Geographical proximity and open innovation of SMEs in Cyprus
- 242 Downloads
Open innovation implies that geographical proximity is irrelevant. However, we posit that any potential innovation outcome depends on the spatial constraints on openness. In this paper, we add a geographical proximity dimension to open innovation by analysing how a domestic and international open innovation approach affects innovation outcomes. In particular, we hypothesise that domestic open innovation has positive effects on new-to-the-firm product innovation, due to easily accessible resources. We further posit that, through international open innovation, SMEs can access new and advanced knowledge which is not available locally, leading to more novel innovations. However, we expect that the relationship between openness, both domestic and international, and innovation is conditional on R&D activities. Our empirical analysis based on the Cyprus Community Innovation Survey supports these hypotheses. Our results underline the critical role of the spatial aspect on open innovation in SMEs, something which has remained surprisingly absent from the literature.
KeywordsDomestic open innovation International open innovation SMEs Geographical proximity Innovation performance
JEL classificationsD22 L17 L26 M11 O32
Financial assistance from the European Research Council (ERC) Advanced Grant Employment in Europe based in the University of Cyprus is gratefully acknowledged.
- Chesbrough, H. W. (2003a). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
- Gilbert, R. (2006). Looking for Mr. Schumpeter: where are we in the competition-innovation debate? In A. Jaffe, J. Lerner, & S. Stern (Eds.), Innovation policy and the economy (6th ed., pp. 159–215). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome: a look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups. R&D Management, 12(1), 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.1982.tb00478.x.Google Scholar
- Kleinknecht, A. (1987). Measuring R & D in small firms: how much are we missing? The Journal of Industrial Economics, 253–256. https://doi.org/10.2307/2098417.
- Nelson, R. R. (1993). National systems of innovation: a comparative study. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2246.
- OECD. (1997). Proposed guidelines for collecting and interpreting technological innovation data, Oslo manual (2nd ed.). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
- OECD. (2008). Open innovation in global network. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
- Radicic, D., Pugh, G., Hollanders, H., Wintjes, R., & Fairburn, J. (2016). The impact of innovation support programs on small and medium enterprises innovation in traditional manufacturing industries: an evaluation for seven European Union regions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 34(8), 1425–1452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15621759.Google Scholar
- Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Van de Vrande, V., De Jong, J. P., Vanhaverbeke, W., & De Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation, 29(6), 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.10.001.Google Scholar