Znaczenie współpracy z partnerami instytucjonalnymi dla sprawności innowacyjnej polskich przedsiębiorstw przemysłowych

• Authors: M. S. Lewandowska

Title variants

EN

The importance of cooperation with institutional partners for the innovation performance of Polish industrial enterprises

Abstracts

EN

The aim of this paper is to assess the influence of institutional cooperation (with research institutes and universities) on the innovation performance of firms as well as determinants of such cooperation. The analysis was based on data from the Polish version of the Community Innovation Survey (CIS) for 2008-2010. The sample consists of 7783 medium-sized and large industrial enterprises from sections B to E. Based on the results of a structural equation model it has been concluded that there is a statistically significant relation between institutional cooperation and innovation performance of researched companies, as well as (in the case of cooperation with Polish firms) in the introduction of product innovations new for the country, Europe or the world. The analysis of critical values between parameters enables the establishment of a hierarchy of company features which determines such cooperation. These include the system of employee incentives for the creation of intellectual property, company size and own R&D department. The application of the employee incentive system better explains the decision to establish cooperation with Polish companies than with foreign ones. Belonging to a capital group adversely affects institutional cooperation.

Keywords

PL

kooperacja instytucjonalna; sprawność innowacyjna; polski CIS; Polska

EN

institutional cooperation; innovation performance; Polish CIS; Poland

• Publisher: Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne
• Journal: Gospodarka Materiałowa i Logistyka
• Year: 2014
• Issue: 11
• Pages: 10-18

Dates

published

2014

Contributors

author

M. S. Lewandowska

• Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie, Kolegium Gospodarki Światowej Instytut Międzynarodowego Zarządzania i Marketingu

References

• Belderbos, R., Carree, M. i Lokshin, B. (2004a). Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy, (33), 1477-1492.
• Belderbos, R., Carree, M. Diederen, B. Lokshin, B. i Veugelers, R. (2004b). Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22 (8/9), 1237-1263.
• Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. i West, J. (2006). Open innovation. Researching a new innovation paradigm. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A. (1989). Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D. Economic Journal, (99), 569-596.
• Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, (35), 128-152.
• De Wit, B., Meyer, R. (2007). Synteza strategii. Warszawa, PWE.
• GUS (2012). Działalność innowacyjna przedsiębiorstw w latach 2008-2010. Warszawa.
• Fontana, R., Geuna, A., Matt, M. (2006). Factors affecting university-industry R&D projects: the importance of searching, screening and signaling. Research Policy, 32 (2), 309-23.
• Gaul, M., Machowski, A. (1987). Elementy analizy ścieżek, W: J. Brzeziński (red.), Wielozmiennowe modele statystyczne w badaniach psychologicznych. Warszawa, Poznań: PWE.
• Grant, R.M. (1991). The Resource-based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation. California Management Review, (33), 114-135.
• Kogut, B., Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3 (3), 383-397.
• Hamel, G., Prahalad, C.K. (1989). Strategic Intent Harvard Business Review, 67 (3), 63-76.
• Kessler, E.H., Bierly, P.E. i Gopalakrishnan, S. (2000). Internal vs. external learning in new product development: effects on speed, costs and competitive advantage. R&D Management, 33 (3), 213-223.
• Kim, Y., Lui, S.S. (2010). Networks and firm innovation in emerging markets: the case of Korean manufacturing firms, Paper presented at the 36th European International Business Academy Annual Conference, Porto, Portugal.
• Kleinknecht, A., Reijnen, J.O.N. (1992). Why do firms cooperate on R&D? An empirical study. Research Policy, 21 (4), 347-360.
• Laursen, K., Salter, A. (2004). Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation?, Research Policy, 33 (8), 1201-15.
• Lichtenthaler, U. (2011). Open innovation: past research, current debates, and future directions. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25 (1), February, 75-93.
• Leiponen, A., (2002). Why do firms not collaborate? The role of competencies and technological regimes, W: Kleinknecht, A. and Mohnen, P. (red.) Innovation and Firm Performance: Econometric Exploration of Survey Data. London: Palgrave, 253-77.
• Lööf, H., Brostrom, A. (2008). Does knowledge diffusion between universities and industry increase innovativeness? Journal of Technology Transfer, (33), 73-90.
• Mohnen, P., Hoareau, C. (2003). What type of enterprise forges close links with universities and government labs? Evidence from CIS 2. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24 (2/3), 133-45.
• Monjon, S., Waelbroeck, P. (2003). Assessing spillovers from universities to firms: evidence from French firm-level data. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21 (9), 1255-1270.
• Miozzo, M., Dewick, P. (2004). Networks and innovation in European construction: benefits ts from interorganisational cooperation in a fragmented industry. International Journal of Technology Management, 27, 68-92.
• Mothe, C., Uyen Nguyen Thi, T. (2010). The link between non-technological innovations and technological innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13 (3), 313-332.
• Molier, K.E., Tórronen, P. (2003). Business supplier's value creation potential. Industrial Marketing Management, 32 (2), 109-118.
• Nieto, M. J., Santamaria, L. (2007). The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation. Technovation, (27), 367-377.
• Rutkowski, I.P. (2007). Rozwój nowego produktu. Metody i uwarunkowania. Warszawa: PWE.
• Robin, S., Schubert, T., (2013). Cooperation with public research institutions and success in innovation: Evidence from France and Germany. Research Policy, (42), 149-166.
• Serrano-Bedia, A., Lopez-Fernandez, C., Garca-Piqueres, G. (2010). Decision of institutional cooperation on R&D. Determinants and sectoral difference. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13 (4), 439-465.
• Tether, B., (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why: an empirical analysis. Research Policy, 31 (6), 947-967.
• Veugelers, R., Cassiman, B., (2004). Foreign subsidiaries as a channel of international technology diffusion: some direct firm level evidence from Belgium. European Economic Review, (48), 455-476.
• Veugelers, R., Cassiman, B., (2005). R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 23 (5/6), 355-379.
• Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
• Eurostat Statistics Database (inn_cis7 http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/), 19.03.2013.

Identifiers

Biblioteka Nauki

1378310