Does EU regulation hinder or stimulate innovation? CEPS Special Report No. 96, 19 November 2014

Introduction. One frequently hears the question posed in the title to this report, but there is little systematic analytical literature on the issue. Fragmented evidence or anecdotes dominate debates among EU regulatory decision-makers and in European business, insofar as there is a genuine debate at all. This CEPS Special Report focuses on the multi-faceted, ambiguous and complex relationship between (EU) regulation and innovation in the economy, and discusses the innovation-enhancing potential of certain regulatory approaches as well as factors that tend to reduce incentives to innovate. It adopts an 'ecosystem' approach to both regulation and innovation, and study the interactions between the two ecosystems. This general analysis and survey are complemented by seven case studies of EU regulation enabling and disabling innovation, two horizontal and five sectoral ones. The case studies are preceded by a broader contextual analysis of trends in EU regulation over the last three decades. These trends show the significant transformation of the nature as well as improvement of the quality of EU regulation, largely in the deepened internal market, which tend to have a favourable and lasting effect on the rate of innovation in the EU (other things being equal). Among the findings include the following: Regulation can at times be a powerful stimulus to innovation. EU regulation matters at all stages of the innovation process. Different types of regulation can be identified in terms of innovation impact: general or horizontal, innovation-specific and sector-specific regulation. More prescriptive regulation tends to hamper innovative activity, whereas the more flexible EU regulation is, the better innovation can be stimulated. Lower compliance and red-tape burdens have a positive effect on innovation. The authors recommend incorporating a specific test on innovation impacts in the ex-ante impact assessment of EU legislation as well as in ex-post evaluation. There is ample potential for fostering innovation by reviewing the EU regulatory acquis.

Measuring progress in eco-innovation. CEPS Working Document No. 409/June 2015

Eco-innovation has been identified as one of the key drivers of change that need to be harnessed for a sustainable future. Given the complexity of eco-innovation as a concept, there are various challenges to measuring its progress. This paper briefly explores the evolution of the concept of eco-innovation and emphasises its role in the EU 2020 strategy. It then provides an overview of the different measurement approaches and challenges associated with identifying and using indicators for measuring progress in eco-innovation. Within this context, the paper describes the added value and key features of the www.measuring-progress.eu web tool, which aims to improve the way in which policy-makers and others involved in the policy process can access, understand and use indicators for green economy and eco-innovation. The web tool was developed on the basis of a systematic overview by the NETGREEN research team of the large and fragmented body of work in the field of green economy indicators. The paper concludes with a number of messages for policy-makers in the field of the green economy.

The European Union’s growing innovation divide. Bruegel Policy Contribution Issue 2016/08 April 2016

There is a significant divide between the European Union countries with the greatest capacity to innovate, and those with the least capacity to innovate. The difficult convergence process has been proceeding only very slowly and unevenly, and more recently seems to have come to a halt. A particular weak spot for the EU is corporate investment in research; in this area, the intra-EU divide is growing. As the business sector is responsible for the persistent R&D intensity gap between the EU and the United States and Asia, the persistent failure of lagging EU countries to catch up in this area provides much of the explanation for the EU’s weak performance compared to other economies. The evidence shows that the deployment of public budgets and the mix of policies employed by EU member states have tended to aggravate the intra-EU divide. The EU needs to better understand its growing internal innovation divide if it is to achieve its ambition of becoming a world innovation leader.

Inter-organisational networks, value creation and the process of technology integration in research and development

Traditional methods of R&D management are no longer sufficient for embracing innovations and leveraging complex new technologies to fully integrated positions in established systems. This paper presents the view that the technology integration process is a result of fundamental interactions embedded in inter-organisational activities. Emerging industries, high technology companies and knowledge intensive organisations owe a large part of their viability to complex networks of inter-organisational interactions and relationships. R&D organisations are the gatekeepers in the technology integration process with their initial sanction and motivation to develop technologies providing the first point of entry. Networks rely on the activities of stakeholders to provide the foundations of collaborative R&D activities, business-to-business marketing and strategic alliances. Such complex inter-organisational interactions and relationships influence value creation and organisational goals as stakeholders seek to gain investment opportunities. A theoretical model is developed here that contributes to our understanding of technology integration (adoption) as a dynamic process, which is simultaneously structured and enacted through the activities of stakeholders and organisations in complex inter-organisational networks of sanction and integration.

The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: the case of Procter & Gamble

As with all new ideas, the concept of Open Innovation requires extensive empirical investigation, testing and development. This paper analyzes Procter and Gamble's 'Connect and Develop' strategy as a case study of the major organizational and technological changes associated with open innovation. It argues that although some of the organizational changes accompanying open innovation are beginning to be described in the literature, more analysis is warranted into the ways technological changes have facilitated open innovation strategies, particularly related to new product development. Information and communications technologies enable the exchange of distributed sources of information in the open innovation process. The case study shows that furthermore a suite of new technologies for data mining, simulation, prototyping and visual representation, what we call 'innovation technology', help to support open innovation in Procter and Gamble. The paper concludes with a suggested research agenda for furthering understanding of the role played by and consequences of this technology.

Establishing a zone where technology innovation is supported

Learning technologies are now a ubiquitous force in the higher education sector however we continue to pursue more inventive ways to use them for teaching and learning. Many teaching academics that seek to be innovative do not have access to a supportive technology innovation zone. The aim of this study was to investigate the articulated staff development needs of academics involved in a faculty based technology innovation project and create the conditions that would cultivate innovation. The study sought to find out how academics perceived they might best be assisted through their technology innovation process so that participants’ needs were incorporated into planning. A questionnaire was used to elicit background information about the academics’ experience, skills and self diagnosed skill deficits in this context. Participants were also requested to provide information about how they thought they would best acquire the skills given their time and other resource constraints. A modified Delphi Technique was utilised to achieve some consensus on what academics required to support technology innovation. Complemented by an enabling and empowering team based approach, the academics were provided with an innovation zone to achieve significant goals for the project.

Envisioning innovation : the communication of technological change through graphic representation

Graphic depiction is an established method for academics to present concepts about theories of innovation. These expressions have been adopted by policy-makers, the media and businesses. However, there has been little research on the extent of their usage or effectiveness ex-academia. In addition, innovation theorists have ignored this area of study, despite the communication of information about innovation being acknowledged as a major determinant of success for corporate enterprise. The thesis explores some major themes in the theories of innovation and compares how graphics are used to represent them. The thesis examines the contribution of visual sociology and graphic theory to an investigation of a sample of graphics. The methodological focus is a modified content analysis. The following expressions are explored: check lists, matrices, maps and mapping in the management of innovation; models, flow charts, organisational charts and networks in the innovation process; and curves and cycles in the representation of performance and progress. The main conclusion is that academia is leading the way in usage as well as novelty. The graphic message is switching from prescription to description. The computerisation of graphics has created a major role for the information designer. It is recommended that use of the graphic representation of innovation should be increased in all domains, though it is conceded that its content and execution need to improve, too. Education of graphic 'producers', 'intermediaries' and 'consumers' will play a part in this, as will greater exploration of diversity, novelty and convention. Work has begun to tackle this and suggestions for future research are made.

Innovation, productivity and growth in US business services:a firm-level analysis

This paper examines the impact of innovation on the performance of US business service firms. We distinguish between different levels of innovation (new-to-market and new-to-firm) in our analysis, and allow explicitly for sample selection issues. Reflecting the literature, which highlights the importance of external interaction in service innovation, we pay particular attention to the role of external innovation linkages and their effect on business performance. We find that the presence of service innovation and its extent has a consistently positive effect on growth, but no effect on productivity. There is evidence that the growth effect of innovation can be attributed, at least in part, to the external linkages maintained by innovators in the process of innovation. External linkages have an overwhelmingly positive effect on (innovator) firm performance, regardless of whether innovation is measured as a discrete or continuous variable, and regardless of the level of innovation considered.

Organizing innovation: complementarities between cross-functional teams

Cross-functional teams play a potentially important part in the innovation process enabling knowledge sharing, the development of trust and overcoming spatial and organizational barriers. Using a supermodularity approach, we focus on potential complementarities which may arise when cross-functional teams are used in different elements of the innovation process in UK and German manufacturing plants. Using optimal combinations of cross-functional teams in the innovation process increases innovation success in the UK by 29.5 per cent compared to 9.5 per cent in Germany. Patterns of complementarity are complex, however, but are more uniform in the UK than in Germany. The most uniform complementarities are between product design and development and production engineering, with little synergy evident between the more technical phases of the innovation process and the development of marketing strategy. In strategic terms, our results suggest the value of using cross-functional teams for the more technical elements of the innovation process but that the development of marketing strategy should remain the domain of specialists.

Location and network effects on innovation success:evidence for UK, German and Irish manufacturing plants

Recent developments in the new economic geography and the literature on regional innovation systems have emphasised the potentially important role of networking and the characteristics of firms' local operating environment in shaping their innovative activity. Modeling UK, German and Irish plants' investments in R&D, technology transfer and networking, and their effect on the extent and success of plants' innovation activities, casts some doubt on the importance of both of these relationships. In particular, our analysis provides no support for the contention that firms or plants in the UK, Ireland or Germany with more strongly developed external links (collaborative networks or technology transfer) develop greater innovation intensity. However, although inter-firm links also have no effect on the commercial success of plants' innovation activity, intra-group links are important in terms of achieving commercial success. We also find evidence that R&D, technology transfer and networking inputs are substitutes rather than complements in the innovation process, and that there are systematic sectoral and regional influences in the efficiency with which such inputs are translated into innovation outputs. © 2001 Elsevier Science B.V.

The return of the Prince of Denmark: a survey on recent developments in the economics of innovation

It is well known that innovation is the engine that drives the growth machine of modern capitalist economies. Therefore, not surprisingly, substantial attention has been devoted by economists to the process behind the production of innovations. Three areas have recently emerged as relevant in the field. These are: the impact of spillovers on productivity; the different forms of R&D cooperation and the role of patents in fostering innovations when these are cumulative. In this paper I summarise the relevant literature in these three areas by discussing where the current literature stands and what are its future developments.

The bright and dark sides of individual and group innovation:A Special Issue introduction

This introduction essay proposes a challenging program for researchers eager to explore factors and process mechanisms contributing to the benefits and costs individuals and groups incur from pursuing innovative approaches. With respect to individual innovation, such moderating factors might be found in the characteristics of the innovative idea, the innovator, co-workers, supervisors, the broader organizational context, and in national culture. Examples of factors that are likely to shape the beneficial and detrimental outcomes of group innovation include knowledge, skills and ability of group members, group tenure, diversity among group members, group processes (clarifying group objectives, participation, constructive management of competing perspectives), and external demands on groups. This Special Issue contains a state-of-the-science paper, three articles dealing with the benefits and costs of individual innovation, and three articles addressing the bright and dark sides of group innovation. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Modelling 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 comprises 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 tocompany 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.

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.

The limits of open innovation:openness and (quasi-)markets in the organization of innovation

Recent studies have stressed the importance of ‘open innovation’ as a means of enhancing innovation performance. The essence of the open innovation model is to take advantage of external as well as internal knowledge sources in developing and commercialising innovation, so avoiding an excessively narrow internal focus in a key area of corporate activity. Although the external aspect of open innovation is often stressed, another key aspect involves maximising the flow of ideas and knowledge from different sources within the firm, for example through knowledge sharing via the use of cross-functional teams. A fully open innovation approach would therefore combine both aspects i.e. cross-functional teams with boundary-spanning knowledge linkages. This suggests that there should be complementarities between the use cross-functional teams with boundary-spanning knowledge linkages i.e. the returns to implementing open innovation in one innovation activity is should be greater if open innovation is already in place in another innovation activity. However, our findings – based on a large sample of UK and German manufacturing plants – do not support this view. Our results suggest that in practice the benefits envisaged in the open innovation model are not generally achievable by the majority of plants, and that instead the adoption of open innovation across the whole innovation process is likely to reduce innovation outputs. Our results provide some guidance on the type of activities where the adoption of a market-based governance structure such as open innovation may be most valuable. This is likely to be in innovation activities where search is deterministic, activities are separable, and where the required level of knowledge sharing is correspondingly moderate – in other words those activities which are more routinized. For this type of activity market-based governance mechanisms (i.e. open innovation) may well be more efficient than hierarchical governance structures. For other innovation activities where outcomes are more uncertain and unpredictable and the risks of knowledge exchange hazards are greater, quasi-market based governance structures such as open innovation are likely to be subject to rapidly diminishing returns in terms of innovation outputs.