Munich Personal RePEc Archive
Cooperation in Innovation Practices among Portuguese Firms: Do
Universities Interface Innovative Advances?
Silva, Maria José and Leitão, João
15 October 2007
Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5215/
MPRA Paper No. 5215, posted 16 Oct 2007 UTC
Coope r a t ion in I n n ova t ion Pr a ct ice s a m on g Por t u gu e se Fir m s:
D o Un ive r sit ie s I n t e r fa ce I n n ova t ive Adva n ce s?
M a r ia José Ag u ila r M a de ir a Silva Assist ant Professor, Universit y of Beira I nt erior
NECE, Managem ent and Econom ics Depart m ent , Pólo I V, 6200- 209 Covilhã, Port ugal, Phone: + 351 275 319 651, E- m ail: m silva@ubi.pt , URL: ht t p: / / ww w.dge.ubi.pt / m silva
Joã o Ca r los Co r r e ia Le it ã o Assist ant Professor, Universit y of Beira I nt erior
NECE, Managem ent and Econom ics Depart m ent , Pólo I V, 6200- 209 Covilhã, Port ugal, Phone: + 351 275 319 653, E- m ail: j leit ao@ubi.pt URL: ht t p: / / www.dge.ubi.pt / j leit ao
Abst r a ct
This paper aim s t o ident ify t he nat ure of t he relat ionships t hat are est ablished am ongst agent s who co- operat e in t erm s of innovat ion pract ices. I t analyses whet her t he ent repreneurial innovat ion capabilit y of firm s is st im ulat ed t hrough t he relat ionships developed wit h ext ernal part ners. The dat a of 2nd Com m unit y I nnovat ion Survey of EUROSTAT is used in a logist ic m odel. I n t he est im at ion process of t he Logit funct ion, t he ent repreneurial innovat ion capabilit y is considered as t he answer variable. The scient ific agent s who cooperat e in t erm s of innovat ion act ivit ies im pact , posit ively, on t he propensit y t o engage in innovat ive advances revealed by t he firm s, at t he level of pr oduct innovat ion. The paper present s policy im plicat ions, which m ay be used in t he design of public policies for fost ering open innovat ion net works bet ween scient ific agent s and firm s.
Ke yw or ds: I nnovat ion, Net works, Ent repreneurial I nnovat ion Capabilit y.
1 - I N TROD UCTI ON
Due t o t he challenges ent erprises are facing, innovat ion is assum ed as a key fact or for com pet it iveness. Several t heoret ical approaches developed in t he last few years, support t he idea t hat innovat ion result s from a non linear, evolut ionary, com plex and int eract ive process bet ween t he firm and it s agent s; where ext ernal cont act s in t he scope of innovat ion influence t he firm ’sinnovat ion capacit y. This paper aim s t o analyse t he nat ure of t he relat ionships t hat are est ablished am ong agent s who co- operat e in t erm s of innovat ion pract ices. Furt herm or e, it aim s t o det erm ine if t he ent repreneurial innovat ion capacit y of firm s is st im ulat ed t hrough t he relat ionship est ablished wit h t he ext ernal part ners.
Thus, it is int ended wit h t his essay t o develop a t heoret ical support based on current reference approaches, corroborat ed by an em pirical support which allows ident ifying if t he innovat ive advances undert aken by Port uguese I ndust rial firm s are st im ulat ed by t he relat ionship wit h business and science part ners.
To em pirically t est t he form ulat ed hypot heses aut horized by OCT - Observat ório da Ciência e da Tecnologia observat ory of Science and Techn ology which belong t o t he Second Com m unit y innovat ion survey for – CI S I I (Com m un it y I nnovat ion Survey I I) . The generalized m odel of linear regression is applied t o t he obt ained dat a, nam ely t he m odel of logist ic regression.
The art icle is st ruct ured in t he following way: point t wo present s relevant lit erat ure on t he relat ionship regarding innovat ion; t he concept ual m odel is proposed and t he hypot heses which are t o be em pirically t est ed in t he st at ist ical m odel are form ulat ed. I n point t hree t he sam ple is defined and lat er t he descript ion and charact erizat ion of variables used in t he em pirical st udy.
Point four st at es t he m odel of logist ic regression for innovat ive advances. I n point five t he result s are discussed and t he m ain conclusions are present ed.
2 – PROPOSAL FOR CON CEPTUAL M OD EL AN D H YPOTH ESES
I n t his research, innovat ion is neit her seen as som et hing periodical t hat happened by accident nor som et hing t hat result s from t he act ion of an individual agent . I nnovat ion is seen as t he result of an int eract ive and non linear process bet ween t he firm and it s environm ent . ( Kline and Rosenberg, 1986, Dosi et al., 1988, Lundvall, 1988, 1992, Nelson, 1993, Edquist , 1997, Maskell and Malm berg, 1999, Lundvall, Johnson, Andersen and Dalum 2002) . The result s of t his sam e process are designat ed as ent repreneurial innovat ion capacit y. The t erm ent repreneurial innovat ion capacit y was adopt ed t o int egrat e t he com ponent s t hat result from t he innovat ive process of a firm , nam ely: product innovat ion, process innovat ion and organizat ional innovat ion. This paper is focused on t he st udy of ent repreneurial innovat ion capacit y regarding t he innovat ive advances undert aken by t he firm in what concerns t he product innovat ion.
Considering t he dim ension of ent repreneurial innovat ion capacit y: product innovat ion and having as it s base t he pioneer fact or, t wo different t ypes of innovat ion are dist inguished: “ new for t he firm versus new for t he m arket ” . The cat egory of innovat ion “ new for t he firm ” includes m odificat ions and im provem ent s of t he firm s exist ing product s, as well as t he product s t hat are new for t he firm , ext ending or subst it ut ing cert ain it em s ( Kaufm ann e Tödt ling, 2000) . The innovat ion of t hese product s com prise changes regarding variet y of t he product s, sm all design im provem ent s or t echnical changes of one or several product s, as well as t he int roduct ion of new ones. I t is generally known as increm ent al innovat ion, wit h sm all t echnical changes t hat result from t he global available knowledge.
The cat egory innovat ion “ new for t he m arket ” includes product s which are new t o t he firm and t he m arket ( Kaufm ann and Tödt ling, 2001) . Such kind of product offer new qualit ies, services or funct ions t hat up t o t hat m om ent are not available in anot her m arket place. Therefor e, such product s do not have ot her com pet ing product s, which lead t owards a t em porary m onopoly;
oft en addressed t o very specialised m arket s ( Kaufm ann and Tödt ling, 2001) . These innovat ions oft en require m ore t han j ust increm ent al developm ent , cont ribut ing t owards t he developm ent of innovat ive advances. This way, it is considered t hat t he firm produced innovat ive advances when it int roduced a new product not only t o t he firm but also t o t he m arket t hat is supplied by t he firm , during 1995 t o 1997 ( CI S I I , 1999, Kaufm ann and Tödt ling, 2001) .
While analysing t he resources on t his m at t er, it was v erified in t he past few years t hat t here is a growing int erest in t he st udy of ext ernal part nership in t he scope of innovat ion. The reference approaches on t his t hem e, suggest t hat ext ernal part nerships m ay st im ulat e t he innovat ive process of firm s; for t he following reasons, according t o t he net work and t he int er organisat ional associat ions, t he ext ernal part nerships est ablished am ong associat es are charact erised by relat ively open inform at ion exchange and such inform at ion flow m ay st im ulat e innovat ive act ivit ies ( Port er, 1990; Furm an, Port er and St ern, 2002; Pyke and Sengenberger, 1992; Hakansson, 1987; Hakansson and Johanson, 1992, Cohen and Levint hal, 1989, 1990) . Despit e deriving from several t heoret ical approaches, t his research has dem onst rat ed a considerable convergence in what concerns t he fact t hat est ablished part nership wit h ext ernal associat es influence t he innovat ion process.
Therefore t he syst em ic perspect ive of innovat ion enriched it s analysis, by considering organisat ional and environm ent al fact ors t hat influence t he innovat ive perform ance and t he ent repreneurial com pet it iveness. According t o t his approach, innovat ion is originat ed from a collect ive learning process where inst it ut ions have a det erm inant role. Since t heinnovat ion capacit y is t he result of an int eract ive process, which em braces firm s and environm ent , by enhancing t he inherent synergies of learning t hat belong t o t he econom ic syst em and by st im ulat ing t he inst it ut ions t hat support innovat ion ( Lundvall, 1985, 1988, 1992; Nelson, 1993;
Cooke, Uranga and Et xebarria, 1997; and Braczyk et al., 1998; Cooke et al. 2000; Kaufm ann e Tödt ling, 2001) . The syst em at ic approach enhances t hat t hese inst it ut ions, when connect ing several agent s, m ay play a crucial role in t he creat ion and t ransm ission of innovat ion ( Godinho, 2003) . This approach provided a bet t er underst anding about t he connect ions est ablished bet ween firm s and ext ernal part ners, as well as it allowed t he acknowledgem ent of several agent s t hat are crucial for dissem inat ing innovat ion wit hin t he syst em .
I n several count ries, m any st udies show t he im port ance of ext ernal part nerships regarding im provem ent s of t he firm ’sinnovat ion capacit y ( Frit sch and Lukas, 1999, 2001; Kaufm ann and Tödt ling, 2000, 2001; Bayona et al., 2001; Rom ij n and Albaladej o, 2002, Hagedoorn, 2002, Silva, 2003, Silva, et al., 2005, Veugelers and Cassim an, 2005, Leit ão, 2006, Schm idt , 2007) . Also in Port ugal, t he result s obt ained by t he CI SEP/ GEPE ( 1992) st udy, and t he research elaborat ed by Sim ões ( 1997) , show t he im port ance of ext ernal part nerships as fact ors influencing t he perform ance of Port uguese firm s.
However, t he lit erat ure has not covered so far several issues concerning innovat ion. As a result , besides knowing who t he m ain part ners are, in t he scope of innovat ion, in order t o underst and innovat ion process, it is fundam ent al t o st udy: what t he im port ance of t he various ext ernal part ners is, regarding t he developm ent of innovat ive act ivit ies and it s cont ribut ion t o t he innovat ive advances. Thus, a m odel is proposed t o analyse if t he relat ion est ablished wit h ext ernal part nerships, in t he scope of innovat ion, st im ulat es firm s t o adopt innovat ive advances. The proposed m odel is present ed in t he following Figure 1.
Figu r e 1 – An alysis of Ex t e r n a l Re la t ion sh ips in t e r m s of I n n ovat ive Adva n ce s: Pr opose d Mode l
Wit hin t he various part ners of innovat ion, and t aking int o considerat ion t he dat a obt ained by t he innovat ion enquiry t o firm s – CI S I I ( 1999) , four ext ernal part nership groups have been ident ified. Regarding business part ners, t wo groups are point ed out . One group associat ed t o business part ners t hat prom ot e cooperat ion, nam ely: client s, suppliers and ot her group firm s.
Anot her part nership group refers t o t he com pet it ors; t hese part nerships are dist inguished from t he ot her business part ners, since it is a com plex alliance and can lead t owards ant i- com pet it ive behaviours. I n t erm s of science part ners, we dist inguish t wo groups. The first is relat ed t o t he ent it ies t hat supply knowledge and t raining, such as: universit ies and higher educat ion inst it ut ions. The second is relat ed t o t he rem ainder part ners cont em plat ed in t he CI S I I enquiry, nam ely I nst it ut es of public research, privat e non profit able organizat ions and consult ancy firm s.
Having t hese four part nership groups as a base, t he following hypot heses are form ulat ed.
Several st udies point out t hat t he innovat ion capabilit y of firm s is influenced by t he est ablished part nerships wit h business part ners, nam ely: client suppliers and group firm s ( Sim ões, 1997, Frit sch and Lukas, 1999, 2001; Kaufm ann and Tödt ling 2000, 2001) . Therefore it is int ended t o find out if t he relat ionships est ablished wit h client s, suppliers and gr oup firm s st im ulat e t he firm t o develop innovat ive advances. This way, t he following hypot hesis is form ulat ed:
H1: The part nership regarding innovat ion est ablished wit h client s, suppliers and groups firm s are posit ively relat ed t o t he propensit y of t he firm t o undert ake innovat ive advances.
Given t hat firm s est ablish part nerships wit h com pet it ors regarding innovat ion, t his research int ends t o em pirically t est if such part nerships help ent erprises creat e new product s t hat are new not only t o t he firm but also t o t he m arket . I n t his sense, t he following hypot hesis is form ulat ed:
H2: The part nership regarding innovat ion est ablished wit h com pet it ors posit ively relat ed t o t he propensit y of firm t o undert ake innovat ive advances.
According t o t he exist ing lit erat ure, universit ies assum e a special role in st im ulat ing innovat ive advances. For Kaufm ann and Tödt ling ( 2001) , universit ies produce t echnological developm ent s of long range, because t hey focus prim arily on t he creat ion of new knowledge regardless of econom ic considerat ions. Frit sch and Schwirt en ( 1999) also refer t hat universit ies and ot her inst it ut ions of higher educat ion supply input s for t he privat e sect or’s innovat ive act ivit ies.
According t o t he form er considerat ions, t he following hypot hesis is form ulat ed:
H3: Firm s t hat est ablish a part nership regarding innovat ion wit h universit ies and ot her inst it ut ions of higher educat ion are m ore able t o undert ake innovat ive advances.
The part nership wit h consult ancy firm s, inst it ut ions for privat e and public research, focus essent ially on t he product ion of a scient ific and t echnological knowledge prom pt ly com m ercialized ( Kaufm ann e Töldt ling, 2001) . The relat ion wit h t his t ype of inst it ut ions is based on t he dem and for alt ernat ive sources of inform at ion and knowledge for innovat ion. This way, t hese inst it ut ions supply scient ific and t echnological knowledge however, it is m ore com m on t o supply applied knowledge, specific skills and inform at ion ( Tet her, 2002; Bruce and Morris, 1998; and Becker and Diet z, 2004) . I n order t o find out if t he part nership wit h t hese part ners st im ulat e t he innovat ive advances, t he following hypot hesis is form ulat ed:
H4: The part nerships regarding innovat ion est ablished wit h consult ancy firm s, governm ent al and privat e inst it ut ions are posit ively relat ed t o t he propensit y of firm t o undert ake innovat ive advances.
The fourt h hypot hesis aim s t o det erm ine if t he part nerships est ablished wit h part ners regarding innovat ion, influence significant ly t he innovat ion capacit y of indust rial Port uguese firm s, at a level of innovat ive advances undert aken by firm s and in t erm s of product innovat ion.
3 – RESEARCH M ETH OD OLOGY
Aft er proposing t he m odel of analysis and t he hypot heses t o be em pirically t est es, t he research m et hodology is developed t hrough t he present at ion of t he populat ion, t he sam ple and of t he variables t o be used in t he est im at ion of logist ic regr ession.
3 .1 – Popu la t ion a n d Sa m ple
The dat a used in t his st udy was collect ed by t he “ OCT – Observat ório das Ciências e das Tecnologias” ( Sciences and Technologies Observat ory) , in Port ugal. The dat a was collect ed during t he second sem est er of 1998, t hrough a survey t hat consist ed in a quest ionnaire nam ed as Com m unit y I nnovat ion Survey I I . The survey ed year was 1997 and t here is a great deal of indicat ors t hat concern t he period of 1995 t o 1997. This quest ionnaire was applied in Europe, under t he supervision of Eurost at and following t he guidelines in t he Oslo Manual ( OCDE, 2005) . The populat ion includes all t he indust rial firm s wit h less t han 20 em ployees. The econom ic act ivit y classes belonging t o t he populat ion, m ore specifically t o t he indust ry, are t he ones t hat follow: 15 t o 37 and 40 t o 41. The sam ple was built by t he “ I NE – I nst it ut o Nacional de Est at íst ica” ( Nat ional I nst it ut e of St at ist ics) , according t o t he m et hodological specificat ions of Eurost at . The I NE has select ed an init ial sam ple of indust rial firm s, select ed from t he 9289 firm s t hat are regist ered at t he “ FGUE – Ficheiro Geral de Unidades Est at íst icas do I NE” ( Global File of I NE’s St at ist ical Unit s) . According t o Conceição and Ávila ( 2001) , t he sam ple was built t hrough a m ixed m et hod t hat com bines t he census appr oach wit h t he st rat ified random sam pling.
Thus, an init ial sam ple of 1556 indust rial firm s was ext ract ed from t he populat ion. Som e adj ust m ent s t hat result ed from t he survey were m ade t o t he init ial sam ple, due t o file m ist akes or act ivit y changes. Consequent ly, t he act ivit ies and/ or t he dim ension classes of som e firm s were reclassified. Aft er being correct ed by t he survey result s, t he obt ained sam ple com prised
1429 firm s, being nam ed as correct ed sam ple. The firm s t hat answered t he quest ionnaire in a valid way, following t he guidelines defined by Eurost at , cam e t o a t ot al of 819 firm s, t hus const it ut ing t he final sam ple. Considering t he num ber of firm s t hat com prised t he correct ed t heoret ical sam ple, it was verified t hat t he 819 answers which were obt ained by t he indust rial firm s represent ed a global answer rat e of 57, 3% .
Since t his st udy is cent red on t he ent repreneurial innovat ion capacit y of t he firm , regarding it s innovat ive advances in product innovat ion, all 193 firm s t hat undert ook product innovat ion from 1995 t o 1997 w ere considered.
3 .2 – D a t a
The firm s were classified as “ innovat ive t o t he m arket ” if t hey answered affirm at ively t o t he quest ion in t he 5t h point of t he quest ionnaire, and were classified as “ innovat ive t o t he firm ” if t hey answered negat ively. This quest ion asked if “ from 1995 t o 1997, t he com pany int roduced t echnologically new or im proved product s which were new bot h t o t he firm and t o t he m arket served by t hat firm ” ( CI S, 1999: 4) . The sam ple has 193 product innovat ive indust rial firm s, which were classified according t o t heir innovat iveness degree. Ninet y of t hese firm s, represent ing 47% , st at ed t hat t hey had int roduced new product s int o t he m arket from 1995 t o 1997. The rem aining firm s, nam ely 103 ( 53% ) , int roduced innovat ions in product s t hat were new t o t he firm , but not t o t he m arket .
Figure 2 – Dist ribut ion of firm s in I nnovat ive ext ernal relat ionships
5%
38%
27%
25%
31%
31% 41%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Novo para a empresa Novo para o mercado
The t wo innovat ion t ypes present several differences t hat should be m ent ioned ( Figure 2) . The firm s t hat have at t ained increm ent al innovat ions ( new t o t he firm ) present , as m ain part ners, research inst it ut ions and consult ancy firm s ( 38, 2 % ) , followed by t he business part ners:
client s, suppliers and group firm s ( 30, 9% ) . Regarding t he firm s t hat have developed product s, which const it ut e radical innovat ions t hat are new t o t he firm and t o t he m arket , t he m ain relat ionships are est ablished wit h client s, suppliers and group firm s ( 40,6% ) , followed by universit ies and ot her higher educat ion inst it ut ions ( 31,2% ) .
Client s, suppliers and
group firm s
Research inst it ut ions and consultancy
firm s Universit ies and
OHEI
New for t he firm New for t he m arket
I n Table 1 t he dichot om ic variables of t he m odel for t est ing t he form ulat ed hypot heses, are present ed.
Table 1 – Variables of t he Model and Hypot heses
Model I Code Measures Hyp.
Dependent variable:
I nnovat ive advances I NA
Binary
1= New t o t he m arket 0 = New t o t he firm Relat ionships est ablished wit h
client s, suppliers and group
firm s RE1
1= Firm has est ablished at least one relat ionship wit h client s or suppliers or group firm s
0 = Firm has not est ablished any relat ionship
H1
Relat ionships est ablished wit h
com pet itors RE2
1= Firm has est ablished at least one relat ionship wit h com pet itors
0 = Firm has not est ablished any relat ionship
H2
Relat ionships est ablished wit h universit ies and OHEI RE3
1= Firm has est ablished at least one relat ionship wit h universit ies or OHEI
0 = Firm has not est ablished any relat ionship
H3
Independent variables
Relat ionships est ablished wit h research inst it ut ions and consult ancy firm s
RE4
1= Firm has est ablished at least one relat ionship wit h st at e or privat e research inst it ut ions or wit h consult ancy firm s
0 = Firm has not est ablished any relat ionship
H4
4 . LOGI STI C REGRESSI ON FOR I N N OV ATI VE AD VAN CES
According t o what has been previously defined, t he I nnovat iv e Advances (I NA) variable is binary, wit h values equal t o 1, if t he firm has developed product innovat ions t hat are new t o t he m arket , or equal t o 0, if t he firm has developed product innovat ions t hat are new only t o t he firm . The binary dat a are very com m on am ong t he several t ypes of cat egorical dat a and t heir m odelling is part of t he linear regression m odels cat egory ( McCullagh and Nelder, 1989) . The logist ic regression m odel is t he m ost com m on one ( Agrest i, 1996, Ferrão, 2003) , regarding t he way it facilit at es t he subst ant ive int erpret at ion of param et ers. This way, a logist ic regression m odel for innovat ive advances is proposed, by using dichot om ic independent variables, in which
i represent s t he residual t erm .i
INA
i
0
1Re
1
2Re
2
3Re
3
4Re
4
( 1) The est im at ion process is based on t he m axim um likelihood procedure.5 – RESULTS: PRESEN TATI ON AN D D I SCU SSI ON
The est im at ors of t he final m odel are present ed in Table 2. According t o t he Wald st at ist ics, we det ect t hat all t he est im at ors of t he regression param et ers are st at ist ically significant up t o 5% , except for t he relat ionships est ablished wit h com pet it ors.
Table 2 – Logit Regression Model Result s for I nnovat ion Advances
Model Param et er
Est im at or S.E. Wald Sig. EXP ( B) Relat ionships est ablished wit h:
Client s, suppliers and group firm s 0,797 0,405 3,865 0,049* 2,219
Com petit ors - 1,485 1,248 1,415 0,234 0,226
Universities and OHEI 1,243 0,575 4,669 0,031* 3,467
Research inst it ut ions and consultancy firm s - 1,112 0,554 4,034 0,045* 0,329
Const ant - 0,281 0,173 2,638 0,104 0,755
Model sum m ary
Correct Predict ( % ) 60,1%
Chi- square 11,318 0,023
Log likelihood 255,361
Num ber of cases ( n) 193
Significance level: 5%
The first hypot hesis is concerned wit h t he relat ion bet ween t he capacit y of t he firm t o develop innovat ion advances and t he variable t hat is relat ive t o business part ners relat ionships, as follows, H1: The relat ion ships regarding innovat ion est ablished w it h client s, suppliers and grou p firm s are posit iv ely relat ed t o t he propensit y of t he firm t o undert ak e inn ovat ive advan ces. The result s suggest t hat t he relat ionships est ablished wit h t hese part ners have posit ive and significant effect s on t he innovat ive advances m ade by t he firm , as it is indicat ed by t he posit ive est im at or of t he param et er ( 0,797) . As we analyse t he m arginal effect s associat ed wit h t he variable here at st udy, it is verified t hat t he firm s which est ablish relat ionships have an advant age of 2,219 when it com es t o developing innovat ive advances, com paring t o t he firm s t hat do not est ablish t hese relat ionships. Therefore, t he firm s t hat connect wit h client s, suppliers and/ or group firm s are m ore able t o innovat e t han firm s t hat have not est ablished such kind of relat ionships. This rat ifies t he result s obt ained by ot her aut hors, such as, Frit sch and Lukas ( 1999, 2001) , and Kaufm ann and Tödt ling ( 2000, 2001) .
Concerning t he second hypot hesis, H2: The relat ionships regarding innovat ion est ablished w it h com pet it ors are posit ively relat ed t o t he pr opensit y of t he firm t o undert ak e innovat iv e advances. According t o t he obt ained result s, not hing can be concluded about t his relat ionship, since t he variable associat ed wit h t hese relat ionships is not st at ist ically significant . Hence, t he null hypot hesis st at ing t hat t here is not a connect ion bet ween t he est ablished relat ionships wit h t he com pet it ors and t he t endency of t he firm t o undert ak e innovat ive advances is neit her rej ect ed nor accept ed. These fact s are possibly due t o t he reduced num ber of cases associat ed wit h t he variable.
Wit h reference t o t he t hird hypot hesis, H3: The firm s t hat est ablish relat ionships regardin g innovat ion w it h universit ies and ot her higher educat ion inst it u t ions are m ore able t o undert ak e innovat ive advances. According t o t he result s, t he relat ionships wit h universit ies and ot her higher educat ion inst it ut ions have posit ive and significant effect s on t he t endency of t he firm t o m ake innovat ive advances. These result s follow t he em pirical invest igat ions led by Frit sch and Schwirt en ( 1999) , Kaufm ann and Töldt ling ( 2001) and Tet her ( 2002) . I t should be m ent ioned t hat t he success advant age of t he firm t o develop innovat ive advances com prises 3,467. I n ot her words, t he advant age of t he firm t o develop innovat ive advances is 3,467 bigger in firm s t hat est ablish relat ionships wit h universit ies and ot her higher educat ion inst it ut ions, com paring wit h t hose t hat do not est ablish such relat ionships. As t he m arginal effect s values of t he several variables are analysed, it is not iced t hat t he variable associat ed wit h t he relat ionships est ablished wit h universit ies and ot her higher educat ion inst it ut ions has t he highest value.
Thus, it can be st at ed t hat t he innovat ive advances undert ak en by t he firm s are also a product of t he relat ionships t hat t hey est ablish wit h universit ies and ot her higher educat ion inst it ut ions.
As far as concern t he last hypot hesis, H4: The relat ionships regardin g innovat ion est ablished w it h consult ancy firm s, governm ent al and privat e inst it u t ions are posit ively relat ed t o t he propensit y of t he firm t o undert ak e innovat ive advances. The obt ained result s are quit e significant , m eaning t hat t he null hypot hesis st at ing t hat t here is not a connect ion bet ween t he est ablished relat ionships and t he t endency of t he firm t o undert ake innovat ive advances m ay be rej ect ed. Thus, t her e is a connect ion, but t his connect ion has a negat ive sign, as t he coefficient est im at ion ( - 1,112) indicat es. Consequent ly, t he propensit y of t he firm t o develop innovat ive advances is negat ively correlat ed wit h t he est ablishm ent of such relat ionships; t hese result s suggest t hat est ablishing relat ionships wit h consult ancy firm s, governm ent al and privat e research inst it ut ions m axim izes t he t endency of t he firm t o develop increm ent al innovat ions rat her t han innovat ive advances.
The predict ive capacit y of t he m odel is 60,1% , which result s from t he com parison bet ween t he predict ed and t he observed values of t he variable answer. The chi- square t est st at ist ics com prises 11,318 wit h a proof value inferior t o t he significance level of 0,005. The log- likelihood st at ist ics, com prising 255,361, also corroborat es t he global significance of t he m odel, when com pared wit h t he null m odel.
6 – CON CLUSI ON S
Regarding t he challenges t hat firm s have t o face, innovat ion is a key fact or in what concerns ent repreneurial com pet it iveness. Nowaday s, t he word innovat ion is on t he spot light , but t alking about innovat ion is not enough, it is necessary t o do som et hing about it . According t o Conceição ( 2002: 20) “ m aybe it is now, m ore t han ever, t hat it really m at t ers t o decisively m ove forward wit h concret e act ions. Therefore, it m at t ers t o collect as m uch inform at ion as possible about what is known t o det erm ine and condit ion t he innovat ion process.”
The current st udy aim ed t o analyse if t he ent repreneurial innovat ion capacit y concerning innovat ive advances is st im ulat ed by t he relat ionships est ablished wit h business and science part ners. To reach t his aim , a concept ual m odel was present ed, a m odel support ed by em pirical evidences t hat allowed t he form ulat ed hypot heses t o be t est ed. Throughout t he st udy, t he m ain deduct ions from t he fact ors included in t he proposed concept ual m odel were present ed and em pirically cont rast ed, according t o t he Com m unit y I nnovat ion Survey I I dat a.
The result s indicat e t hat t he firm s which est ablish relat ionships wit h business part ners: client , suppliers and group firm s, are m ore prone t o develop innovat ive advances t han firm s t hat do not est ablish such relat ionships. As t o relat ionships wit h com pet it ors regarding innovat ion, t here is not hing t o be concluded in a st at ist ically significant way. This is possibly due t o t he reduced num ber of firm s t hat est ablish relat ionships wit h t his t ype of ext ernal part ners. Therefore, it can be concluded t hat t he vert ical relat ionships est ablished wit h business part ners st im ulat e t he developm ent of t he innovat ion capacit y, as far as innovat ive advances are concerned.
Regarding science part ners, t he result s reveal t hat t he developm ent of innovat ive advances m ade by t he firm s is m ore st im ulat ed by t he cooperat ion wit h universit ies t han wit h t he rem aining science part ners. This is probably due t o t he fact t hat universit ies generat e a new t ype of knowledge, regardless of econom ical fact ors. This exact sam e knowledge m ight have a wide range of business applicat ions, allowing it t o be used t o creat e addit ional innovat ions, whereas t he st udy m ade by research inst it ut ions depends m ore on econom ical fact ors, focusing on R&D t hat is rapidly com m ercialized.
As we analyse each t ype of relat ionship, we not ice t hat t he ext ernal relat ionships est ablished wit h business part ners and wit h universit ies influence t he firm t o undert ake innovat ive advances. This posit ive influence assum es a great er im port ance when it com es t o est ablish relat ionships wit h universit ies and ot her higher educat ion inst it ut ions. For it s t urn, t he relat ionships t hat are est ablished wit h research inst it ut ions and consult ancy firm s do not m ot ivat e t he firm s t o undert ake innovat ive advances. I nst ead, it is verified t hat t here is a st at ist ically significant and negat ive connect ion bet ween t hese t wo variables. Therefore, t he relat ionships wit h t his t ype of ent it ies prom ot e t he int roduct ion of increm ent al innovat ions, nam ely innovat ions t hat are new t o t he firm but not t o t he m arket . Overall, it is possible t o conclude t hat est ablishing relat ionships regarding innovat ion wit h ext ernal part ners influences t he ent repreneurial innovat ion capacit y, not only it s innovat ive advances, but also it s increm ent al innovat ions.
The present st udy has a m ain lim it at ion t hat lies on t he lack of dat a about innovat ive firm s, especially in what concerns t he CI S. This way, several innovat ive firm s m ay not be included in t he present st udy. This lim it at ion doesn’t m ake possible t o develop com parison analyses about t he nat ure of t he relat ionships est ablished am ong t hese firm s and t heir privat e and public part ners. Furt herm ore, it only uses dat a from a sam ple of Port uguese innovat ive firm s, which should be expanded in fut ure research.
Furt her fut ure research should be developed about t he m ot ivat ions of firm s t o engage in cooperat ive open innovat ion proj ect s. The firm s’ charact erist ics, bot h general and wit h respect t o innovat ion act ivit ies, which influence t he m ot ivat ions for firm s t o cooperat e, should be analysed. Sim ilarly, new research could exam ine whet her public funding leads firm s t o cooperat e in order t o access ext ernal knowledge and R&D.
Re fe r e n ce s
AGRESTI , A. ( 1996) . An int roduct ion t o cat egorical dat a analysis, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
BAYONA,C. GARCI A- MARCO, T. and HUERTA, E. ( 2001) : “Firm ’s m ot ivat ions for cooperat ive R&D: an em pirical analysis of Spanish firm s” , Research Policy, Am st erdam ; Vol. 30; pp.
1289- 1307.
BECKER, W. and DI ETZ J. ( 2004) : “ R&D cooperat ion and innovat ion act ivit ies of firm s–evidence for t he Germ an m anufact uring indust ry” Resear ch Policy, Vol. 33, pp. 209–223.
BRACZYK, H., COOKE, P. and HEI DENREI CH R. ( eds.) , ( 1998) : Regional I nnovat ion Syst em s, UCL, Press, London.
BRUCE, M. and MORRI S, B. ( 1998) : “ I n house, Out - sourced or a Mixed Approach t o Design” , in Managem ent of Design Alliances: Sust aining Com pet it ive Advant age, Bruce, M. e Jevnaker, B. ( Eds) , Wiley, Chichest er.
CI S I I ( 1999) : “ Segundo I nquérit o Com unit ário às Act ividades de I novação” , Observat ório das Ciências e Tecnologias, Minist ério da Ciência e da Tecnologia, Lisboa.
CI SEP/ GEPE ( 1992) : I novação da I ndúst ria Por t uguesa – Observat ório MI E, GEPE, Lisboa.
COHEN, W. and LEVI NTHAL, D.A. ( 1989) : “ I nnovat ion and Learning: t he Two Faces of R&D – I m plicat ions for t he Analysis of R&D I nvest m ent ” , Econom ic Journal, 99, Set , pp. 569- 596.
COHEN, W.M. and LEVI NTHAL, D.A. ( 1990) : “ Absorpt ive Capacit y: A New Perspect ive on Learning and I nnovat ion” , Adm inist rat ive Science Quart erly, Vol. 35, March, pp.128- 152.
CONCEI ÇÃO, P. ( 2002) : “ O Processo de I novação vist o por dent ro” , Jornal Público, Cadern o de Econom ia, 28 de Set em bro, pp.20.
CONCEI ÇÃO, P. and ÁVI LA, P. ( 2001) : I novação em Port ugal: I I I nquérit o Com un it ário às Act ividades de I novação, Celt a Edit ora, Oeiras.
COOKE, P., BOEKHOLT, P. and TÖDTLI NG, F. ( 2000) : "The governan ce of innovat ion in Europe:
regional perspect ives on global com pet it iveness ", Print er, London.
COOKE, P.; URANGA, M.G. and ETXEBARRI A, G. ( 1997) : "Regional I nnovat ion Syst em s:
I nst it ut ional and Organizat ional Dim ensions", Resear ch Policy, 26 ( 4- 5) , Decem ber, pp.
475- 491.
DOSI , G.; FREEMAN, C.; NELSON, R.; SI LVERBERG, G. and SOETE, L. ( Eds) , ( 1988) : Technical Change and Econom ic Theory, Print er, London.
EDQUI ST, C. ( 1997) : “ Syst em s of I nnovat ion Approaches - Their Em ergence and Charact erist ics” in Edquist ( Ed.) Syst em s of I nnovat ion: Technologies, I nst it ut ions and Organizat ions, Chapt er One, London, Print er, pp. 1- 35.
FERRÃO, M.E. ( 2003) . I nt rodução aos m odelos de regressão m ult in ível em educação, Cam pinas: Kom edi.
FRI TSCH, M. and LUKAS R., ( 1999) : "I nnovat ion, Cooperat ion, and t he Region", in: David B.
Audret sch e Roy Thurik ( eds.) , I nnovat ion , I ndust ry Evolut ion and Em ploym ent, Cam bridge ( UK) : Cam br idge Universit y Press, pp. 157- 181.
FRI TSCH, M. and LUKAS R., ( 2001) : "Co- oper at ion in Regional I nnovat ion Syst em s", Region al St udies, 35 ( 4) , pp. 297- 307.
FRI TSCH, M. and SCHWI RTEN, C., ( 1999) : "Ent erprise- Universit y Co- operat ion and t he Role of Public Research I nst it ut ions in Regional I nnovat ion Syst em s", I ndust r y and I n novat ion, 6 ( 1) , June, pp. 69- 83.
FURMAN, J.L.; PORTER, M.E. and STERN, S. ( 2002) : “ The Det erm inant s of Nat ional I nnovat ive Capacit y” , Research Policy, 31, pp. 899- 933.
GODI NHO, M.M. ( 2003) : “ I novação: Conceit os e Perspect ivas Fundam ent ais” , M.J. Rodrigues, A. Neves, M.M. Godinho ( orgs.) , Para um a Polít ica de I novação em Port ugal, Bibliot eca de Econom ia & Em presa, Dom Quixot e, Lisboa, pp. 29–51.
HAGEDOORN, J. ( 2002) "I nt er- firm R&D part nerships: an overview of m aj or t rends and pat t erns since 1960," Research Policy, Vol. 31; pp. 477- 492.
HAKANSSON, H., ( 1987) : I ndust rial Technology Developm ent – A Net w ork Approach, London:
Croom Helm .
HAKANSSON, H., and JOHANSON, J. ( 1992) : “ A Model of I ndust rial Net works” , in I ndust rial Net w orks – A New View of Realit y, Axelsson, B. e East on, G. ( eds) , Rout ledge, London, pp. 28- 36.
KAUFMANN, A. and TÖDTLI NG, F. ( 2000) : “ Syst em s of I nnovat ion in Tradit ional I ndust rial Regions: t he Case of St yria in a Com parat ive Perspect ive” , Regional St udies, 34 ( 1) , pp.
29- 40.
KAUFMANN, A. and TÖDTLI NG, F. ( 2001) : “ Science- indust ry I nt eract ion in t he Process of I nnovat ion: t he I m port ance of Boundary- crossing Bet ween Syst em s” , Research Policy, 30, pp. 791- 804.
KLI NE, S.J., and ROSENBERG, N. ( 1986) : “ An Overview of I nnovat ion” , in The Posit ive Sum St rat egy: Harnessing Technology for Econom ic Grow t h, Laudau, R. and Rosenberg, N.
( Eds) , Nat ional Academ y Press, Washingt on, pp. 275- 306.
LEI TÃO, J., ( 2006) , “ Open I nnovat ion Clust ers: The Case of Cova da Beira Region ( Port ugal) ” , Conference Proceedings of I SBE 2006, Cardiff.
LUNDVALL, B. A. ( 1985) : “ Product I nnovat ion and User- Pr oducer I nt eract ion” , I ndust rial Research, Series Nº 31 Aalborg: Aalborg Universit y Press.
LUNDVALL, B. A. ( 1988) : “ I nnovat ion as an I nt eract ive Pr ocess: From User- Pr oducer I nt eract ion t o t he Nat ional Syst em of I nnovat ion” , in Technical Change and Econom ic Theory, Dosi, G.; Freem an, C.; Nelson, R.; Silverberg, G. and Soet e, L. ( Eds) ,Chapt er 17, Print er, London, pp. 349- 269
LUNDVALL, B. A. ( Ed.) ( 1992) : Nat ional Syst em s of I nn ovat ion: Tow ards a Theory of I nnovat ion and I nt eract iv e Learning, Print er, London.
LUNDVALL, B. A., JOHNSON, B., ANDERSEN, ES. and DALUM B. ( 2002) “ Nat ional syst em s of product ion, innovat ion and com pet ence building” , Research Policy, Vol. 31, pp. 213–231.
MASKELL, P. and MALMBERG, A., ( 1999) . "Localised Learning and I ndust rial Com pet it iveness,"
Cam bridge Journal of Econom ics, Oxford Universit y Press, Vol. 23( 2) , pp. 167- 185
McCULLAGH, P. and NELDER, J.A. ( 1989) . Generalised Linear m odels,2ª Ed., Londres: Chapm an
& Hall.
NELSON, R. R ( 1993) : Nat ional Syst em s Of I nnovat ion: A Com parat ive Analysis, Oxford Universit y Press, Oxford, pp. 3- 21.
OCDE ( 2005) : OSLO Manual: Proposed Guidelin es for Collect ing and I nt erpret ing Technological I nnovat ion Dat a, 3ª Ed., Paris, OCDE.
PORTER, M. E., ( 1990) : The Com pet it iv e Advant age of Nat ions, New York, Macm illan.
PYKE, Frank and SENGENBERGER, Werner ( 1992) : I ndust rial Dist rict s and Local Econom ic Regenerat ion, I nt ernat ional I nst it ut e for Labour St udies, Geneva.
ROMI JN H. and ALBALADEJO, M. ( 2002) : “Det erm inant s of I nnovat ion Capabilit y in Sm all Elect ronics and Soft ware Firm s in Sout heast England” , Research Policy, Am st erdam ; Sep; Vol. 31 ( 7) ; pp. 1053- 1067.
SCHMI DT, T. ( 2007) , “ Mot ives for I nnovat ion Co- operat ion - Evidence from t he Canadian Survey of I nnovat ion” , ZEW Discussion Paper No. 07- 018, Mannheim .
SI LVA, M. J. RAPOSO, M., FERRÃO, M. and JI MÉNEZ, J ( 2005) : "Relacionam ent os ext ernos no âm bit o da I novação Em presarial: Modelo Aplicado aos Avanços I novadores", Est udos de Gest ão, Port uguese Journal of Managem ent St udies, Volum e X, nº 1, p.5- 19.
SI LVA, M.J. ( 2003) : "Capacidade I novadora Em presarial – Est udos dos Fact ores I m pulsionador es e Lim it adores nas Em presas I ndust riais Port uguesas", Dout oram ent o em Gest ão pela Universidade da Beira I nt erior, não publicada
SI MÕES, Vít or Corado ( 1997) : ” I novação e Gest ão em PME”, Gabinet e de Est udos e Prospect iva Económ ica ( GEPE) , Minist ério de Econom ia, Lisboa.
TETHER, B. ( 2002) : “Who co- operat es for innovat ion, and why. An em pirical analysis” , Research Policy, Am st erdam ; Vol. 31; pp. 947- 967.
VEUGELERS R, and CASSI MAN B. ( 2005) : “ R&D cooperat ion bet ween firm s and universit ies:
som e em pirical evidence from Belgian m anufact uring” , I nt ernat ional Journal of I ndust rial Organizat ion, vol. 23, Nº 5- 6, pp. 355 - 379.
