Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Are Innovation Intermediaries?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Innovation Intermediaries and (Final) Frontiers of High-tech

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of the evolving definition of what is an innovation intermediary and proposes its further extension to address the challenges of fragmentation of roles and activities of these organisations. In particular, it extends the core definition of innovation intermediation to cover activities beyond the multi-party (knowledge) brokerage. Subsequently, it analyses past systematisation of innovation intermediaries and their activities, finding them lacking in comprehensiveness and clarity. Finally, it proposes to shift the focus of analysis from roles and functions and towards innovation intermediaries interventions.

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    This last category is labelled here as “Business Development Provision”, as the interventions listed in this group are mainly concerning the running of the business operation and human resources development. See Annex 1 for full classification.

  2. 2.

    There is a similar typology derived empirically by Colombo et al. (2015), who define four intermediary types as Connector (gather information regarding the experience and competences), Broker (identify the sources of knowledge), Collector (provide solutions) and Mediator (establish a relationship). Another such typology is forwarded by Kim (2015) who describes four overarching “roles” as: Knowledge enabling, Facilitating relations, Facilitating learning, Managing interfaces.

  3. 3.

    A more complete classification and typology emerging from this framework will be presented in Chap. 4.

Bibliography

  • Abbate, T., Coppolino, R., & Schiavone, F. (2013). Linking Entities in Knowledge Transfer: The Innovation Intermediaries. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4, 233–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-013-0156-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agogué, M., Ystrom, A., & Le Masson, P. (2013). Rethinking the Role of Intermediaries as an Architect of Collective Exploration and Creation of Knowledge in Open Innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 17, 1350007. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919613500072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agogué, M., Berthet, E., Fredberg, T., Le Masson, P., Segrestin, B., Stoetzel, M., Wiener, M., & Yström, A. (2017). Explicating the Role of Innovation Intermediaries in the “Unknown”: A Contingency Approach. Journal of Strategy and Management, 10, 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-01-2015-0005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antikaninen, M., Mäkipää, M., & Ahonen, M. (2009). Motivating and Supporting Collaboration in Open Innovation. Technology Management, 13, 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Autio, E., Kanninen, S., & Gustafsson, R. (2008). First- and Second-Order Additionality and Learning Outcomes in Collaborative RD Programs. Research Policy, 37, 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESPOL.2007.07.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekkers, R., & Bodas Freitas, I. M. (2008). Analysing Knowledge Transfer Channels Between Universities and Industry: To What Degree Do Sectors Also Matter? Research Policy, 37, 1837–1853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.07.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., Ihlström Eriksson, C., Ståhlbröst, A., & Lund, J. (2009). A Milieu for Innovation—Defining Living Labs. In 2nd ISPIM Innovation Symposium (pp. 6–9). New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boon, W. P., Moors, E. H., Kuhlmann, S., & Smits, R. E. (2011). Demand Articulation in Emerging Technologies: Intermediary User Organisations as Co-Producers? Research Policy, 40, 242–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boschma, R., & Frenken, K. (2011). Technological Relatedness, Related Variety and Economic Geography. In P. Cooke, B. T. Asheim, R. Boschma, R. Martin, D. Schwartz, & F. Tdtling (Eds.), Handbook of Regional Innovation and Growth (pp. 187–197). London: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbq053.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brousselle, A., & Champagne, F. (2011). Program Theory Evaluation: Logic Analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and Organization: A Social-Practice Perspective. Organization Science, 12, 198–213. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.2.198.10116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaminade, C., & Esquist, C. (2006). Rationales for Public Policy Intervention in the Innovation Process: Systems of Innovation Approach, the Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy. CIRCLE, Lund University. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849804424.00012.

  • Chesbrough, H. (2011). Everything You Need to Know About Open Innovation. Forbes.com

  • Chesbrough, H., & Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating Open Innovation: Clarifying an Emerging Paradigm for Understanding Innovation, New Frontiers in Open Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H., & Taplin, D. (2012). Theory of Change Basics: A Primer on Theory of Change, ActKnowledge. New York: Actknowledge. https://doi.org/10.5327/Z201600010002RBM.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M. G., Dell’Era, C., & Frattini, F. (2015). Contribution of Innovation Intermediaries to NPD Process. R&D Management, 45, 126–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P. (2012). Knowledge Economy Spillovers, Proximity, and Specialization. In Interactive Learning for Innovation (pp. 100–111). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230362420_5.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An Organizational Learning Framework: From Intuition to Institution. The Academy of Management Review, 24, 522. https://doi.org/10.2307/259140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalziel, M. (2010). Why Do Innovation Intermediaries Exist? In Druid 2010: Opening Up Innovation: Strategy, Organization and Technology (p. 23). London: Imperial College London Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dell’Era, C., & Landoni, P. (2014). Living Lab: A Methodology Between User-Centred Design and Participatory Design. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23, 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deschamps, I., Macedo, M. G., & Eve-Levesque, C. (2013). University-SME Collaboration and Open Innovation: Intellectual-Property Management Tools and the Roles of Intermediaries. Technology Innovation and Management Review, 3, 33–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G., Malerba, F., Ramello, G. B., & Silva, F. (2006). Information, Appropriability, and the Generation of Innovative Knowledge Four Decades After Arrow and Nelson: An Introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 15, 891–901. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtl028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edler, J., Cunningham, P., Gök, A., & Shapira, P. (2013). Impacts of Innovation Policy: Synthesis and Conclusions. (Report prepared as part of the project “Compendium of Evidence on the Effectiveness of Innovation Policy Intervention.” (NESTA)). Manchester: Manchester Institute of Innovation Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, T. (2000). Innovation and Organizational Change: Developments Towards an Interactive Process Perspective. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 12, 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/713698496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, T., Delbridge, R., & Munday, M. (2005). Understanding Innovation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise: A Process Manifest. Technovation, 25, 1119–1127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, M., Niitamo, V., Kulkki, S., & Hribernik, K. A. (2006). Living Labs as a Multi-Contextual R & D Methodology. In The 12th International Conference on Concurrent Enterprising: Innovative Products and Services Through Collaborative Networks (pp. 26–28). ICE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICE.2006.7477082.

  • Fleck, J. (1993). Innofusion: Feedback in the Innovation Process. In Systems Science (pp. 169–174). Boston: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2862-3_30.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, E. (2009). The Role of DARPA in Seeding and Encourage New Technology Trajectories. Sloan Industry Studies Working Papers 2001–2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregor, S. (2002). A Theory of Theories in Information Systems. In S. Gregor & D. Hart (Eds.), Information Systems Foundations: Building the Theoretical Base (pp. 1–20). Canberra, Australia: Australian National University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grindley, P., Mowery, D. C., & Silverman, B. (1994). SEMATECH and Collaborative Research: Lessons in the Design of High-Technology Consortia. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13, 723. https://doi.org/10.2307/3325495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakkarainen, L., & Hyysalo, S. (2016). The Evolution of Intermediary Activities: Broadening the Concept of Facilitation in Living Labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 6, 45–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, A., Liu, W. H., & Vaona, A. (2015). Credit Depth, Government Intervention and Innovation in China: Evidence from the Provincial Data. Eurasian Business Review, 5, 73–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-015-0016-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannon, M. J., Skea, J., & Rhodes, A. (2014). Facilitating and Coordinating UK Energy Innovation Through Systemic Innovation Intermediaries. In International Conference on Sustainability Transitions (pp. 27–29).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, T., Hielscher, S., Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. (2012). Exploring the Roles of Intermediaries in UK Community Energy: Grassroots Innovations and Niche Development. Science, Society & Sustainability, 23, 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heikkinen, M. T., Mainela, T., Still, J., & Tähtinen, J. (2007). Roles for Managing in Mobile Service Development Nets. Industrial Marketing Management, 36, 909–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.05.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Quinn, J. B. (2006). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from TechnologyOpen Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology By Chesbrough Henry. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2003. 227 pages, Hard Cover, $35.00, Academy of Management Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2006.20591014.

  • Hossain, M., & Kauranen, I. (2016). Open Innovation in SMEs: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Strategy and Management, 9, 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-08-2014-0072.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the Role of Intermediaries in Innovation. Research Policy, 35, 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyysalo, S., & Stewart, J. (2008). Intermediaries, Users and Social Learning in Technological Innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12, 295–325. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919608002035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2005). Social Capital, Networks, and Knowledge Transfer. The Academy of Management Review, 30, 146–165. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2005.15281445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iturrioz, C., Aragón, C., & Narvaiza, L. (2015). How to Foster Shared Innovation Within SMEs’ Networks: Social Capital and the Role of Intermediaries. European Management Journal, 33, 104–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, E. T. (2013). Journal of Sustainable Finance & Interrogating the Theory of Change: Evaluating Impact Investing Where It Matters Most. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 3, 37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2013.776257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzy, B., Turgut, E., Holzmann, T., & Sailer, K. (2013). Innovation Intermediaries: A Process View on Open Innovation Coordination. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25, 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2013.764982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerry, C., & Danson, M. (2016). Open Innovation, Triple Helix and Regional Innovation Systems. Industry and Higher Education, 30, 67–78. https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2016.0292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilelu, C. W., Klerkx, L., Leeuwis, C., & Hall, A. (2011). Beyond Knowledge Brokering: An Exploratory Study on Innovation Intermediaries in an Evolving Smallholder Agricultural System in Kenya. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 7, 84–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/19474199.2011.593859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, E. S. (2015). Facilitating Innovation in SMEs: The Case of Public Intermediaries in South Korea [Doctoral Thesis]. Edinburgh: The University of Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kivimaa, P. (2014). Government-Affiliated Intermediary Organisations as Actors in System-Level Transitions. Research Policy, 43, 1370–1380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klerkx, L. and Leeuwis, C. 2008. Matching demand and supply in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure: Experiences with innovation intermediaries. Food Policy, 33(3): 260–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klewitz, J., Zeyen, A., & Hansen, E. G. (2013). Intermediaries Driving Eco-Innovation in SMEs: A Qualitative Investigation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 15, 442–467. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601061211272376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kristjanson, P., Reid, S.R, Dickson, N., Clark, C.W., Romney, D., Puskur, R., MacMillan, R. and Grace, D. 2009. Linking international agricultural research knowledge with action for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 9(13): 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B., & Park, J. (2010). Open Innovation in SMEs-an Intermediated Network Model. Research Policy, 39, 290–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.12.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1995). The Triple Helix—University-Industry-Government Relations: A Laboratory for Knowledge Base Economics Development. EASST Review, 14, 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science Parks and the Growth of New Technology-Based Firms—Academic-Industry Links, Innovation and Markets. Research Policy, 31, 859–876. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00153-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopez-Vega, H. (2009). How Demand-Driven Technological Systems of Innovation Work? The Role of Intermediary Organizations. In DRUID-DIME Academy PhD Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukkarinen, J., Berg, A., Salo, M., Tainio, P., Alhola, K., & Antikainen, R. (2018). An Intermediary Approach to Technological Innovation Systems (TIS)—The Case of the Cleantech Sector in Finland. In Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions (pp. 136–146). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.04.003.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Malerba, F. (2005). Sectoral Systems of Innovation: A Framework for Linking Innovation to the Knowledge Base, Structure and Dynamics of Sectors. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 14, 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/1043859042000228688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging Ties: A Source of Firm Heterogeneity in Competitive Capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 1133–1156. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199912)20:12<1133::AID-SMJ74>3.0.CO;2-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mgumia, A. H., Mattee, A. Z., & Kundi, B. A. T. (2015). Contribution of Innovation Intermediaries in Agricultural Innovation: The Case of Agricultural R&D in Tanzania. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 7, 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2015.1023644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mian, S. (1996). Assessing Value-Added Contributions of University Technology Business Incubators to. Tenant Firms’. Research Policy, 25, 325–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ngwenya, H., & Hagmann, J. (2011). Making Innovation Systems Work in Practice: Experiences in Integrating Innovation, Social Learning and Knowledge in Innovation Platforms. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 7, 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/19474199.2011.593867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, M., & Sia-Ljungström, C. (2013, February 18–23). The Role of Innovation Intermediaries in Innovation Systems. In 2013 International European Forum (pp. 161–180). Innsbruck/Igls: International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., Reinmoeller, P., & Senoo, D. (1998). The “ART” of Knowledge: Systems to Capitalize on Market Knowledge. European Management Journal, 16, 673–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(98)00044-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyström, A. G., Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Kortelainen, M. (2014). Actor Roles and Role Patterns Influencing Innovation in Living Labs. Industrial Marketing Management, 43, 483–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2013.12.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parida, V., Westerberg, M., & Frishammar, J. (2012). Inbound Open Innovation Activities in High-Tech SMEs: The Impact on Innovation Performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 50, 283–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2012.00354.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (2006). Innovation Processes. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    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 

  • Pullen, A. J. J. J., De Weerd-Nederhof, P. C., Groen, A. J., & Fisscher, O. A. M. M. (2012). Open Innovation in Practice: Goal Complementarity and Closed NPD Networks to Explain Differences in Innovation Performance for SMEs in the Medical Devices Sector. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29, 917–934. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00973.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, M., & Rossi, F. (2009). Cooperation Networks and Innovation: A Complex Systems Perspective to the Analysis and Evaluation of a Regional Innovation Policy Programme. Evaluation, 15, 75–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389008097872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sapsed, J., Grantham, A., & De Fillippi, R. (2007). A Bridge Over Troubled Waters: Bridging Organizations and Entrepreneurial Opportunities in Emerging Sectors. Research Policy, 36, 1314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simard, C., & West, J. (2006). “Knowledge networks and the geographic locus of innovation.” In: Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.). (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 220–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smits, R., & Kuhlmann, S. (2004). The Rise of Systemic Instruments in Innovation Policy. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1, 4. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJFIP.2004.004621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, P. Y. T., & Anderson, M. H. (2010). An Examination of the Relationship Between Absorptive Capacity and Organizational Learning, and a Proposed Integration. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 130–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00256.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swann, G. M. P. (2009). The Economics of Innovation: An Introduction, 2009. New York: Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1556/AOecon.60.2010.4.6.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing Innovation: Integrating Technological, Managerial Organizational Change (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Lente, H., Hekkert, M., Smits, R. and van Waveren, B. 2003. Roles of systemic intermediaries in transition process. International Journal of Innovation Management, 7(3): 1–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Vrande, V., De Jong, J., Vanhaverbeke, W., & de Rochemont, M. (2009). Open Innovation in SMEs: Trends, Motives and Management Challenges. Technovation, 29, 423–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Meulen, B., Nedeva, M., Braun, D., van der Meulen, B., Nedeva, M., & Braun, D. (2005). Intermediaries Organisation and Processes: Theory and Research Issues. PRIME Workshop.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, M. (2019). The “Living Lab” Method: Discovery > Challenge > Innovation. Edinburgh. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.21744.20484.

  • Vidmar, M., Rosiello, A., Williams, R., Vermeulen, N., & Dines, J. (2020). New Space and Agile Innovation: Understanding Transition to Open Innovation Through Examining Innovation Networks and Moments. Acta Astronautica, 167, 122–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Tunzelmann, N. (2009). Competencies Versus Capabilities: A Reassessment. Economics and Politics, 26, 435–464. https://doi.org/10.1428/30999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vonortas, N. S. (2002). Building Competitive Firms: Technology Policy Initiatives in Latin America. Technology in Society, 24, 433–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-791X(02)00034-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, J. (2018). Innovation and Government Intervention: A Comparison of Singapore and Hong Kong. Research Policy, 47, 399–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.12.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging External Sources of Innovation: A Review of Research on Open Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31, 814–831. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winch, G. M., & Courtney, R. (2007). The Organization of Innovation Brokers: An International Review. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19, 747–763. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320701711223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension. The Academy of Management Review, 27, 185–203. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2002.6587995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for the Study of Science, Technology and Innovation, The University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory Edinburgh Blackford Hill, Edinburgh, UK

    Matjaz Vidmar

Authors
  1. Matjaz Vidmar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matjaz Vidmar .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 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

Vidmar, M. (2020). What Are Innovation Intermediaries?. In: Innovation Intermediaries and (Final) Frontiers of High-tech . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60642-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60642-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-60641-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-60642-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation