The role of expertise in governance processes

In present day knowledge societies political decisions are often justified on the basis of scientific expertise. Traditionally, a linear relation between knowledge production and application was postulated which would lead, with more and better science, to better policies. Empirical studies in Science and Technology studies have essentially demolished this idea. However, it is still powerful, not least among practitioners working in fields where decision making is based on large doses of expert knowledge. Based on conceptual work in the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) I shall examine two cases of global environmental governance, ozone layer protection and global climate change. I will argue that hybridization and purification are important for two major forms of scientific expertise. One is delivered though scientific advocacy (by individual scientists or groups of scientists), the other through expert committees, i.e. institutionalized forms of collecting and communicating expertise to decision makers. Based on this analysis lessons will be drawn, also with regard to the stalling efforts at establishing an international forestry regime.

Governance in contemporary Germany:the semisovereign State revisited

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, West Germany was considered to be one of the world’s most successful economic and political systems. In his seminal 1987 analysis of West Germany’s ‘semisovereign’ system of governance, Peter Katzenstein attributed this success to a combination of a fragmented polity, consensus politics and incremental policy changes. However, unification in 1990 has both changed Germany’s institutional configuration and created economic and social challenges on a huge scale. This volume therefore asks whether semisovereignty still exists in contemporary Germany and, crucially, whether it remains an asset in terms of addressing these challenges. By shadowing and building on the original study, an eminent team of British, German and American scholars analyses institutional changes and the resulting policy developments in key sectors, with Peter Katzenstein himself providing the conclusion. Together, the chapters provide a landmark assessment of the outcomes produced by one of the world’s most important countries. Contents: 1. Introduction: semisovereignty challenged Simon Green and William E. Paterson; 2. Institutional transfer: can semisovereignty be transferred? The political economy of Eastern Germany Wade Jacoby; 3. Political parties Thomas Saalfeld; 4. Federalism: the new territorialism Charlie Jeffery; 5. Shock-absorbers under stress. Parapublic institutions and the double challenges of German unification and European integration Andreas Busch; 6. Economic policy management: catastrophic equilibrium, tipping points and crisis interventions Kenneth Dyson; 7. Industrial relations: from state weakness as strength to state weakness as weakness. Welfare corporatism and the private use of the public interest Wolfgang Streeck; 8. Social policy: crisis and transformation Roland Czada; 9. Immigration and integration policy: between incrementalism and non-decisions Simon Green; 10. Environmental policy: the law of diminishing returns? Charles Lees; 11. Administrative reform Kluas H. Goetz; 12. European policy-making: between associated sovereignty and semisovereignty William E. Paterson; 13. Conclusion: semisovereignty in United Germany Peter J. Katzenstein.

Access to technological and financial resources for SME innovation

Editorial: The contributions to this special issue of the International Journal of Technology Management are all based on selected papers presented at the European Conference on Management of Technology held at Aston University, Birmingham, UK in June 1995. This conference was held on behalf of the International Association for Management of Technology (IAMOT) and was the first of the association’s major conferences to be held outside North America. The overall theme of the conference was ‘Technological Innovation and Global Challenges’. Altogether more than 130 papers were presented within four sub-themes and twenty seven topic sessions. This special issue draws on papers within five difference topic sessions: ‘Small firm linkages’; ‘The global company’; ‘New technology based firms’; ‘Financing innovation’; ‘Technology and development’. Together they cover a wide range of issues around the common question of accessing resources for innovation in small and medium sized enterprises. They present a global perspective on this important subject with authors from The Netherlands, Canada, USA, Ireland, France, Finland, Brazil and UK. A wide range of subjects are covered including the move away from public support for innovation, the role of alliances and networks, linkages to larger enterprises and the social implications associated with small enterprise innovation in developing countries.

The innovation value chain in new technology based firms:evidence from the UK

We present the first innovation value chain analysis for a representative sample of new technology based firms (NTBFs) in the UK. This involves determining which factors lead to the usage of different knowledge sources and the relationships that exist between those sources of knowledge; the effect that each knowledge source has on innovative activity; and how innovation outputs affect the performance of NTBFs. We find that internal and external knowledge sources are complementary for NTBFs, and that supply chain linkages have both a direct and indirect effect on innovation. NTBFs’ skill resources matter throughout the innovation value chain, being positively associated with external knowledge linkages and innovation success, and also having a direct effect on growth independent of the effect on innovation. Exporting matters for performance, but not through any effect on innovation.

R&D, innovation and exporting:evidence from UK new technology based firms

We examine the relationship between R&D, innovation and exporting for a sample of new technology based firms (NTBFs) in the UK. Allowance is made for selection bias and for endogeneity between innovation and exporting. Innovators are more likely to export, but conditional on entering export markets successful innovation does not increases subsequent export intensity. Lagged productivity is strongly associated with exporting, supporting the view that efficient firms are better able to overcome the barriers to entering export markets. We also find strong evidence of the importance of internal R&D and of supply-chain collaborations in fostering innovation, and that formal commercial collaborations can be important in overcoming the (information) sunk costs of entering export markets. The use of e-commerce does nothing to boost entry into export markets, but the intensity of its use is associated with increased export intensity.

Organising the innovation process:complementarities in innovation networking

This paper contributes to the developing literature on complementarities in organisational design. We test for the existence of complementarities in the use of external networking between phases of the innovation process in a sample of UK and German manufacturing plants. Our evidence suggests some differences between the UK and Germany in terms of the optimal combination of innovation activities in which to implement external networking. Broadly, there is more evidence of complementarities in the case of Germany, with the exception of the product engineering phase. By contrast, the UK exhibits generally strong evidence of substitutability in external networking in different phases, except between the identification of new products and product design and development phases.

The innovation value chain

Innovation events - the introduction of new products or processes - represent the end of a process of knowledge sourcing and transformation. They also represent the beginning of a process of exploitation which may result in an improvement in the performance of the innovating business. This recursive process of knowledge sourcing, transformation and exploitation we call the innovation value chain. Modelling the innovation value chain for a large group of manufacturing firms in Ireland and Northern Ireland highlights the drivers of innovation, productivity and firm growth. In terms of knowledge sourcing, we find strong complementarity between horizontal, forwards, backwards, public and internal knowledge sourcing activities. Each of these forms of knowledge sourcing also makes a positive contribution to innovation in both products and processes although public knowledge sources have only an indirect effect on innovation outputs. In the exploitation phase, innovation in both products and processes contribute positively to company growth, with product innovation having a short-term ‘disruption’ effect on labour productivity. Modelling the complete innovation value chain highlights the structure and complexity of the process of translating knowledge into business value and emphasises the role of skills, capital investment and firms’ other resources in the value creation process.

Innovation, ownership and profitability

There is lots of evidence that innovating firms are persistently more profitable than non-innovators, but little agreement on why this is the case. It may be because innovators are somehow able to protect their new products from the competition which normally erodes profits, or because innovating firms have superior capabilities and are able to introduce multiple innovations over time. And very little is known about the relationship between innovation, external ownership and profitability, despite the fact that foreign-owned firms are frequently highly innovative and very profitable. This paper considers the relationship between innovation, ownership and profitability for a panel of manufacturing plants in Ireland and Northern Ireland. We consider the link between innovation and profits separately for innovators and non-innovators, and for indigenous innovators and non-innovators and externally-owned plants. We also consider the determinants of innovation over the distribution of plant-level profitability, and find that the determinants of profitability – including innovation and external ownership – are quite different for low and high-profitability plants. We find support for the view that innovators and non-innovators have different profitability determinants, and that externally-owned plants have their profitability determined in a quite different way from indigenous enterprises. For indigenous non-innovators only the sector matters. Profitability in these enterprises is dictated largely by the industry they are in, with plants having virtually no means of differentiating their profitability from the norms of the industry. By contrast, indigenously-owned innovators are able to differentiate their profit performance from industry norms to some extent. Absolute size matters (negatively) and they get a strong boost from product innovation, but having a high market share does not matter for the profitability of indigenously-owned innovators. Externally-owned plants have a quite different set of profitability determinants from both of these groups. What matters for these plants is not the boost they get from innovating (there is none) but instead their position in the domestic market – a high market share boosts profitability. In policy terms our results suggest both optimistic and cautionary messages. On the positive side our results suggest that efforts to promote innovation activity among indigenously-owned plants are likely to have significant longer term benefits through their capability effects. For the development agencies in Ireland this is a reassuring result. On the more negative side, the lack of any relationship in our models between the innovation activities of externally-owned plants and their (profitability) performance raises potential concerns. This finding may reflect the lack of linkages between externally-owned plants and their Irish resource base, in turn raising some worrying issues about the ‘embeddedness’ of much FDI into Ireland and therefore its ‘stickiness’ in the face of Ireland’s increasing high relative cost base.

Service innovation, embeddedness and business performance:UK regional evidence

This paper asks to question. First, what types of linkages make firms in the service sector innovate? And second, what is the link between innovation and the firms’ productivity and export performance? Using survey data from Northern Ireland we find that links intra-regional links (i.e. within Northern Ireland) to customers, suppliers and universities have little effect on innovation, but external links (i.e. outside Northern Ireland) help to boost innovation. Relationships between innovation, exporting and productivity prove complex but suggest that innovation itself is not sufficient to generate productivity improvements. Only when innovation is combined with increased export activity are productivity gains produced. This suggests that regional innovation policy should be oriented towards helping firms to innovate only where it helps firms to enter export markets or to expand their existing export market presence.

Innovation in teams : a qualitative and quantitative study of team behaviours

This thesis explores the processes of team innovation. It utilises two studies, an organisationally based pilot and an experimental study, to examine and identify aspects of teams' behaviours that are important for successful innovative outcome. The pilot study, based in two automotive manufacturers, involved the collection of team members' experiences through semi-structured interviews, and identified a number of factors that affected teams' innovative performance. These included: the application of ideative & dissemination processes; the importance of good team relationships, especially those of a more informal nature, in facilitating information and ideative processes; the role of external linkages in enhancing quality and radicality of innovations; and the potential attenuation of innovative ideas by time deadlines. This study revealed a number key team behaviours that may be important in successful innovation outcomes. These included; goal setting, idea generation and development, external contact, task and personal information exchange, leadership, positive feedback and resource deployment. These behaviours formed the basis of a coding system used in the second part of the research. Building on the results from the field based research, an experimental study was undertaken to examine the behavioural differences between three groups of sixteen teams undertaking innovative an task to produce an anti-drugs poster. They were randomly assigned to one of three innovation category conditions suggested by King and Anderson (1990), emergent, imported and imposed. These conditions determined the teams level of access to additional information on previously successful campaigns and the degree of freedom they had with regarding to the design of the poster. In addition, a further experimental condition was imposed on half of the teams per category which involved a formal time deadline for task completion. The teams were video taped for the duration of their innovation and their behaviours analysed and coded in five main aspects including; ideation, external focus, goal setting, interpersonal, directive and resource related activities. A panel of experts, utilising five scales developed from West and Anderson's (1996) innovation outcome measures, assessed the teams' outputs. ANOVAs and repeated measure ANOVAs were deployed to identify whether there were significant differences between the different conditions. The results indicated that there were some behavioural differences between the categories and that over the duration of the task behavioural changes were identified. The results, however, revealed a complex picture and suggested limited support for three distinctive innovation categories. There were many differences in behaviours, but rarely between more than two of the categories. A main finding was the impact that different levels of constraint had in changing teams' focus of attention. For example, emergent teams were found to use both their own team and external resources, whilst those who could import information about other successful campaigns were likely to concentrate outside the team and pay limited attention to the internal resources available within the team. In contrast, those operating under task constraints with aspects of the task imposed onto them were more likely to attend to internal team resources and pay limited attention to the external world. As indicated by the earlier field study, time deadlines did significantly change teams' behaviour, reducing ideative and information exchange behaviours. The model shows an important behavioural progression related to innovate teams. This progression involved the teams' openness initially to external sources, and then to the intra-team environment. Premature closure on the final idea before their mid-point was found to have a detrimental impact on team's innovation. Ideative behaviour per se was not significant for innovation outcome, instead the development of intra-team support and trust emerged as crucial. Analysis of variance revealed some limited differentiation between the behaviours of teams operating under the aforementioned three innovation categories. There were also distinct detrimental differences in the behaviour of those operating under a time deadline. Overall, the study identified the complex interrelationships of team behaviours and outcomes, and between teams and their context.

Collaborative alliances and organisational innovation : a study of the innovation process

Despite the voluminous studies written about organisational innovation over the last 30-40 years our understanding of this phenomenon continues to be inconsistent and inconclusive (Wolfe, 1994). An assessment of the theoretical and methodological issues influencing the explanatory utility of many studies has led scholars (e.g. Slappendel, 1996) to re-evaluate the assumptions used to ground studies. Building on these criticisms the current study contributes to the development of an interactive perspective of organisational innovation. This work contributes empirically and theoretically to an improved understanding of the innovation process and the interaction between the realm of action and the mediating effects of pre-existing contingencies i.e. social control, economic exchange and the communicability of knowledge (Scarbrough, 1996). Building on recent advances in institutional theory (see Barley, 1986; 1990; Barley and Tolbert, 1997) and critical theory (Morrow, 1994, Sayer, 1992) the study aims to demonstrate, via longitudinal intensive research, the process through which ideas are translated into reality. This is significant because, despite a growing recognition of the implicit link between the strategic conduct of actors and the institutional realm in organisational analysis, there are few examples that theorise and empirically test these connections. By assessing an under researched example of technology transfer; the government's Teaching Company Scheme (TCS) this project provides a critique of the innovation process that contributes to theory and our appreciation of change in the UK government's premier technology transfer scheme (QR, 1996). Critical moments during the translation of ideas illustrate how elements that are linked to social control, economic exchange and communicability mediate the innovation process. Using analytical categories i.e. contradiction, slippage and dysfunctionality these are assessed in relation to the actions (coping strategies) of programme members over a two-year period. Drawing on Giddens' (1995) notion of the duality of structure this study explores the nature of the relationship between the task environment and institutional environment demonstrating how and why knowledge is both an enabler and barrier to organisational innovation.

Strategic innovation networks

This thesis draws on two key areas of the innovation literature, the strategic management of technology (SMOT) and innovation networks. The aim is to integrate these two areas of the management of innovation literature to develop a framework which I describe as the Strategic Innovation Network (SIN). The key proposition that the revised framework (SIN) aims to address is based on the work of Chandler (1962). Chandler's (1962) conclusion that 'structure follows strategy' is examined in relation to the interaction between corporate/technology strategy and network structure. The SIN is intended to address weaknesses in both the SMOT and network literature. The research data is based on five detailed longitudinal case studies. The organisations are defined as mid-corporate firms operating in traditional manufacturing sectors. Each organisation was chosen on the basis that it was aiming to develop its innovative capacity through product or process innovation projects. The research was carried out over an 18 month period with interviews being held regularly to develop the longitudinal aspect of the study analysis. The data for each individual case study is examined using the SIN framework. The longitudinal approach addresses the objective to provide a dynamic model of the innovation processes by mapping the changes in network structure during the course of individual projects. The network structural changes are examined in relation to each organisation's strategy and five key dynamic network stages are identified in relation to the innovation process. These network stages show the influence strategy has on the structures adopted by the five case studies.