Small Firms and Search Strategies to Access External Knowledge from Universities: An Empirical Approach in Low-Tech Firms

  • Jose-Luis Hervas-Oliver
  • Joan-Josep Baixauli
  • Bernardo Perez
Conference paper

Abstract

A firm’s search strategies are innovation inputs from external sources of knowledge. For this matter, a firm needs to be capable of identifying and valuing the potential value of certain external knowledge, i.e. absorptive capacity. In low-tech sectors the flows of external knowledge arising from universities is still inconclusive, specifically for SMEs and low-medium-tech environments. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to explore the pattern of a firm’s search strategy through its absorptive capacity to acquire external flows of knowledge from universities and thus improve its knowledge platform to achieve more efficiency. The paper draws especially on the role of non-R&D innovation activities in low-medium-tech sectors. A logit model is used to estimate the contribution of each variable to the probability that a firm engages in cooperation with universities. Results from 442 firms suggest that human resources and other non-R&D activities are the core drivers explaining the cooperation agreements to access external knowledge from universities. Surprisingly, R&D expenditures do not contribute to the explanation, meaning that R&D efforts are not the core drivers of a firm’s search strategy to innovate.

Keywords

Absorption Capacity Absorptive Capacity Innovation Activity Cooperation Agreement External Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Dr. Hervas-Oliver gratefully thanks the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICINN) for financial support under grant project ECO:2010–17318 “Innovation and Clusters through Absorptive Capacity,” and the Institut Ignaci Villalonga (Valencia) for continuous support and funding. Standard disclaimers apply.

References

  1. Ahuja, G., and Katila, R. 2001. Technological acquisitions and the innovation Performance of acquiring firms: a longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal 22: 197–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arundel A., Bordoy, C. and Kanerva, M. 2008. Neglected innovators: How do innovative firms that do not perform R&D innovate? Results of an analysis of the innobarometer 2007 Survey No. 215. INNO Metrics Thematic Paper, The Hague.Google Scholar
  3. Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17(1): 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bessant, J., and Tidd, J. 2007. Innovation and entrepreneurship. Chichester, UK:Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Bougrain, F., and Haudeville, B. 2002. Innovation, collaboration and Smes internal research capacities. Research Policy 31: 735–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brouwe, E., and Kleinknecht, A. 1997. Measuring the unmeasurable: a country’s non–R&D expenditure on product and service innovation. Research Policy 25: 1235–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I., Tsakanikas, A. 2004. Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: Complements or substitutes for innovative performance? Technovation 24: 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Camison-Zornoza C, Lapiedra-Alcami R, Segarra-Cipres M and Boronat-Navarro M. 2004. A Meta-Analysis of innovation and organizational size. Organization Studies 25(3): 331–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Capron, H., and Cincera, M. 2003. Industry-University S&T Transfers, Belgian Evidence on CIS data. Brussels Economic Review 46(3): 58–85.Google Scholar
  10. Cassiman, B., Y Veugelers, R. 2006. In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal RD and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science 52: 68–82.Google Scholar
  11. Castro, E., Fernandez, I. 2006. La I + D empresarial y sus relaciones con la investigación pública española, In Sebastian, J., Muñoz, E. ed. Radiografia de la investigación pública en España, 349–372. Biblioteca Nueva: Madrid.Google Scholar
  12. Chesbrough, H. 2003. Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  13. Chesnais, F. 1996. Technological agreements, networks and selected issues in economic theory. In Technological collaboration. The dynamics of cooperation in industrial innovation ed. Coombs, R., Richards, A., Saviotti P. and Walsh. Cheltenham: V. Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  14. Cockburn, I., Henderson, R. 1998. Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. The Journal of Industrial Economics 46 (2): 157–183.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, W., and Levinthal, D. 1989. Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. Economic Journal 99: 569–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen, W., and Levinthal, D. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cohen, W., and. Levinthal, D. 1994. Fortune favors the prepared firm. Management Science (February): 227–251.Google Scholar
  18. Czarnitzki, D. 2006. Research and Development in small and medium-sized enterprises: The role of financial constraints and public funding. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 53: 335–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Decarolis, D.M., and Deeds, D.L. 1999. The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: An empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal 20: 953–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. D’Este, P., Patel, P., 2007. University–industry linkages in the UK: what are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry. Research Policy 36, 1295–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dutta, S., and Weiss, A. 1997. The relationship between a firm’s level of technological innovativeness and its pattern of partnership agreements. Management Science 43(3): 343–356.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dyer JH and Singh H. 1998. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review 23(4): 660–79.Google Scholar
  23. Edwards, T., Delbridge, R. and Munday, M. 2005. Understanding innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises: A process manifest. Technovation 25: 1119–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Freel, M. S. 2007. Are small innovators credit rationed? Small Business Economics 28: 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Freel, M. 2005. Patterns of innovation and skills in small firms. Technovation 25: 123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Freel, M., 2003. Sectoral patterns of small firm innovation, networking and proximity. Research Policy 32: 751–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Galbraith, J. K. 1952. American capitalism. The concept of countervailing power. Houghton Mifflin: Boston.Google Scholar
  28. Gambardella, A. 1992. Competitive advantages from in-house scientific research: The US pharmaceutical industry in the 1980s. Research Policy 21: 391–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Giuliani, E. 2005. Cluster absorptive capacity why do some clusters forge ahead and others lag behind? European Urban and Regional Studies 12(3): 269–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Giuliani, E. and Bell, M. 2005. The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy 34(1): 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Giuliani, E. 2007. The selective nature of knowledge networks in clusters: evidence from the wine industry. Journal of Economic Geography 7: 139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gottardi, G. 2000. Innovation and the creation of knowledge in Italian industrial districts: A system model. In Evolutionary patterns of local industrial systems ed. Belussi, F. and Gottardi, G. Ashgate Publishing Ltd: England.Google Scholar
  33. Grimpe, C., and Sofka,W. 2009. Search patterns and absorptive capacity: Low- and High-Technology sectors in European countries. Research Policy 38(3): 495–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hagedoorn, J., Link, A. and Vonortas, N. 2000. Research Partnerships. Research Policy 29 (4–5): 567–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hanel P., and St-Pierre, M. 2006. Industry-University collaboration by Canadian manufacturing firms. Journal of Technology Transfer 31: 485–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hassink, R. 1997. Technology transfer infrastructures: Some lessons from experiences in Europe, the US and Japan. European Planning Studies 5(3): 351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hervas-Oliver, J.L., and Albors-Garrigós, J. 2009. The Role of a firm’s internal and relational capabilities in clusters: When distance and embeddedness are not enough to explain innovation. Journal of Economic Geography 9 (2): 263–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hervas-Oliver, J.L., Albors Garrigos, J., and Gil-Pechuan, I. 2011. Making sense of innovation by R&D and non-R&D innovators in low technology contexts: A forgotten lesson for policymakers. Technovation 31(9): 427–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Huergo, E. 2006. The role of technological management as a source of innovation: Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. Research Policy 35(9): 1377–1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kang, S.C., Morris, S.S. and Snell, S. 2007. Relational archetypes, organizational learning, and value creation: Extending the human resource architecture. Academy of Management Review 32: 236–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Katila, R. 2002. New product search over time: Past ideas in their prime? Academy of Management Journal 45(6): 995–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Katila, R. and Ahuja, G. 2002. Something old, Something new: A longitudinal study of search beehavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal 45(6):1183–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kaufmann, A. and Wagner, P. 2005. EU regional policy and the stimulation of innovation: The role of European regional development fund in the objective 1 region Burgenland. European Planning Studies 13(4): 581–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kirner, E., Kinkel, S. Jaeger, A. 2009. Innovation paths and the innovation performance of low-technology firms—An empirical analysis of german industry. Research Policy 38 (3): 447–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kleinknecht, A. 1987. Measuring R&D in small firms: How much we are missing? The Journal of Industrial Economics 36: 253–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kleinknecht, A. 1989. Market structure, firm characteristics and innovative activity. Journal of Industrial Economics 37: 327–336.Google Scholar
  47. Klevorick, A.; Levin. R.; Nelson, R. and Winter, S. 1995. On the sources of significance of inter-industry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy 24: 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lagendijk, A. 2000. Learning in non-core region: Toward “intelligent clusters”; addressing Business and regional needs, In Knowledge, innovation and economic growth. The theory and practice of learning regions, ed. 165–191. Edward Elgar: Aldershot.Google Scholar
  49. Landabaso, M. 2000. Innovation and regional development policy, In Knowledge, innovation and economic growth. The theory and practice of learning regions, ed. F. Boekema, K. Morgan, S. Bakkers and R. Rutten, 73–94. Edward Elgar: Aldershot.Google Scholar
  50. Lane, P. J., Salk, J. E., Lyles, M. A. 2001. Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal 22: 1139–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lane, P., Koka, P. And Pathak S. 2006. The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review 31(4): 833–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lane, P.J., And Lubatkin, M. 1998. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal 19: 461–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Laursen, K. and Salter A. 2006. Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal 27(2): 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lee, Ch., Lee, K. and Pennings, J. 2001. Internal capabilities, external networks and performance: A study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal 22: 615–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Levinthal, D. A., and Fichman, M. 1988. “Dynamics of interorganizational attachments: Auditor-client relations”. Administrative Science Quarterly 33: 345–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lindelöf, P. and Löftsen, H. 2004. Proximity as a resource base for competitive advantage: University-industry links for technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer 29: 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. López, A. 2006. Determinants of R&D cooperation: Evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization 26:113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lundvall, B.-A. 2002. The university in the learning economy. DRUID Working Paper 02–06.Google Scholar
  59. Lundvall, B.A., and Nielsen, P. 1999. Competition and transformation in the learning economy, illustrated by the Danish case. Revue d’Economie Industrielle 88: 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lundvall, B.A. and Johnson, B. 1994. The learning economy. Journal of Industrial Studies 1: 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lundvall, B.A. ed. 1992. National system of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter: London.Google Scholar
  62. Malerba, Franco. 1992. Learning by firms and incremental technical change. Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society 102(413): 845–59.Google Scholar
  63. March, J.G. 1991. Exploration and Exploitation in organization learning. Organization Science 2: 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mcevily, B. and Zaheer, A. 1999. Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 20: 1133–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. MIK. 2006. Analisis del capital social en el sector dee la madera y mueble de Urola Erdia. Project Document, Iraurgi Lantzen: Azkoitia.Google Scholar
  66. Mohnen, P., and Hoareau, C. 2003. What type of enterprises forges close links with universities and government labs? Evidence from CIS2. Managerial and Decision Economics 24: 133–146.Google Scholar
  67. Mora-Valentin, E.M., Montoro-Sanchez, A. and Guerras-Martin, L.A. 2004. Determining factors in the success of R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organizations. Research Policy 33(1): 17–40.Google Scholar
  68. Mowery, D.C., Oxley, J.E., and Silverman, B.S. 1996. Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal 17: 77–91.Google Scholar
  69. Muscio, A. 2007. The impact of absorptive capacity on SMES’ collaboration. Econ. Innov. New Techn. 16(8): 653–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Narula, R. 2001. R&D collaboration by Smes: New opportunities and limitations in the face of globalization. MERIT-Infonomics Research Memorandum Series, 2001–2012.Google Scholar
  71. Negassi, S. 2004. R&D co-operation and innovation: A microeconometric study on french firms. Research Policy 33: 365–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Nieto, M. and Quevedo, P. 2005. Absorptive capacity, technological opportunity, knowledge spillovers, and innovative effort. Technovation 25: 1141–1157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. OECD. 2005. Oslo manual: Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation, 3rd Ed. Paris: OECD Publications.Google Scholar
  74. Ortega-Argiles, R., Vivarelli, M., Voigt, P. 2009. R&D in Smes: A paradox? Small Business Economics 33: 3–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Parrilli, M. D., Aranguren, M. J. and Larrea, M. 2010. The role of interactive learning to close the “Innovation gap” In SME-based local economies: A furniture cluster in the Basque country and its key policy implications’, European Planning Studies 18(3): 351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Peteraf, M. 1993. The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal 14: 179–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Pisano, G. 1990. “The RD boundaries of the firm: An empirical analysis”. Administrative Science Quarterly 35- 153–176.Google Scholar
  78. Piva and Vivarelli. 2002. The skill-bias: Comparative evidence and econometric test. International Review of Applied Economics 16 (3): 347–357.Google Scholar
  79. Rammer, C., Czarnitizki, D., Spielkamp, A. 2009. Innovation success of non-R&D-performers: Substituting technology by management in Smes. Small Business Economics 33:35–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rialp, A. 1999. Los determinantes de la internalización del canal de distribución internaciona1: Un análisis comparativo. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa 3: 141–166.Google Scholar
  81. Rocha, F. 1999. Inter-Firm technological cooperation: Effects of absorptive capacity, firm-size and specialization. Economics of Innovation and New Technology 8: 253–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rosenberg, N., and Nelson, R.R. 1994. American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy 23: 325–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Rosenkopf, L. and Almeida, P. 2003. Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science 49: 751–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rothwell, R., Dodgson, M. 1991. External linkages and innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises. R&D Managemet 21(2): 125–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Santamaria, L., Nieto, M.J., and Barge-Gil, A. 2009. Beyond formal R&D: Taking advantage of other source of innovation in low- and medium-technology industries. Research Policy 38: 507–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Saxton, T. 1997. The effects of partner and relationships characteristics on alliance outcomes. Academy of Management Journal 40/2: 443–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Schulz, M. 2001. The uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational learning and knowledge flows. Academy of Management Journal 44: 661–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Segarra-Blasco, A., and Arauzo-Carod, J.M. 2008. Sources of innovation and industry-university interaction: Evidence from Spanish firms. Research Policy 37: 1283–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Souitaris, V. 2002b. Technological trajectories as moderators of firm level determinants of innovation. Research Policy 31: 877–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Teece, D. 2000. Firm capabilities and economic development: Implications for newly industrialising countries. In Technology, learning and innovation, ed. Kim, L. And Nelson, R.R. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18: 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Terziovski, M. 2010. Innovation practice and its performance implications in small and medium enterprises (SMES) in the manufacturing sector: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  93. Tidd, J. (ed.). 2000. Measuring strategic competencies: Technological, market and organisational indicators of innovation. London: Imperial College Press.Google Scholar
  94. Todtling, F., and Trippl, M. 2005. One size fits all? Towards a differenciated regional innovation policy approach?. Research Policy 34(8):1203–1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Vega-Jurado, J., Gutierrez-Gracia, A., Fernández-De-Lucio, I., and Manjarrés-Henríquez, L. 2008. The effect of external and internal factors on firms product innovation. Research Policy 37: 616–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Vega-Jurado, J., Gutierrez-Gracia, A., Fernández-De-Lucio, I., and Manjarrés-Henríquez, L. 2009. La relación entre las estrategias de innovación: Coexistencia o complementariedad. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation 4.3.Google Scholar
  97. Veugelers, R., and Cassiman, B. 1999. Make and buy in innovation strategies: Evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms. Research Policy 28: 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Veugelers, R., and Cassiman, B. 2005. R&D Cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization 23: 355–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Vinding, A.L. 2006. Absorptive capacity and innovative performance: A human capital approach. Econ. Innov. New. Techn. 15(4–5): 507–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Vinding, A.L. 2004. Human resources: Absorptive capacity and innovative performance. In Product innovation, interactive learning and economic performance, ed. Christensen, J.L. and Lundvall, B.-Å. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  101. Von Hippel, E. 1998. Economics of Product development by users: The impact of sticky local information. Management Science 44 (5): 629.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Von Hippel, E. 1988. The Sources of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  103. Von Tunzelmann, N. and Acha, V. 2005. Innovation in ‘Low-Tech’ industries. In The Oxford handbook of innovation, ed. Fagerberg, J.,Mowery, D.,Nelson, R. 407–432. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Zahra, S.A. and George, G. 2002. Absorptive capacity: A review, re-conceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review 27: 185–203.Google Scholar
  105. Zaheer, A., and Bell, G. 2005. Benefiting from network position: Firm capabilities, structural holes and performance. Strategic Management Journal 26(9): 809–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jose-Luis Hervas-Oliver
    • 1
  • Joan-Josep Baixauli
    • 2
  • Bernardo Perez
    • 3
  1. 1.MIN, Department of Management (DOE)Universitat Politècnica de València (Spain) and Florida State University (U.S.)ValenciaSpain
  2. 2.MIN, Department of Management (DOE)Universitat Politècnica de ValènciaValenciaSpain
  3. 3.Universidad Politecnica Valencia DOE, Business OrganizationValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations