Fostering Innovation in the National Systems: An Application to Spain

• Authors: Carmen de Pablos Heredero , Jose Manuel Bermejo Ruiz
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Background: The sharing of practices that enable the flow and the distribution of tacit knowledge and other ways of proprietary knowledge are essential requisites for promoting an innovation system. Objectives: In this paper a diagnosis of the Spanish Science and Technology System is offered by using the normalized protocol for responsible partnering proposed by EIRMA. Methods/Approach: The triple helix model has been used to identify the agents that take part in the system. The grounded theory has also been applied to analyse interactions and interviews with seven key agents in the system. Results: The lack of common objectives among the main partners in the system is the most important weakness; the New Acts developed in the last three years is a strength that allows the different agents of the system to share objectives. The economic crisis is a threat for the performance of research within the university context and becomes at the same time an opportunity to establish closer relationships. Conclusions: Universities, firms and governments must synchronise their work to accomplish a common objective: produce high levels of innovation that aim to enhance the competitiveness of the system.

Keywords

EN

open innovation practices; science and technology system; EIRMA; transfer of knowledge; grounded theory; stakeholders; M1; M2

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Business Systems Research Journal
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 5
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 110-124

Dates

received

2013-10-02

accepted

2014-05-16

online

2014-09-10

Contributors

author

Carmen de Pablos Heredero

• Rey Juan Carlos University, Spain

author

Jose Manuel Bermejo Ruiz

• FringesCT, Spain

References

• 1. Abramovitz, M., David, P. (1996), “Technological Change and the Rise of Intangible Investments: The US Economy’s Growth-path in the Twentieth Century”, in Foray, D., Lundvall, B. A. (eds), “Employment and Growth in the Knowledge-based Economy”, Paris: OECD.
• 2. Alchian, A. A., Demsetz, H. (1972), “Production, information costs, and economic organization”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 62, No. 5, pp. 777-795.
• 3. Al-Natour, S., Be n basat, I. (2009), “The Adoption and Use of IT Artifacts: A New Interaction Centric Model for the Study of User-Artifact Relationships”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 10, No. 9, pp. 661-685.
• 4. Artopoulos, A. (2006), “Tenaris. Una corporación global desde el sur”, available at: https://www.udesa.edu.ar/files/UAAdministracion/Documentos%20de%20Trabajo/59.pdf (17 July 2014).
• 5. Benkler, Y. (2002), “Coase’s Penguin, or Linux and the Nature of the Firms”, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 112, No. 3, pp. 369-446.[Crossref]
• 6. Benkler, Y. (2005), “La nueva economía del código abierto”, presentation at TED conference.
• 7. Benkler, Y. (2006). “The Wealth of Networks. How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom”, New Haven, London: Yale University Press.
• 8. Bermejo Ruiz, J. M. (2012), “De la investigación a la innovación: importancia de la gestión de la propiedad intelectual en el sistema científico tecnológico español para la promoción de entornos colaborativos”, doctoral dissertation, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain.
• 9. Bermejo Ruiz, J. M., De Pablos Heredero, C. (2013), “An analysis of the Spanish Science and Technology system”, Procedia Technology, Vol. 9, pp. 511-517.
• 10. Brown, S. L., Eisenhardt, K. M. (1998). „Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos”, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• 11. Castro, G. M. et al. (2009), “El capital relacional como fuente de innovación tecnológica”, Innovar. Revista de Ciencias Administrativas y Sociale, Vol. 19, No. 35, pp. 119-132.
• 12. Chung, S. A., Singh, H., Lee, K. (2000), “Complementarity, status similarity and social capital as drivers of alliance formation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 1-22.[Crossref]
• 13. Colás, B. P., De Pablos, P. J. (2004), “La formación del profesorado basada en redes de aprendizaje virtual: aplicación de la técnica dafo”, available at: http://campus.usal.es/~teoriaeducacion/rev_numero_05/n5_art_colas_pablos.ht ml/ (23 March 2011).
• 14. Conner, K. R., Prahalad, C. K. (1996), “A Resource-Based Theory of the Firm: Knowledge versus Opportunism”, Organization Science, Vol. 7, No. 5, pp. 477-501.[Crossref]
• 15. Cooke, P. (2005), “Regionally Asymetric Knowledge Capabilities and Open Innovation”, Research Policy, Vol. 34, No. 8, pp. 1128-1149.[Crossref]
• 16. D’Aveni, R. (1994). “Hypercompetiton: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering”, New York: Free Press.
• 17. Day, G. (1994), “The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 4, pp. 37-52.[Crossref]
• 18. De Pablos Heredero, C. et al. (2012). “Organization and transformation of information systems at firms”, Madrid: ESIC.
• 19. Dedrick, J., West, J. (2005), “Why firms adopt Open Source Platforms: A grounded Theory of Innovation and Standards Adoption”, available at: http://www.joelwest.org/misq-stds/proceedings/145_236-257.pdf (17 July 2014).
• 20. Douglas, D. (2003), “Grounded Theory and the “And” in Entrepreneurship Research”, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 47–170.
• 21. Douglas, D. (2009), “Entrepreneurship Research and Grounded Theory. Some Methodological Reflections”, available at: https://www.staffs.ac.uk/assets/2009%20David%20Douglas,%20’Entrepreneurship%20Research%20and%20Grounded%20Theory_tcm44-21760.pdf (17 July 2014).
• 22. Doz, Y. L., Olk, P. M., Ring, P. S. (2000), “Formation process of R&D consortia: which path to take? Where does it lead?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 239-266.[Crossref]
• 23. Drucker, P. F. (1994). “Post-Capitalist Society”, New York: Harper Business.
• 24. EIRMA (2009), “Responsible Partnering. Joining Forces in a World of Open Innovation: Guidelines for Collaborative Research and Knowledge Transfer between Science and Industry”. European Industrial Research Management Association Protocol. The Netherlands.
• 25. Eisenhardt, K. M., Martin, J. A. (2000), “Dynamic capabilities: what are they?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21, No. 10-11, pp. 1105-1121.[Crossref]
• 26. Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. (2000), “The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and Mode 2 to a Triple Helix of university industry-government relations”, Research Policy, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 109-123.[Crossref]
• 27. Fleming, L., Sorenson, O. (2004), “Science as a map in technological search”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25, No. 8-9, pp. 909-928.[Crossref]
• 28. Galán, J. L., Casanueva, C., Castro-Abancéns, I. (2010), “Las relaciones empresariales: una tipología de redes”, Innovar. Revista de Ciencias Administrativas y Sociales, Vol. 20, No. 38, pp. 27-44.
• 29. Gittell, J. H. (2009). “High Performance Healthcare: Using the Power of Relationships to Achieve Quality, Efficiency and Resilience”, New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
• 30. Glaser, B. G. (1992). “Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emerge vs. Forcing”, Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
• 31. Glaser, G., Strauss, A. (1967). “The discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research”, New York: Aldine Publishing Company.
• 32. Goldkuhl, G. (2004). “Conceptual determination when developing a multi-grounded theory. Example and Defining ISD method”, European Conference on Research Methods in Business and Management, Reading University, UK.
• 33. Gonzalez-Barahona, J. M. et al. (2001), “Counting Potatoes: the Size of Debian 2.2”, Upgrade, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp. 60-66.
• 34. Hagedroon, J. (1993), “Understanding the Rationale of Strategic Technology Partnering: Interorganizational Modes of Cooperation and Sectoral Differences”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 371-385.[Crossref]
• 35. Haider, S., De Pablos Heredero, C. (2012), “Determinants of R&D Cooperation: an Institutional Perspective”, Revista de Economía Mundial, No. 32, pp. 239-257.
• 36. Hamel, G., Prahalad, C. K. (1993), “Strategy as Stretch and Leverage”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 71, No. 2, pp. 75-84.
• 37. Hamel, G., Prahalad. C. K. (1994). “Competing for the Future”, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
• 38. Hunt, S. D. (1999). “A general theory of competition”, Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications.
• 39. International Monetary Fund (1997), “Perspectivas de la economía mundial”, Washington, p. 59.
• 40. Jensen, M. C., Meckling, W. H. (1976), “A theory of the firm: Governance, Residual Claims and Organizational Forms”, Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 305-360.[Crossref]
• 41. Krüger, K. (2006), “El concepto de la Sociedad del Conocimiento”, available at: http://www.ub.es/geocrit/b3w-683.htm (25th April 2012).
• 42. Larn, A. (2000), “Tacit Knowledge, Organizational Learning and Societal Institutions: An Integrated Framework”, Organization Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 487-513.
• 43. Locke, K. (2001). “Grounded Theory in Management Research”, London: Sage.
• 44. Lowe, A. (1995), “The basic social processes of entrepreneurial innovation”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 54-76.
• 45. Lundvall, B. (ed.) (1992). “National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning”, London: Printer Publishers.
• 46. Malerba, F. (2002), “Sectoral systems of innovation and production”, Research Policy, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 247-264.[Crossref]
• 47. Malerba, F. (ed.) (2004). “Sectoral Systems of Innovation. Concepts, Issues and Analyses of Six Major Sectors in Europe”, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• 48. McCormack, A. et al. (2007). “Innovation through Global Collaboration: A New Source of Competitive Advantage”, available at: http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/07-079.pdf (17 July 2014).
• 49. Mohrman, S. A., Galbraith, J. R., Lawler E. E. (1998), “The Challenge of Change. In Tomorrow’s Organization: Crafting Winning Capabilities in a Dynamic World”, San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
• 50. Myers, R. H., Montgomery, D. C., Anderson-Cook, C. M. (2009).” Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments (Vol. 705)”, London: John Wiley & Sons.
• 51. Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. G. (1985). “An evolutionary theory of economic change”, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• 52. Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. (1996), “A Theory of Organisational Knowledge Creation”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 11, No. 7-8, pp. 833-845.
• 53. Orlikowski, W. J. (1993), “CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incre- mental and Radical Changes in Systems Development”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 309-340.[Crossref]
• 54. Orlikowski, W. J., Robey, D. (1991), “Information Technology and the Structuring of Organizations”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 143-169.[Crossref]
• 55. Partington, D. (2000), “Building grounded theories of management action”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 11, pp. 91-102.[Crossref]
• 56. Polanyi, M. (1966). “The Tacit Dimension”, New York: Anchor Day.
• 57. Powell, W. W., Snellman, K. (2004), “The Knowledge Economy”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 30, pp. 199-220.[Crossref]
• 58. Prahalad, C., Hamel, G. (1990), “The Core Competence of the Corporation”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68, No. 3, pp. 79-91.
• 59. Quintero-Campos, L. J. (2010), “Aportes teóricos para el estudio de un sistema de innovación”, Innovar, Vol. 20, No. 38, pp. 57-76.
• 60. Senge, P. M. (1990). “La Quinta Disciplina: El Arte y la Práctica de la Organización Abierta al Aprendizaje”, Buenos Aires: Granica.
• 61. Srivastava, R. K., Fahey, L., Christensen, H. K. (2001), “The resource-based view and marketing: The role of market-based assets in gaining competitive advantage”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27. No. 6, pp. 777-802.[Crossref]
• 62. Strauss, A., Corbin, J. M. (1990). “Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded theory, procedures and techniques”, London: Sage.
• 63. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. (1994), “The dynamic capabilities of firms: an introduction”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 537-556.[Crossref]
• 64. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamics Capabilities and Strategic Management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 7, pp. 509-533.[Crossref]
• 65. Tidd, J. (2000), “The competence cycle: translating knowledge into new processes, products and services - Chapter 1”, in Tidd, J. (ed.), “From Knowledge management to strategic competencies: measures of technological, market & organizational innovation”, London: Imperial College Press.
• 66. Tognato, C. (2007), “Construir zonas de intercambio entre la academia y el mercado: una aproximación desde la pragmática cultural”, Innovar. Revista de Ciencias Administrativas y Sociales, Vol. 17, No. 30, pp. 7-17.
• 67. Venkatesh, V. et al. (2003), “User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 425-478.
• 68. Werger, G. (2003), “Evolutionary markets and the design of institutional policy”, in Pelikan, P., Werger, G. (eds), “The Evolutionary Analysis of Economic Policy”, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
• 69. Wheeler, D. (2007), “Why Open Source Software. Look at the Numbers”, available at: http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html (30 Jan 2010).
• 70. Williamson, O. E. (1975). “Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications”, New York: Pinter.
• 71. Williamson, O. E. (1996). “The mechanisms of governance”, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• 72. Zollo, M., Winter, S. G. (2002), “Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities”, Organization Science, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 339-351.[Crossref]

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/bsrj-2014-0014