Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Parrilli, Mario Davide; Alcalde Heras, Henar (2016)
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Journal: Research Policy
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: Engineering(all), Strategy and Management, Management of Technology and Innovation, Management Science and Operations Research
In this paper, we join the debate on business innovation modes that originates from the wider literature on innovation systems. These specific contributions identify and study the impact of different innovation modes, particularly the mode focused on scientific and technologically-based innovation (STI) vs. the mode based on learning-by-doing, by-using, and by-interacting (DUI). Echoing the seminal contribution by Jensen et al. (2007) and a range of other studies, we confirm the importance of the combined STI&DUI interaction mode, which has a stronger impact on innovation output (technological and non-technological) than the two separate individual modes. Additionally, we propose a novel hypothesis on the effectiveness of firm's interaction modes. We argue that the independent STI mode has a stronger effect on technological innovation, whereas the independent DUI mode has a stronger impact on non-technological innovation. In addition, in line with works on the geography of innovation, and innovation systems, we try to determine the impact of regional vs. global DUI and STI interactions on technological and non-technological innovations. In this case, we expect that in diverse geographic locations, businesses tend to adopt their own context-specific interaction modes, which produce a differentiated impact on innovation output. This study is applied to a large sample of firms in the context of the Basque Autonomous Community in Spain.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Ahuja, G., Katila, R., 2001. Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: a longitudinal study. Strat. Manage. J. 22, 197-220.
    • Aghion, P., Howitt, P., García Pen˜alosa, C., 1998. Endogenous Growth Theory. MIT Press.
    • Alcalde, H., 2014. Collaboration patterns and product innovation in the Basque Country. Does a firm's nationality matter? J. Entrepren. Manage. Innov. 10 (3), 29-55.
    • Alcalde, H., Guerrero, M., 2014. Open Business model innovation in early entrepreneurial stages: evidence from new Spanish firms during expansionary and recessionary periods. Int. Entrepren. Manage. J., http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s11365-014-0348-x.
    • Amara, N., Landry, R., 2005. Sources of information as determinants of novelty of innovation in manufacturing firms: evidence from the 1999 statistics Canada innovation survey. Technovation 25, 245-259.
    • Apanasovich, N., (Ph.D. thesis) 2014. The Impact of Business Innovation Modes on Innovation Performance: The Case of Belarus. University of Deusto, San Sebastian.
    • Archibugi, D., Lundvall, B.A., 2001. The Globalizing Learning Economy: Major Socio-Economic Trends and European Innovation Policy. Oxford University Press.
    • Asheim, B., Gertler, M., 2005. The geography of innovation: regional innovation systems. In: The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York.
    • Asheim, B., Coenen, L., 2006. Contextualizing regional innovation systems in a globalising learning economy: on knowledge bases and institutional frameworks. J. Technol. Transfer 31, 163-173.
    • Asheim, B., Parrilli, M.D. (Eds.), 2012. Interactive Learning for Innovation. Palgrave-Macmillan, Basingstoke.
    • Aslesen, Isaksen, A., Karlsen, J., 2011. Modes of innovation and differentiated responses to globalization. J. Knowl. Econ. 2.
    • Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., Maskell, P., 2004. Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 28 (1), 31-56.
    • Bell, M., 2006. Time and technological learning in industrializing countries. J. Technol. Manage. 36, 25-39.
    • BISi, 2011. Basque Innovation Survey. Basque Statistical Office, Vitoria.
    • Boschma, R.A., 2005. Proximity and innovation. A critical assessment. Reg. Stud. 39 (1), 61-74.
    • Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R., 2002. R&D co-operation and spillovers: some empirical evidence from Belgium. Am. Econ. Rev. 92 (4), 1169-1185.
    • Cefis, E., Marsili, O., 2006. Survivor: the role of innovation in firm's survival. Res. Policy 35, 626-641.
    • Chen, J., Chen, Y., Venhaverbeke, W., 2011. The influence of scope, depth and orientation of external technology sources on the innovative performance of Chinese firms. Technovation 31 (8), 363-372.
    • Christensen, C.M., 1993. The rigid disk drive industry: a history of commercial and technological turbulence. Business History Rev. 67 (4), 531-588.
    • Chung, S.A., Kim, G.M., 2003. Performance effects of partnership between manufacturers and suppliers for new product development: the supplier's standpoint. Res. Policy 32 (4), 587-603.
    • Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A., 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin. Sci. Q. 35 (1).
    • Cooke, P., Morgan, K., 1994. Regional innovation system in Baden-Wurttenberg. Int. J. Technol. Manage. 14, 394-429.
    • Czarnitzki, D., 2005. The extent and evolution of productivity deficiency in Eastern Germany. J. Prod. Anal. 24, 211-231.
    • Dosi, G., 1988. Sources, procedures and microeconomics effects of innovation. J. Econ. Lit. 26, 1120-1171.
    • Dosi, G., Pavitt, K., Soete, L., 1990. The Economics of Technical Change and International Trade. LEM Book Series, Pisa.
    • Ebersberger, B., Herstad, S.J., Iversen, E., Kirner, E., Som, O., 2011. Open Innovation in Europe: Effects, Determinants and Policy. PRO INNO Europe: INNO-Grips II Report. European Commission, DG Enterprise and Industry, Brussels.
    • Edquist, C., 2005. Systems of innovation: perspectives and challenges. In: Fagerberg, J., Mowery, D., Nelson, R. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York.
    • Eurostat, 2006. Europe in Figures - Eurostat Yearbook 2006-2007. http://ec. europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/5611007/KS-CD-06-001-EN.PDF/ bff24660-2fb5-4c11-a336-9d356a6fdda5?version=1.0.
    • Filippetti, A., Frenz, M., Ietto-Gillies, G., 2011. Are innovation and internationalization related? An analysis of European countries. Ind. Innov. 18, 437-459.
    • Fitjar, R., Rodriguez-Pose, A., 2013. Firm collaboration and modes of innovation in Norway. Res. Policy 42, 128-138.
    • Frenz, M., Ietto-Gillies, G., 2009. The impact on innovation performance of different sources of knowledge: evidence from the UK Community Innovation Survey. Res. Policy 38, 1125-1135.
    • Gertler, M., 2003. Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context. J. Econ. Geogr. 3 (1), 75-99.
    • González, J.L., Parrilli, M.D., Pen˜a, I., 2015. STI-DUI learning modes, firm-university collaboration and innovation. J. Technol. Transfer, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10961-014-9352-0.
    • Greunz, L., 2005. Intra and inter-regional knowledge spillovers. Eur. Plan. Stud. 13 (3), 449-473.
    • Hollanders, H., Tarantola, S., Loschky, A., 2009. Regional Innovation Scoreboards. Pro-Inno Europe, Bruxelles.
    • Isaksen, A., Karlsen, J., 2010. Different modes of innovation and the challenge of connecting universities and industry. Eur. Plan. Stud. 18 (12), 1193-2010.
    • Isaksen, A., Karlsen, J., 2012. Combined and complex modes of innovation in regional cluster development. In: Asheim, B., Parrilli, M.D. (Eds.), Interactive Learning for Innovation. Palgrave-Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 115-135.
    • Isaksen, A., Nilsson, M., 2013. Combined innovation policy: linking scientific and practical knowledge in innovation systems. Eur. Plan. Stud. 21 (12).
    • Jensen, M., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B.A., 2007. Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Res. Policy 36, 680-693.
    • Lall, S., 1998. Technological capabilities in emerging Asia. Oxf. Dev. Stud. 26 (2), 213-243.
    • Laursen, K., Salter, A., 2006. Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strat. Manage. J. 27 (2), 131-150.
    • Lundvall, B.A., 1992. National Systems of Innovation. Pinter, London.
    • Lundvall, B.A., 2007. National systems of innovation: analytical concept and development tool. Ind. Innov. 14, 95-119.
    • Malaver, F., Vargas, M., 2013. Aprendizaje y formas de innovar. Mimeo, Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá.
    • Malerba, F., 2002. Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Res. Policy 31 (2), 247-264.
    • Malmberg, A., Maskell, P., 2002. The elusive concept of localization economies: towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. Environ. Plan. 34, 429-449.
    • Nelson, R., 1993. NationalSsystems of Innovation: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford University Press.
    • Nieto, M.J., Santamaría, L., 2007. The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation. Technovation 27, 367-377.
    • Nunes, S., López, R., Dias, J., 2013. Innovation modes and firm performance: the case of Portugal. In: ERSA Conference, Palermo, August 28-31.
    • OECD, 2006. The Oslo Manual of Innovation. Paris.
    • Parrilli, M.D., 2012. Heterogeneous social capital: a new window of opportunity for local economies. In: Cooke, P., Parrilli, M.D., Curbelo, J.L. (Eds.), Innovation, Global Change and Territorial Resilience. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
    • Parrilli, M.D., Elola, A., 2012. The strength of science and technology drivers in SME-based innovation. Small Business Econ. 39 (4), 899-909.
    • Pavitt, K., 1984. Sectoral patterns of innovation: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Res. Policy 13 (6), 343-373.
    • Perez, C., 2009. The double bubble of the turn of the century: technological roots and structural implications. Camb. J. Econ. 33 (4), 779-805.
    • Romer, P., 1994. The origins of endogenous growth. J. Econ. Perspect. 8 (1), 3-22.
    • Schmiedeberg, C., 2008. Complementarities of innovation activities: an empirical analysis of the German manufacturing sector. Res. Policy 37, 1492-1503.
    • Schmitz, H., 1995. Collective efficiency: growth path for small-scale industry. J. Dev. Stud., 31.
    • Simmie, J., 2004. Innovation and clustering in the globalised international economy. Urban Stud. 41, 1095-1112.
    • Som, O., Diekman, J., Solberg, E., Schricke, E., Schubert, T., Jung-Erceg, P., Stehnken, T., Daimer, S., 2012. Organisational and Marketing Innovation: Promises and Pitfalls. PRO-INNO Europe: INNO-Grips II Report. European Commission, DG Enterprise and Industry, Brussels.
    • Tether, B., 2002. Who co-operates for innovation, and why. An empirical analysis. Res. Policy 31, 947-967.
    • UNDP, 2013. Human Development Report. New York.
    • Venkataraman, S., 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: an editor's perspective. Adv. Entrepren. Firm Emerg. Growth 3, 119-138.
    • Zabala, J.M., Edquist, C., 2012. Innovation Systems and Knowledge-Intensive Entrepreneurship: Sweden. Circle Report 3/2012. University of Lund, Lund.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article