The impact of technology intermediaries on firm cognitive capacity additionality

Whereas the provision of R&D subsidies has been central to public policy for many years, governments have recently become increasingly involved in stimulating cooperation for innovation and R&D. In many countries, financial support for technology intermediaries has become one of the key measures of indirect public support. However, little research has assessed the impact of indirect policy measures. In this paper, we shed light on the conditions under which technology intermediaries contribute to knowledge and networking outcomes generated by the firms that call upon them. We hereby focus on firm network and competence additionality as measures for cognitive capacity additionality and study the impact of technology intermediaries on firms. In doing so, we distinguish between R&D and R&D related activity technology intermediaries engage in. The results indicate that absorptive capacity of the technology intermediary does not affect cognitive capacity additionality generated by firms in R&D activities, while the results for R&D related activities are mixed and depending on the type of cognitive capacity additionality studied. The absorptive capacity of firms does not directly affect cognitive capacity additionality, but the results of mediation analysis show that firms with higher levels of absorptive capacity use the services of the technology intermediary more intensively, and subsequently generate higher levels of cognitive capacity additionality.

[1]  S. Roper,et al.  Output Additionality of Public Support for Innovation: Evidence for Irish Manufacturing Plants , 2010 .

[2]  H. Chesbrough.  The Era of Open Innovation , 2003 .

[3]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[4]  Manfred M. Fischer,et al.  How do firm characteristics affect behavioural additionalities of public R&D subsidies? Evidence for the Austrian transport sector , 2013 .

[5]  Peter Gorringe.  The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets and Relational Contracting by Oliver E. Williamson , 1987 .

[6]  Ammon Salter,et al.  The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms , 2004 .

[7]  H. Rush,et al.  Building bridges for innovation: the role of consultants in technology transfer , 1995 .

[8]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  Yongtae Park,et al.  Technology diffusion policy: a review and classification of policy practices , 1999 .

[10]  Mark Dodgson,et al.  The Handbook of Industrial Innovation , 1994 .

[11]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models , 2008, Behavior research methods.

[12]  Sally Davenport,et al.  Research collaboration and behavioural additionality: A New Zealand case study , 1998 .

[13]  Bart Clarysse,et al.  Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries , 2010 .

[14]  P. David,et al.  Toward a new economics of science , 1994 .

[15]  J. Howells.  Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation , 2006 .

[16]  L. Georghiou,et al.  Equilibrium and Evolutionary Foundations of Technology Policy , 1998 .

[17]  Franco Malerba,et al.  Technological Regimes and Sectoral Patterns of Innovative Activities , 1997 .

[18]  Dominique Philippe Martin,et al.  Intermediaries for open innovation: A competence-based comparison of knowledge transfer offices practices , 2013 .

[19]  Sergio M. Afcha Chávez.  Behavioural Additionality in the Context of Regional Innovation Policy in Spain , 2011 .

[20]  Poh Kam Wong,et al.  The moderating effect of a firm's internal climate for innovation on the impact of public R&D support programmes , 2003 .

[21]  J. Nishimura,et al.  Subsidy and networking: The effects of direct and indirect support programs of the cluster policy , 2011 .

[22]  Bou-Wen Lin,et al.  Technology transfer as technological learning: a source of competitive advantage for firms with limited R&D resources , 2003 .

[23]  Kris Aerts,et al.  Two for the price of one? Additionality effects of R&D subsidies: A comparison between Flanders and Germany , 2008 .

[24]  Mirjam Knockaert,et al.  Collective Research Centres: A Study on R&D and Technology Transfer Involvement , 2009 .

[25]  Luke Georghiou,et al.  What Difference Does it Make? Additionality in the Public Support of R&D in Large Firms , 2014 .

[26]  R. Gulati.  Is Slack Good or Bad for Innovation ? , 2007 .

[27]  C. Baden‐Fuller,et al.  The Influence of Technological Knowledge Base and Organizational Structure on Technology Collaboration , 2010 .

[28]  James D. Thompson.  Organizations in Action , 1967 .

[29]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models , 2004, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[30]  Rolph E. Anderson,et al.  Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed. , 2009 .

[31]  Patrick Cohendet,et al.  Assessing the Socio-economic Impacts of the Framework Programme , 2002 .

[32]  Peter J. Lane,et al.  Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning , 1998 .

[33]  Andrew A. Toole,et al.  Is Public R&D a Complement or Substitute for Private R&D? A Review of the Econometric Evidence , 1999 .

[34]  Isabelle Bouty.  Interpersonal and Interaction Influences on Informal Resource Exchanges Between R&D Researchers Across Organizational Boundaries , 2000 .

[35]  R. Nelson.  The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research , 1959, Journal of Political Economy.

[36]  P. Bromiley,et al.  Toward a Model of Risk in Declining Organizations: An Empirical Examination of Risk, Performance and Decline , 1996 .

[37]  Andreas Pyka,et al.  Classifying Technology Policy from an Evolutionary Perspective , 1999 .

[38]  M. Wright,et al.  Behavioural additionality of R&D subsidies: A learning perspective , 2009 .

[39]  Fang-Ming Hsu,et al.  The effect of government-sponsored R&D programmes on additionality in recipient firms in Taiwan , 2009 .

[40]  T. Koga.  R&D Subsidy and Self-Financed R&D: The Case of Japanese High-Technology Start-Ups , 2005 .

[41]  E. von Hippel,et al.  Sources of Innovation , 2016 .

[42]  A. Stinchcombe.  Social Structure and Organizations , 2000, Political Organizations.

[43]  P. Ring,et al.  Developmental Processes of Cooperative Interorganizational Relationships , 1994 .

[44]  Yongrok Choi,et al.  The role of intermediaries on technological risk management and business development performance in Korea , 2010 .

[45]  Terttu Luukkonen,et al.  Additionality of EU framework programmes , 2000 .

[46]  Robin Gustafsson,et al.  First- and second-order additionality and learning outcomes in collaborative R&D programs , 2008 .

[47]  Meric S. Gertler,et al.  The Geography of Innovation: Regional Innovation Systems , 2006 .

[48]  R. Defillippi,et al.  A bridge over troubled waters: bridging organisations and entrepreneurial opportunities in emerging sectors , 2007 .

[49]  Justin Tan,et al.  Organizational Slack and Firm Performance During Economic Transitions: Two Studies from an Emerging Economy , 2003 .

[50]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Innovation and diffusion in small firms: Theory and evidence , 1994 .

[51]  Chang-Yang Lee,et al.  The differential effects of public R&D support on firm R&D: Theory and evidence from multi-country data ⋆ , 2011 .

[52]  S. Zahra,et al.  Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension , 2002 .

[53]  Alessandro Muscio,et al.  THE IMPACT OF ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY ON SMEs' COLLABORATION , 2007 .

[54]  K. Arrow.  Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention , 1962 .

[55]  G. George.  Slack Resources and the Performance of Privately Held Firms , 2005 .

[56]  F. Malerba.  Learning by Firms and Incremental Technical Change , 1992 .

[57]  Robert J. Bennett,et al.  Intensity of interaction in supply of business advice and client impact: a comparison of consultancy, business associations and government support initiatives for SMEs , 1999 .

[58]  Marjorie A. Lyles,et al.  Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures , 2001 .

[59]  P. A. Losty,et al.  A Behavioural Theory of the Firm , 1965 .

[60]  Christian Longhi,et al.  Gatekeepers of Knowledge versus Platforms of Knowledge: From Potential to Realized Absorptive Capacity , 2008 .

[61]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Science and Technology Policy in Interdependent Economies , 1994 .

[62]  Yannick Lung,et al.  Innovation and Proximity , 1999 .

[63]  P. Bromiley.  Testing a Causal Model of Corporate Risk Taking and Performance , 1991 .

[64]  B. Carlsson,et al.  The Missing Link: The Knowledge Filter and Endogenous Growth , 2003 .

[65]  Luke Georghiou,et al.  Issues in the Evaluation of Innovation and Technology Policy , 1998 .

[66]  E. Autio,et al.  SOCIAL CAPITAL, KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION, AND KNOWLEDGE EXPLOITATION IN YOUNG TECHNOLOGY-BASED FIRMS , 2001 .

[67]  Mark S. Granovetter.  Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

[68]  Jari Hyvärinen,et al.  Measuring additionality and systemic impacts of public research and development funding — the case of TEKES, Finland , 2007 .

[69]  Chwo-Ming Joseph Yu,et al.  The effect of competitive and non-competitive R&D collaboration on firm innovation , 2011 .

[70]  F. Malerba.  Sectoral systems of innovation and production , 2002 .

[71]  Rahel Falk,et al.  Measuring the effects of public support schemes on firms’ innovation activities: Survey evidence from Austria , 2007 .