Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing Organisational Patterns for Innovation Between Scottish and French Firms: An Exploratory Study

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Perspectives on Innovation Management

  • 177 Accesses

Abstract

Traditional indicators, such as R&D expenditures and patent applications, are not necessarily the most relevant to measure the innovative capability of companies. Hence, this study aims at understanding how the conversion of ideas and inventions into commercialisation of products and services is managed, with an emphasis on internal processes and structures. To this purpose, a question sheet and a guide for semi-structured interviews have been developed derived from the model for the dynamic adaptation capability. Surprisingly, the findings from five French and five Scottish firms point to differences in innovative capabilities between French and Scottish firms that can be understood from autopoietic principles (following the law of parsimony) and the myopic versus dynamic approach for the context of the national innovation system. Additionally, the extent of the instrument indicates that a major effort is required to understand the innovative capabilities of firms and that this cannot be reduced to simplified measures as traditionally done.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abell, D. F. (1980). Defining the business: The starting point of business strategy. Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, R., Bessant, J., & Phelps, R. (2006). Innovation management measurement: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1), 21–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aghion, P., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., Howitt, P., & Prantl, S. (2009). The effects of entry on incumbent innovation and productivity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(1), 20–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alchian, A. A. (1950). Uncertainty, evolution, and economic theory. Journal of Political Economy, 58(3), 211–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, H. E. & Martinez, M. A. (2007). Many are called, but few are chosen: An evolutionary perspective for the study of entrepreneurship. In Cuervo, Á., Ribeiro, D., & Roig, S. (Eds.), Entrepreneurship: Concepts, theory and perspective. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, B. (1998). The evolution of technological trajectories 1890–1990. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 9(1), 5–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arundel, A., & Kable, I. (1998). What percentage of innovations are patented? Empirical estimates for European firms. Research Policy, 27(2), 127–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baralou, E., Wolf, P., & Meissner, J. O. (2012). Bright, excellent, ignored: The contribution of Luhmann’s system theory and its problem of non-connectivity to academic management research. Historical Social Research/historische Sozialforschung, 37(4), 289–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barczak, G. (1995). New product strategy, structure, process and performance in the telecommunications industry. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12(3), 224–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barringer, B. R., & Bluedorn, A. C. (1999). The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 421–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J. (2004). Entrepreneurial enterprises, large established firms and other components of the free-market growth machine. Small Business Economics, 23(1), 9–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaujon, G. J., Marin, S. P., & Mcdonald, G. C. (2001). Balancing and optimizing a portfolio of R&D projects. Naval Research Logistics, 48(1), 18–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becheikh, N., Landry, R., & Amara, N. (2006). Lessons from innovation empirical studies in the manufacturing sector: A systematic review of the literature from 1993–2003. Technovation, 26(5), 644–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, C., Möslein, K., Piller, F., & Reichwald, R. (2005). Co-designing modes of cooperation at the customer interface: Learning from exploratory research. European Management Review, 2(1), 70–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bisbe, J., & Otley, D. (2004). The effects of the interactive use of management control systems on product innovation. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(8), 709–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomqvist, K., Hara, V., Koivuniemi, J., & Äijö, T. (2004). Towards networked R&D management: The R&D approach of Sonera Corporation as an example. R&D Management, 34(5), 591–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumentritt, T., & Danis, W. M. (2006). Business strategy types and innovative practices. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(2), 274–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bødker, S. (2000). Scenarios in user-centred design: Setting the stage for reflection and action. Interacting with Computers, 13(1), 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boer, H., & During, W. E. (2001). Innovation, what innovation? International Journal of Technology Management, 22(1/2/3), 83–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Börjesson, S., & Elmquist, M. (2011). Developing innovation capabilities: A longitudinal study of a project at Volvo cars. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(3), 171–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosch-Sijtsema, P. M., & Postma, T. J. B. M. (2009). Cooperative innovation projects: Capabilities and governance mechanisms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(1), 58–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bougrain, F., & Haudeville, B. (2002). Innovation, collaboration and SMEs internal research capacities. Research Policy, 31(5), 735–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, C. (2008). Generic strategies: a substitute for thinking. 360° the Ashridge Journal, 6, 6–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. G., & Svenson, R. A. (1998). Measuring R&D productivity. Research-Technology Management, 41(6), 30–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bstieler, L. (2005). The moderating effect of environmental uncertainty on new product development and time efficiency. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(3), 267–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buganza, T., & Verganti, R. (2006). Life-cycle flexibility: How to measure and improve the innovative capability in turbulent environments. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(5), 393–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A., Maidique, M. A., & Wheelwright, S. C. (1996). Strategic management of technology and innovation. Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A., & Sayles, L. (1986). Inside corporate innovation: Strategy, structure and managerial skills. Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. Tavistock Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calia, R. C., Guerrini, F. M., & Moura, G. L. (2007). Innovation networks: From technological development to business model reconfiguration. Technovation, 27(8), 426–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandy, R. K., & Tellis, G. J. (2000). The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation. The Journal of Marketing, 64(3), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiesa, V., Coughlan, P., & Voss, C. A. (1996). Development of a technical innovation audit. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(2), 105–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choo, C. W. (1996). The knowing organization: How organizations use information to construct meaning, create knowledge and make decisions. International Journal of Information Management, 16(5), 329–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrisman, J. J., Hofer, C. W., & Boulton, W. R. (1988). Toward a system for classifying business strategies. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 413–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, K. B., Chew, W. B., & Fujimoto, T. (1987). Product development in the world auto industry. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 18(3), 729–781.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conant, J. S., Mokwa, M. P., & Varadarajan, P. R. (1990). Strategic types, distinctive competencies, and organizational performance: A multiple measures-based study. Strategic Management Journal, 11(5), 365–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P. (2001). Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 945–974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P., Gomez Uranga, M., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research Policy, 26(4–5), 475–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, J. E., & Bierly, P. E. (2006). Measuring technological capability and performance. R&D Management, 36(4), 421–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G. (1994). Third-generation new product processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 11(1), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R., Edgett, S., & Kleinschmidt, E. (2001). Portfolio management for new product development: Results of an industry practices study. R&D Management, 31(4), 361–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2004a). New product portfolio management: Practices and performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16(4), 333–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2004b). Benchmarking best NPD practices: I. Research-Technology Management, 47(1), 31–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2004c). Benchmarking best NPD practices: II. Research-Technology Management, 47(3), 50–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2004d). Benchmarking best NPD practices: III. Research-Technology Management, 47(6), 43–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1993). Major new products: What distinguishes the winners in the chemical industry? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10(2), 90–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dagnino, G. B. (2004). Complex systems as key drivers for the emergence of a resource- and capability-based interorganizational network. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 6(1), 61–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damanpour, F. (1996). Organizational complexity and innovation: Developing and testing multiple contingency models. Management Science, 42(5), 693–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1095–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Boer, L., Gayton, J., & Arroyo, P. (2006). A satisficing model of outsourcing. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 11(5), 444–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekkers, R. & Thuriaux-Alemàn, B. (2007). Did the paradigm shift in innovation management occur? In Sherif, H. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Management of Technology, Miami, pp. 1749–1768.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekkers, R. (2005). (R)evolution, organizations and the dynamics of the environment. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dekkers, R. (2008). Adapting organizations: The instance of business process re-engineering. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25(1), 45–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekkers, R., & Luttervelt, C. A. V. (2006). Industrial networks: Capturing changeability? International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 3(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dekkers, R., Whittam, G., Talbot, S., & Thomson, J. C. (2014). Does schumpeter still rule? Reflections on the current epoch. Journal of Innovation Economics and Management, 13(1), 7–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delbridge, R., Edwards, P., Forth, J., Miskell, P. & Payne, J. (2006). The organisation of productivity: Re-thinking skills and work organisation. Advanced Institute of Management Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department of Trade and Industry. (2004). Competing in the global economy: The manufacturing strategy two years on. Department of Trade and Industry.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desarbo, W. S., Di Benedetti, C. A., Song, M., & Sinha, I. (2005). Revisiting the Miles and Snow strategic framework: Uncovering interrelationships between strategic types, capabilities, environmental uncertainty, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(1), 47–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diederiks, E. M. A., & Hoonhout, H. (2007). Radical innovation and end-user involvement: The Ambilight case. Knowledge, Technology and Policy, 20(1), 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinet, J., Marquet, P., & Nissen, E. (2003). An exploratory study of adolescent’s perceptions of the Web. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(4), 538–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G., Freeman, C., Nelson, R., & Silverberg, G. (1988). National innovation systems. Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunphy, S. M., Herbig, P. R., & Howes, M. E. (1996). The innovation funnel. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 53(1), 279–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, B., Gupta, A. K., & Wilemon, D. (1999). What first-to-market companies do differently. Research-Technology Management, 42(2), 15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellonen, H.-K., Wikström, P., & Jantunen, A. (2009). Linking dynamic-capability portfolios and innovation outcomes. Technovation, 29(11), 753–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engwall, M., & Jerbrant, A. (2003). The resource allocation syndrome: The prime challenge of multi-project management? International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 403–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation: Exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), 311–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faems, D., Van Looy, B., & Debackere, K. (2005). Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: Toward a portfolio approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(3), 238–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felin, T., & Foss, N. J. (2009). Organizational routines and capabilities: Historical drift and a course-correction toward microfoundations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(2), 157–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, M. M. (2001). Innovation, knowledge creation and systems of innovation. The Annals of Regional Science, 35(2), 199–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic performance. Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, C. (2002). Continental, national and sub-national innovation systems: Complementary and economic growth. Research Policy, 31(2), 191–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frost, F. A. (2003). The use of strategic tools by small and medium-sized enterprises: An Australasian study. Strategic Change, 12(1), 49–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31(6), 899–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fynes, B., & De Búrca, S. (2005). The effects of design quality on quality performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 96(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gay, B., & Dousset, B. (2005). Innovation and network structural dynamics: Study of the alliance network of a major sector of the biotechnology industry. Research Policy, 34(10), 1457–1475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1257–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gemünden, H., Salomo, S., & Krieger, A. (2005). The influence of project autonomy on project success. International Journal of Project Management, 23(5), 366–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerwin, D., & Moffat, L. (1997). Withdrawal of team autonomy during concurrent engineering. Management Science, 43(9), 1275–1287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilsing, V. A., & Duysters, G. M. (2008). Understanding novelty creation in exploration networks: Structural and relational embeddedness jointly considered. Technovation, 28(10), 693–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilsing, V., Nooteboom, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G., & Van Den Oord, A. (2008). Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality and density. Research Policy, 37(10), 1717–1731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, M. A. (1996). Innovative genius: A framework for relating individual and organizational intelligences to innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1081–1111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godener, A., & Söderquist, K. E. (2004). Use and impact of performance measurement results in R&D and NPD: An exploratory study. R&D Management, 34(2), 191–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godin, B. (2009). National innovation system: The system approach in historical perspective. Science, Technology and Human Values, 34(4), 476–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, S. S., Stewart, W. H., Sweo, R., & Luker, W. A. (2000). Convergence versus strategic reorientation: The antecedents of fast-paced organizational change. Journal of Management, 26(5), 911–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gracht, H., Van Der Vennemann, C. R., & Darkow, I.-L. (2010). Corporate foresight and innovation management: A portfolio-approach in evaluating organizational development. Futures, 42(4), 380–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2000). Mental models, conceptual models, and modelling. International Journal of Science Education, 22(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greiner, L. E. (1998). Revolutions as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review, 76(3), 55–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groenveld, P. (2007). Roadmapping integrates business and technology. Research-Technology Management, 50(6), 49–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunsteren, L. A. V. (1992). Management of industrial R&D, a viewpoint from practice. Eburon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haaf, W. T., Bikker, H. & Adriaanse, D. J. (2002). Fundamentals of business engineering and management. DUP Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J. (1996). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Schumpeter revisited. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5(3), 883–896.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J., & Duysters, G. (2002). External sources of innovative capabilities: The preferences for strategic alliances or mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies, 39(2), 167–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handfield, R. B. (1994). Effects of concurrent engineering on make-to-order products. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 41(4), 384–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 83(4), 929–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haque, B., Pawar, K. S., & Barson, R. J. (2003). The application of business process modelling to organisational analysis of concurrent engineering environments. Technovation, 23(2), 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmancioglu, N., Mcnally, R. C., Calantone, R. J., & Durmusoglu, S. S. (2007). Your new product development (NPD) is only as good as your process: An exploratory analysis of new NPD process design and implementation. R&D Management, 37(5), 399–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, R. C., Insigna, R. C., Morone, J., & Werle, M. J. (1996). The virtual R&D laboratory. Research-Technology Management, 39(2), 32–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W. L., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2003). The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 257–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1994). Cultures and organizations. Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, P., Doll, W. J., Nahm, A. Y., & Li, X. (2004). Knowledge sharing in integrated product development. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(2), 102–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoopes, D. G., Madsen, T. L., & Walker, G. (2003). Why is there a resource-based view? Toward a theory of competitive heterogeneity. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 889–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., Wan, W. P., & Yiu, D. (1999). Theory and research in strategic management: Swings of a pendulum. Journal of Management, 25(3), 417–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W. & Gupta, V. (Eds.) (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, C. E., & Covin, J. G. (2010). Learning capability, technological parity, and innovation mode use. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(1), 97–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hultink, E. J., & Robben, H. S. (1995). Measuring new product success: The difference that time perspective makes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12(5), 392–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intarakumnerd, P., Chairatana, P.-A., & Tangchitpiboon, T. (2002). National innovation systems in less successful developing countries: The case of Thailand. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1445–1457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janszen, F. (2000). Age of innovation. Pearson Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jantunen, A. (2005). Knowledge-processing capabilities and innovative performance: An empirical study. European Journal of Innovation Management, 8(3), 336–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaruzelski, B., Dehoff, K. & Bordia, R. (2005). Money isn’t everything. Strategy+Business, 41, 54–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaruzelski, B., Dehoff, K. & Bordia, R. (2006). Smart spenders: The global innovation 1000. Strategy+Business, Booz Allen Hamilton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinventing your business model. Harvard Business Review, 86(12), 50–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, D. (2010). Empowering project portfolio managers: How management involvement impacts project portfolio management performance. International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), 818–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kappel, T. A. (2001). Perspectives on roadmaps: How organizations talk about the future. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufmann, A., & Tödtling, F. (2001). Science–industry interaction in the process of innovation: The importance of boundary-crossing between systems. Research Policy, 30(5), 791–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazanjian, R. K., & Drazin, R. (1989). An empirical test of a stage of growth progression model. Management Science, 35(12), 1489–1503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerssens-Van Dongelen, I. C., & Bilderbeek, J. (1999). R&D performance measurement: More than choosing a set of metrics. R&D Management, 29(1), 35–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, S. J. & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation. In Landau, R., & Rosenberg, N. (Eds.), The positive sum strategy: Harnessing technology for economic growth. National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koberg, C. S., Uhlenbruck, N., & Sarason, Y. (1996). Facilitators of organizational innovation: The role of life-cycle stage. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(2), 133–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kocher, P.-Y., Kaudela-Baum, S., & Wolf, P. (2011). Enhancing organisational innovation capability through systemic action research: A case of a Swiss SME in the food industry. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 24(1), 17–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kontogiannis, T., & Embrey, D. (1997). A user-centred design approach for introducing computer-based information systems. Applied Ergonomics, 28(2), 109–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostoff, R. N., & Schaller, R. R. (2001). Science and technology roadmaps. IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 48(2), 132–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotha, S., & Vadlamani, B. L. (1995). Assessing generic strategies: An empirical investigation of two competing typologies in discrete manufacturing industries. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koufteros, X., Vonderembse, M., & Doll, W. (2001). Concurrent engineering and its consequences. Journal of Operations Management, 19(1), 97–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laforet, S. (2008). Size, strategic, and market orientation affects on innovation. Journal of Business Research, 61(7), 753–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambkin, M. (1988). Order of entry and performance in new markets. Strategic Management Journal, 9(S1), 127–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, E. W., & Gobeli, D. H. (1988). Organizing for product development projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 5(3), 180–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laugen, B. T., Boer, H., & Acur, N. (2006). The new product development improvement motives and practices of miles and snow’s prospectors, analysers and defenders. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(1), 85–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B., & Samson, D. (2001). Developing innovation capability in organisations: A dynamic capabilities approach. International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(3), 377–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, H., & Kelley, D. (2008). Building dynamic capabilities for innovation: An exploratory study of key management practices. R&D Management, 38(2), 155–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Lee, J., & Souder, W. E. (2000). Differences of organizational characteristics in new product development: Cross-functional comparison of Korea and the US. Technovation, 20(9), 497–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lekkerkerk, L. J. (2012). Innovatie—en OrganisatieStructuur: Ontwikkeling en test van een functiomodel voor structuuronderzoek en-daignose. Doctoral Thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1988). Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization. Research Policy, 17(5), 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lester, D. L., Parnell, J. A., & Carraher, S. (2003). Organizational life-cycle: A five-stage empirical scale. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 11(4), 339–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, E. (2005). The choice of technology intelligence methods in multinationals: Towards a contingency approach. International Journal of Technology Management, 32(3–4), 388–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lievegoed, B. C. J. (1993). Organisaties in ontwikkeling: Zicht op de toekomst. Lemniscaat.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B.-A. (2007). National innovation systems: Analytical concept and development tool. Industry and Innovation, 14(1), 95–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macintosh, R., & Maclean, D. (1999). Conditioned emergence: A dissipative structures approach to transformaton. Strategic Management Journal, 20(4), 297–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahdi, S. (2003). Search strategy in product innovation process: Theory and evidence from the evolution of agrochemical lead discovery process. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(2), 235–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malerba, F., & Torrisi, S. (1992). Internal capabilities and external networks in innovative activities: Evidence from the software industry. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 2(1), 49–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. R., & Johnston, R. (1999). Technology foresight for wiring up the national innovation system: Experiences in Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 60(1), 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maylor, H. (1997). Concurrent new product development: An empirical assessment. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 17(12), 1196–1214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mccarthy, B. (2003). Strategy is personality-driven, strategy is crisis-driven: Insights from entrepreneurial firms. Management Decision, 41(4), 327–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcdermott, C., & Handfield, R. (2000). Concurrent development and strategic outsourcing: Do the rules change in breakthrough innovation? The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 11(1), 35–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menguc, B., & Auh, S. (2010). Development and return on execution of product innovation capabilities: The role of organizational structure. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(5), 820–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mezias, J. M., & Mezias, S. J. (2000). Resource partitioning, the founding of specialist firms, and innovation: The American feature film industry, 1912–1929. Organization Science, 11(3), 306–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikkola, J. H. (2001). Portfolio management of R&D projects: Implications for innovation management. Technovation, 21(7), 423–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure and process. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1984). A longitudinal study of the corporate life cycle. Management Science, 30(10), 1161–1183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1988). Generic strategies: Towards a comprehensive framework. In Lamb, R. B., & Shivastava, P. (Eds.), Advances in strategic management. JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morel, L., Assielou, G. & Bellec, C. (2008). Measuring companies innovative capabilities: Evaluation of the gap between the industrial needs and the national innovation systems for innovation proposals. Application to a French sample in the Normandy region. In Abu-Hijleh, B., Arif, M., Khalil, T., & Hosni, Y. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th international conference on management of technology, 6–10 April 2008 Dubai.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morel, L. & Boly, V. (2008). Innovation process evaluation: From self-assessment to detailed technology audit. In Sherif, M. H., & Khalil, T. M. (Eds.), Management of technology innovation and value creation. World Scientific Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Motohashi, K. (2005). University-industry collaborations in Japan: The role of new technology-based firms in transforming the National Innovation System. Research Policy, 34(5), 583–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C. (1992). The US national innovation system: Origins and prospects for change. Technovation, 21(2), 125–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moyes, J. M., & Baber, C. (1999). User-centred design of systems. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murmann, J. P. & Tushman, M. L. (1998). Dominant designs, technology cycles, and organizational outcomes. In Staw, B. (Ed.), Research in organizational behaviour. Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nassimbeni, G. (1998). Network structures and co-ordination mechanisms: A taxanomy. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 18(6), 538–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1977). In search of useful theory of innovation. Research Policy, 6(1), 36–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of change. Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NESTA. (2006). The innovation gap: Why policy needs to reflect the reality of innovation in the UK. NESTA.

    Google Scholar 

  • NESTA. (2007). Science and innovation strategy for Scotland: NESTA response to consultation. NESTA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nihtilä, J. (1999). R&D: Production integration in the early phases of new product development projects. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 16(1), 55–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nobelius, D., & Sundgren, N. (2002). Managerial issues in parts sharing among product development projects. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 19(1), 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., & Van Den Oord, A. (2007). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36(7), 1016–1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nosella, A., Petroni, G., & Salandra, R. (2008). Technological change and technology monitoring process: Evidence from four Italian case studies. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 25(4), 321–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Regan, N., & Ghobadian, A. (2005). Innovation in SMEs: The impact of strategic orientation and environmental perceptions. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54(2), 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ojanen, V., & Vuola, O. (2006). Coping with the multiple dimensions of R&D performance analysis. International Journal of Technology Management, 33(2–3), 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira, M., & Rozenfeld, H. (2010). Integrating technology roadmapping and portfolio management at the front-end of new product development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(8), 1339–1354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel, P., & Pavitt, K. (1994). National innovation systems: Why they are important, and how they might be measured and compared. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 3(1), 77–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pech, R. J., & Cameron, A. (2006). An entrepreneurial decision process model describing opportunity recognition. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(1), 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phaal, R., Farrukh, C. J. P., & Probert, D. R. (2004). Technology roadmapping: A planning framework for evolution and revolution. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 71(1–2), 5–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pittaway, L., Robertson, M., Munir, K., Denyer, D., & Neely, A. (2004). Networking and innovation: A systematic review of the evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5/6, 137–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Free Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Portioli-Staudacher, A., Van Landeghem, H., Mappelli, M., & Redaelli, C. E. (2003). Implementation of concurrent engineering: A survey in Italy and Belgium. Robotics and Computer-Intgrated Manufacturing, 19(3), 225–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pöyhönen, A. (2004). Modeling and measuring organizational renewal capability. Lappeenranta University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prencipe, A. (1997). Technological competencies and product’s evolutionary dynamics: A case study from the aero-engine industry. Research Policy, 25(8), 1261–1276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyka, A. (2002). Innovation networks in economics: From the incentive-based to the knowledge-based approaches. European Journal of Innovation Management, 5(3), 152–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radnor, Z. J., & Noke, H. (2002). Innovation compass: A self-audit tool for the new product development process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 11(2), 122–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravasi, D., & Lojacono, G. (2005). Managing design and designers for strategic renewal. Long Range Planning, 38(1), 51–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reger, G. (2001). Technology foresight in companies: From an indicator to a network and process perspective. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 13(4), 533–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riccaboni, M., & Pammolli, F. (2002). On firm growth in networks. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1405–1416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robins, S. B. (1990). Organization theory: Structures, designs, and applications. Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. L. (1994). Organization transformation as a punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37(5), 1141–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romijn, H., & Albaladejo, M. (2002). Determinants of innovation capability in small electronics and software firms in southeast England. Research Policy, 31(7), 1053–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, R. (1994). Towards the fifth-generation innovation process. International Marketing Review, 11(1), 7–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, R., & Zegveld, W. (1985). Reindustrialization and technology. Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupak, R., Doll, W., Greg, R., & Hong, P. (2008). Shared knowledge and product design glitches in integrated product development. International Journal of Production Economics, 114(2), 723–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabherwal, R., Hirschheim, R., & Goles, T. (2001). The dynamics of alignment: Insights from a punctuated equilibrium model. Organization Science, 12(2), 179–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandelowski, M. (2000). Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-method studies. Research in Nursing and Health, 23(3), 246–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuh, G., Kampker, A., & Franzkoch, B. (2005). Anlaufmanagement. Wt Werkstattstechnik, 95(5), 405–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, S. K., & Corley, K. G. (2006). Building better theory by bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide. Journal of Management Studies, 43(8), 1821–1835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., & Mohr, J. J. (2006). Successful development and commercialization of technological innovation: Insights based on strategy type. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. G., Guthrie, J. P., & Chen, M.-J. (1989). Strategy, size and performance. Organization Studies, 10(1), 63–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sorenson, O., Rivkin, J. W., & Fleming, L. (2006). Complexity, networks and knowledge flow. Research Policy, 35(7), 994–1017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, G. A., & Burley, J. (1997). 3000 Raw ideas = 1 commercial success! Research-Technology Management, 40(3), 16–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stummer, C., & Heidenberger, K. (2003). Interactive R&D portfolio analysis with project interdependencies and time profiles of multiple objectives. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50(2), 175–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swaminathan, A. (2001). Resource partitioning and the evolution of specialist organizations: The role of location and identity in the US wine industry. Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1169–1185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swink, M., Talluri, S., & Pandejpong, T. (2006). Faster, better, cheaper: A study of NPD project efficiency and performance tradeoffs. Journal of Operations Management, 24(5), 542–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Targeting Innovation. (2008). Scottish university spin-out study. Targeting Innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M. Z. (2004). Empirical evidence against varieties of capitalism’s theory of technological innovation. International Organization, 58(3), 601–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorgren, S., Wincent, J., & Örtgvist, D. (2009). Designing interorganizational networks for innovation: An empirical examination of network configuration, formation and governance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 26(3), 148–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tidd, J. (1995). Development of novel products through intraorganizational and interorganizational networks. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12(4), 307–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tidd, J. (2001). Innovation management in context: Environment, organization and performance. International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(3), 169–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (1997). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change. John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tidd, J., & Brocklehurst, M. (1999). Routes to technological learning and development: An assessment of Malaysia’s innovation policy and performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 62(3), 239–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timpf, S. (1999). Abstraction, levels of details, and hierarchies in map series. In Freksa, C., & Mark, D. M. (Eds.), Spatial information theory: cognitive and computational foundations of geographic information science. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M., Anderson, P. C. & O’Reilly, C. (1997). Technology cycles, innovation streams, and ambidextrous organizations: Organization renewal through innovation streams and strategic change. In Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. C. (Eds.), Managing strategic innovation and change. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyre, M. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1993). Exploiting opportunities for technological improvement. Sloan Management Review, 35(1), 13–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Utterback, J. M., & Suárez, F. F. (1993). Innovation, competition, and industry structure. Research Policy, 22(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valle, S., & Vázquez-Bustelo, D. (2009). Concurrent engineering performance: Incremental versus radical innovation. International Journal of Production Economics, 119(1), 136–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van De Ven, A., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Looy, B., Martens, T., & Debackere, K. (2005). Organizing for continuous innovation: On the sustainability of ambidextrous organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(3), 208–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venohr, B. & Meyer, K. E. (2007). The German miracle keeps running: How Germany’s hidden champions stay ahead in the global economy. In Bruche, G., Herr, H., Nagel, F., & Ripsas, S. (Eds.), Working papers. Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verona, G. (1999). A resource-based view of product development. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 132–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veryzer, R. W. (1998). Discontinuous innovation and the new product development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(4), 304–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veugelers, R., & Cassiman, B. (1999). Make and buy in innovation strategies: Evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms. Research Policy, 28(1), 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user innovation. Journal Für Betriebswirtschaft, 55(1), 63–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel, E. (2007). Horizontal innovation networks: By and for users. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(2), 293–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Zedtwitz, M. (2002). Organizational learning through post–project reviews in R&D. R&D Management, 32(3), 255–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Zedtwitz, M., & Gassmann, O. (2002). Market versus technology drive in R&D internationalization: Four different patterns of managing research and development. Research Policy, 31(4), 569–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, M., & Kreuter, A. (1998). Erfolgsfaktoren innovativer Unternehmen. Io Management Zeitschrift Industrielle Organisation, 67(10), 34–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. L., & Ahmed, P. K. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(1), 31–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J., & Hwang, W.-L. (2007). A fuzzy set approach for R&D portfolio selection using a real options valuation model. Omega, the International Journal of Management Science, 35(3), 247–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisenfeld-Schenk, U. (1994). Technology strategies and the miles and snow typology: A study of the biotechnology industries. R&D Management, 24(1), 57–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, T. (2008). How do organizations learn lessons from projects—and do they? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(2), 248–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S. G., Kaniovski, Y., & Dosi, G. (2003). A baseline model of industry evolution. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 13(4), 355–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, S. J., & Ragatz, G. L. (2010). The role of integrative capabilities in involving suppliers in New Product Development: A knowledge integration perspective. International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, 19(1–2), 82–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yip, G. S., Rugman, A. M. & Kudina, A. (2006). The international success of British companies: An industry perspective. Advanced Institute of Management Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Pearce, J. A. (1990). Research evidence on the miles-snow typology. Journal of Management, 16(4), 751–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., & Davidsson, P. (2006). Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zajac, E. J., Kraatz, M. S., & Bresser, R. F. (2000). Modeling the dynamics of strategic fit: A normative approach to strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 429–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny, M. (2001). Autopoiesis (self-production) in SME networks. Human Systems Management, 20(3), 201–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2008). The fit between product market strategy and business model: Implications for firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research presented in this paper has been facilitated by a Carnegie Small Research Grant.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Adam Smith Business School, University of Glagow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, UK

    Rob Dekkers

  2. Équipe de Recherche Sur Les Processus Innovatifs Laboratory, University of Lorraine, 8 Rue Bastien Lepage, 54000, Nancy, France

    Laure Morel

Authors
  1. Rob Dekkers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laure Morel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rob Dekkers .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK

    Rob Dekkers

  2. ERPI Laboratory, University of Lorraine, Nancy, France

    Laure Morel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Dekkers, R., Morel, L. (2024). Comparing Organisational Patterns for Innovation Between Scottish and French Firms: An Exploratory Study. In: Dekkers, R., Morel, L. (eds) European Perspectives on Innovation Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41796-2_19

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation