogeneous knowledge in FDI spillover effects on domestic innovation but questions the mutual trust relationship between foreign and domestic firms in a cluster.