Open for Business: Universities, Entrepreneurial Academics and Open Innovation

The emergence of open innovation theory and practice, alongside the evolution to a quadruple helix system of innovation, has led to a need for universities to rethink their models of engagement with industry and wider society. One important element in this system is the entrepreneurial academics; however there is a lack of research considering the motivations of entrepreneurial academics, who differ from academic entrepreneurs, to engage in knowledge transfer in line with open innovation policy. This research offers practical insights on whether new models of engagement, increasingly offered by universities, really address the policy drivers for open innovation. Furthermore, this research explores whether these activities might motivate entrepreneurial academics to participate. Preliminary findings identify that many supposedly new collaboration activities do not really motivate entrepreneurial academics. This may have important implications on the ability of universities to become truly open and to encourage their academics to become engaged in collaboration and impact.

Intellectual Property management in publicly funded R&D centres—A comparison of university-based and company-based research centres

Recent thinking on open innovation and the knowledge-based economy have stressed the importance of external knowledge sources in stimulating innovation. Policy-makers have recognised this, establishing publicly funded Centres of R&D Excellence with the objective of stimulating industry–science links and localised innovation spillovers. Here, we examine the contrasting IP management practices of a group of 18 university- and company-based R&D centres supported by the same regional programme. Our analysis covers all but one of the Centres supported by the programme and suggests marked contrasts between the IP strategies of the university-based and company-based centres. This suggests the potential for very different types of knowledge spillovers from publicly funded R&D centres based in different types of organisations, and a range of alternative policy approaches to the future funding of R&D centres depending on policy-makers’ objectives.

Leniency (Amnesty) Plus: A Building Block or a Trojan Horse?

Leniency (amnesty) plus is one of the tools used in the fight against anticompetitive agreements. It allows a cartelist who did not manage to secure complete immunity under general leniency, to secure an additional reduction of sanctions in exchange for cooperation with the authorities with respect to operation of another prohibited agreement on an unrelated market. The instrument was developed in the United States and, in recent years, it was introduced in a number of jurisdictions. This article contextualises the operation of and rationale behind leniency plus, forewarning about its potential procollusive effects and the possibility of its strategic (mis)use by cartelists. It discusses theoretical, moral, and systemic (deterrence-related) problems surrounding this tool. It also provides a comparison of leniency plus in eleven jurisdictions, identifying common design flaws. This piece argues that leniency plus tends to be a problematic and poorly transplanted US legal innovation. Policy-makers considering its introduction should analyse it in light of institutional limits and local realities. Some of the regimes which already introduced it would be better off abandoning it.

Additionality of Incubator Support on Networks of University Spin-Out Firms

The formation rate of university spin-out firms has increased markedly over the past decade. While this is seen as an important channel for the commercialisation of academic research, concerns have centred around high failure rates and no-to-low growth among those which survive compared to other new technology based firms. Universities have responded to this by investing in incubators to assist spin-outs to overcome their liability of newness. Yet how effective are incubators in supporting these firms? Here we examine this in terms of the structural networks that spin-out firms form, the role of the incubator in this and the effect of this on the spin-out process.

Afterword::Innovation, Ecological Modernisation and the ‘Post-Conflict’ Policy Agenda

Perhaps the weakest dimension of the ‘triple bottom line’ understanding of
sustainable development has been the ‘economic’ dimension. Much of the thinking
about the appropriate ‘political economy’ to underpin sustainable development has
been either utopian (as in some ‘environmental’ political views) or ‘business as usual’ approaches. Rejecting both of these utopian and realist views, it is clear from the papers presented here and the conference debates that something like ‘ecological modernisation’ is the preferred conceptualisation of ‘sustainable development’ within policy circles in Northern Ireland, the UK and other European states.

Legal Responses to Racism: Innovation and Retrenchment in Ireland

Following decades in which the absence of immigration allowed Governments to claim there was no problem of racism in Ireland, the 1990s saw Ireland adopt new equality measures to combat racism. Whilst these innovations are important and even innovative, paradoxically they are accompanied by policy initiatives which indicate the equality agenda is still very much a controversial one and possibly even in retreat. More radical reforms are needed than merely tinkering with the Equality laws.

Innovation persistence: Survey and case-study evidence

Evidence on the persistence of innovation sheds light on the nature of the innovation process and can guide appropriate policy development. This paper examines innovation persistence in Ireland and Northern Ireland using complementary quantitative and case-study approaches. Panel data derived from innovation surveys is used, and suggests very different results to previous analyses of innovation persistence primarily based on patents data. Product and process innovation are found to exhibit strong general persistence but we find no evidence that persistence is stronger among highly active innovators. Our quantitative evidence is most strongly consistent with a process of cumulative accumulation at plant level. Our case-studies highlight a number of factors which can either interrupt or stimulate this process including market volatility, plants’ organisational context and regulatory changes. Notably, however, the balance of influences on product and process innovation persistence differs, with product innovation persistence linked more strongly to strategic factors and process changes more often driven by market pressures.
© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Ireland's Innovation Performance: 1991-2005

In this paper we use data from the five waves of the Irish Innovation Panel (IIP) to profile the innovation performance of manufacturing plants in Ireland and Northern Ireland over the period 1991 to 2005. Despite considerable public sector investment on both sides of the border levels of innovation activity have remained broadly similar throughout this period although somewhat different trends are evident in Ireland and Northern Ireland. In terms of product innovation for example, the proportion of manufacturing plants making product changes has increased 5 per cent in Ireland and just over 7 per cent in Northern Ireland. In terms of process innovation a decline of almost 7 per cent in Ireland has been accompanied by a 7 per cent increase in Northern Ireland. These trends provide some evidence of convergence in innovation performance over the 1991 to 2005 period. This is evident in the narrowing gap between the proportion of product innovators in Ireland and Northern Ireland, convergence in the proportion of plants undertaking process innovation and in terms of the increasingly similar proportions of sales derived from innovative products. Looking in more detail at the determinants of manufacturing innovation emphasises the importance of R&D and backwards supply chain linkages as sources of new knowledge for innovation. Other external linkages prove less important suggesting the value of policy initiatives designed to promote knowledge sharing. We also find a significant negative innovation effect from legislative restrictions on plants’ product innovation. Public support for both product and process innovation are having positive effects on innovation outputs at the level of the individual plant. Future research interest centres on the contrast between this strong positive result at firm level and the more modest increases in innovation among the population of firms in Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Output Additionality of Public Support for Innovation: Evidence for Irish Manufacturing Plants

Public support for private R&D and innovation is part of most national and regional innovation support regimes. In this article, we estimate the effect of public innovation support on innovation outputs in Ireland and Northern Ireland. Three dimensions of output additionality are considered: extensive additionality, in which public support encourages a larger proportion of the population of firms to innovate; improved product additionality, in which there is an increase in the average importance of incremental innovation; new product additionality, in which there is an increase in the average importance of more radical innovation. Using an instrumental variable approach, our results are generally positive, with public support for innovation having positive, and generally significant, extensive, improved and new product additionality effects. These results hold both for all plants and indigenously owned plants, a specific target of policy in both jurisdictions. The suggestion is that grant aid to firms can be effective in both encouraging firms to initiate new innovation and improve the quality and sophistication of their innovation activity. Our results also emphasize the importance for innovation of in-house R&D, supply-chain linkages, skill levels and capital investment, all of which may be the focus of complementary policy initiatives.

Regenerative Medicine and New Labour Life Science Policy: Rhetorics of Success, Narratives of Sustainability and Survival

Advances in stem cell science and tissue engineering are being turned into applications and products through a novel medical paradigm known as regenerative medicine. This paper begins by examining the vulnerabilities and risks encountered by the regenerative medicine industry during a pivotal moment in its scientific infancy: the 2000s. Under the auspices of New Labour, British medical scientists and life science innovation firms associated with regenerative medicine, received demonstrative rhetorical pledges of support, aligned with the publication of a number of government initiated reports presaged by Bioscience 2015: Improving National Health, Increasing National Wealth. The Department of Health and the Department of Trade and Industry (and its successors) held industry consultations to determine the best means by which innovative bioscience cultures might be promoted and sustained in Britain. Bioscience 2015 encapsulates the first chapter of this sustainability narrative. By 2009, the tone of this storyline had changed to one of survivability. In the second part of the paper, we explore the ministerial interpretation of the ‘bioscience discussion cycle’ that embodies this narrative of expectation, using a computer-aided content analysis programme. Our analysis notes that the ministerial interpretation of these reports has continued to place key emphasis upon the distinctive and exceptional characteristics of the life science industries, such as their ability to perpetuate innovations in regenerative medicine and the optimism this portends – even though many of the economic expectations associated with this industry have remained unfulfilled.

Contingent Participation: Imaginaries of Sustainable Technoscientific Innovation in the EU

Citizen participation is often valorised in the governance of areas of high scientific uncertainty at national, international and supranational levels. This chapter considers citizen or public participation in the specific area of the EU’s agenda on sustainable development as it increasingly frames technoscientific innovation and development. Specifically, the chapter focuses on just one underexplored aspect of the conditions of possibility for participation: imaginaries. These include how the EU imagines its engagement, responsibilities and identity in relation to the specific area, including the knowledges that are constructed and used in decision-making, and by implication the role of citizen or public participation.

The discussion draws on an analysis of the social and technoscientific imaginaries found in legal, regulatory and policy discourses. These construct the frame of sustainable development and build a link between it and technoscientific innovation and development. By attention to imaginaries as one aspect of the frame, the chapter highlights the centrality of, and main interactions between, sustainable development in the inscription and potential disruption of the normative and programmatic background for the operationalisation of technoscientific innovation. These insights are used to highlight how imaginaries constitute a crucial aspect of the conditions of possibility for participation: determining who has to participate in decision-making through configurations of ‘citizen’ or ‘public’, how, why, and which outcomes are to be achieved by that participation.