A review of models of spatial innovation infrastructures in support of high growth SMEs

This Paper first provides a review and analysis of the recent trends on innovation infrastructures developed in industrialised countries to promote innovation and competitiveness for high growth SMEs. It specifically aims to examine various spatial models developed to support provision of innovation infrastructure for high growth sector.

Universities, SMEs and innovation frameworks : think global, act local?

Universities are increasingly encouraged to take a leading role in economic development, particularly through innovation. Simultaneously, economic development policy itself is increasingly focused on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), creating overlapping interactions in the roles of government policy, universities and SMEs and the processes of innovation creation and dissemination. This paper examines issues arising from these developments and relating to the key stakeholders (industry, government and universities in particular), the enabling mechanisms (network governance, relevant education, training and learning, and suitable structures), and local and cross-local links. The authors then use quantitative analysis of 450 SMEs in the UK to begin to evaluate the roles of universities and highlight areas for further theoretical development.

The knowledge advantage (K-Adv): unleashing creativity and innovation

The K-Adv has been developed around the concept that it comprises an ICT enabling infrastructure that encompasses ICT hardware and software infrastructure facilities together with an enabling ICT support system; a leadership infrastructure support system that provides the vision for its implementation and the realisation capacity for the vision to be realised; and the necessary people infrastructure that includes the people capabilities and capacities supported by organisational processes that facilitates this resource to be mobilised.

Brite innovation survey : executive summary

This report summarises the fi ndings of an innovation survey of the Australian construction industry undertaken by the BRITE Project of the CRC for Construction Innovation in 2004. The BRITE Innovation Survey can be viewed in full at www.brite.crcci.info.The objective of the BRITE project is to improve the incidence and quality of innovation in the Australian construction industry. Many stakeholders in the industry are sceptical about the potential for innovation and its likely benefi ts. Many also lack the linkages and capabilities required for successful innovation. The BRITE Project is redressing this situation through demonstration and benchmarking activities. The term ‘innovation’ is defi ned as a new or signifi cantly improved technology or advanced business practice. Innovation may be technological or organisational, and it may be new to the world, or just new to the industry or business concerned. The defi nition includes the adoption of existing advancements developed outside a particular business. The survey sample was drawn from 3,500 businesses in the road/bridge and commercial building sectors in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, covering main contractors, trade contractors, consultants, suppliers and clients. Onethird of this population was sampled and a response rate of almost 30% was achieved. The survey collected information about respondents’ perceptions of innovation determinants in the industry, comprising various aspects of business strategy and business environment.

Influences on construction innovation : a brief overview of recent literature

This report reviews the most recent literature on construction innovation with the aim of highlighting the primary influences on innovation in the building and construction industry.

Brite Innovation Gallery 2007

In 2006, the BrITE project of the CrC for Construction Innovation researched the learning behaviours of twenty of australia’s most innovative contractors.

Public policy implications of construction innovation research

This report undertakes an exploratory analysis of Construction Innovation research projects in order to answer the question “What are the public policy implications of Construction Innovation research?”

Is the sum more than the corporate entrepreneurship parts? the different effects of social capital on innovation, venturing, and renewal processes

Principal Topic Although corporate entrepreneurship is of vital importance for long-term firm survival and growth (Zahra and Covin, 1995), researchers still struggle with understanding how to manage corporate entrepreneurship activities. Corporate entrepreneurship consists of three parts: innovation, venturing, and renewal processes (Guth and Ginsberg, 1990). Innovation refers to the development of new products, venturing to the creation of new businesses, and renewal to redefining existing businesses (Sharma, and Chrisman, 1999; Verbeke et al., 2007). Although there are many studies focusing on one of these aspects (cf. Burgelman, 1985; Huff et al., 1992), it is very difficult to compare the outcomes of these studies due to differences in contexts, measures, and methodologies. This is a significant lack in our understanding of CE, as firms engage in all three aspects of CE, making it important to compare managerial and organizational antecedents of innovation, venturing and renewal processes. Because factors that may enhance venturing activities may simultaneously inhibit renewal activities. The limited studies that did empirically compare the individual dimensions (cf. Zahra, 1996; Zahra et al., 2000; Yiu and Lau, 2008; Yiu et al., 2007) generally failed to provide a systematic explanation for potential different effects of organizational antecedents on innovation, venturing, and renewal. With this study we aim to investigate the different effects of structural separation and social capital on corporate entrepreneurship activities. The access to existing and the development of new knowledge has been deemed of critical importance in CE-activities (Floyd and Wooldridge, 1999; Covin and Miles, 2007; Katila and Ahuja, 2002). Developing new knowledge can be facilitated by structurally separating corporate entrepreneurial units from mainstream units (cf. Burgelman, 1983; Hill and Rothaermel, 2003; O'Reilly and Tushman, 2004). Existing knowledge and resources are available through networks of social relationships, defined as social capital (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998; Yiu and Lau, 2008). Although social capital has primarily been studied at the organizational level, it might be equally important at top management level (Belliveau et al., 1996). However, little is known about the joint effects of structural separation and integrative mechanisms to provide access to social capital on corporate entrepreneurship. Could these integrative mechanisms for example connect the separated units to facilitate both knowledge creation and sharing? Do these effects differ for innovation, venturing, and renewal processes? Are the effects different for organizational versus top management team integration mechanisms? Corporate entrepreneurship activities have for example been suggested to take place at different levels. Whereas innovation is suggested to be a more bottom-up process, strategic renewal is a more top-down process (Floyd and Lane, 2000; Volberda et al., 2001). Corporate venturing is also a more bottom-up process, but due to the greater required resource commitments relative to innovation, it ventures need to be approved by top management (Burgelman, 1983). As such we will explore the following key research question in this paper: How do social capital and structural separation on organizational and TMT level differentially influence innovation, venturing, and renewal processes? Methodology/Key Propositions We investigated our hypotheses on a final sample of 240 companies in a variety of industries in the Netherlands. All our measures were validated in previous studies. We targeted a second respondent in each firm to reduce problems with single-rater data (James et al., 1984). We separated the measurement of the independent and the dependent variables in two surveys to create a one-year time lag and reduce potential common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Results and Implications Consistent with our hypotheses, our results show that configurations of structural separation and integrative mechanisms have different effects on the three aspects of corporate entrepreneurship. Innovation was affected by organizational level mechanisms, renewal by integrative mechanisms on top management team level and venturing by mechanisms on both levels. Surprisingly, our results indicated that integrative mechanisms on top management team level had negative effects on corporate entrepreneurship activities. We believe this paper makes two significant contributions. First, we provide more insight in what the effects of ambidextrous organizational forms (i.e. combinations of differentiation and integration mechanisms) are on venturing, innovation and renewal processes. Our findings show that more valuable insights can be gained by comparing the individual parts of corporate entrepreneurship instead of focusing on the whole. Second, we deliver insights in how management can create a facilitative organizational context for these corporate entrepreneurship activities.

The role of relational capabilities in developing the capacity for supply chain innovation

The purpose of this paper is to gain a better understanding of the types of relational capabilities supply chain participants develop to enable ongoing supply chain innovation capacity building that produces improved business outcomes. This is exploratory research using qualitative data gathered by using five interviews, with the Australian road freight industry as the context. Two key relational capabilities and the improvement of four key business outcomes were identified as being present in the interaction of freight transport service providers with members of their supply chain. The data also demonstrates that by entering into competence building relationships with customers and suppliers firms can build capabilities that will increase their capacity for supply chain innovation. Even in short term arm’s length relationships firms can acquire improved skills behaviours and practices that enhance their operation effectiveness and the efficiency of the supply chain relationships.

Built environment procurement practice: Impediments to innovation and opportunities for changes

This report was commissioned by the Built Environment Industry Innovation Council and funded by the Australian Government Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research.

Transforming the psychological contract through a continuous innovation methodology

This paper introduces the Corporate Culture Change Cycle: a continuous innovation methodology for transforming the psychological contract in an organisational context. The eight step process is based on the action learning model. The purpose of this methodology is to benchmark the psychological contract against eight changing values of the employment relationship as a basis for facilitating a process of aligning the changing needs of employer and employee. Both the Corporate Culture Change Cycle and the New Employment Relationship Model have been validated in several organisational settings and subsequently refined. This continuous innovation methodology addresses gaps in the psychological contract, change management and continuous innovation research literatures. The approach therefore should be of interest to researchers in these fields of study and from a practical perspective for managers wishing to transform their workplace cultures.

Effective communication in innovation processes

Innovation processes are rarely smooth and disruptions often occur at transition points were one knowledge domain passes the technology on to another domain. At these transition points communication is a key component in assisting the smooth hand over of technologies. However for smooth transitions to occur we argue that appropriate structures have to be in place and boundary spanning activities need to be facilitated. This paper presents three case studies of innovation processes and the findings support the view that structures and boundary spanning are essential for smooth transitions.

Human resource management and innovation: what are knowledge-intensive firms doing?

An undeniable shift in focus from traditional production companies to Knowledge-Intensive Firms (KIFs) poses challenges for academics and practioners alike. In particular, effective management of an organization's human resources has become a critical issue for ensuring sustained innovation capacity. The relationship between Human Resource Management (HRM) in KIFs is however still a largely unexplored arena. The objective of this paper is to explore this relationship in an effort to identify HRM practices that support innovation. To this end, the paper includes reviews of the literature relevant to HRM and innovation in KIFs and four case studies from companies in Denmark and Australia that have been recognized for excellence in innovation. On the basis of content analyses conducted on the case data, some preliminary conclusions are posited regarding the role of HRM in KIFs. More specifically, the findings from this study suggest that while there are commonalities between HRM practices in traditional manufacturing companies and KIFs, there are also important differences, especially in terms of staffing practices. The paper contributes by offering recommendations for management of HRM in innovative KIFs and potential avenues for research to further develop our understanding of how HRM can support innovation in KIFs.

Enhancing research and development: designing collaborative environments for innovation

Work environments have previously been studied to identify the strategies, structures and processes which increase the likelihood of creativity, innovation and collaboration for productive workplaces. A number of perspectives have emerged which identify social and cognitive factors known to contribute to or to restrict innovation and collaboration. Recently more attention has been given to designing physical environments to encourage processes relevant to innovation such as creativity (McCoy & Evans, 2002) knowledge sharing (Hemlin, Allwood & Martin, 2008) and collaboration (Bozeman & Corley, 2004). Some attention has been given specifically to research and development environments (Boutellier et al, 2008) but little integration of this research has occurred. In the context of the construction of new purpose-built premises which will bring together under one roof separate public sector agencies engaged in research and development in agriculture, natural resource systems and the environment, this paper examines the extant literature and develops initial propositions for research relevant to the transition, collaboration and performance of research and development in new organizational environments where traditional boundaries have been redrawn.

Dynamic capabilities and innovation in supply chains

Supply chain relationships between firms are increasingly important in terms of both competitiveness and developing dynamic capability to respond to rapid changes in the market. Innovation capacity both in firms and in supply chains is also integral to responding to dynamic markets and customer needs. This explorative research examines a sample of firms active in supply chain relationships in Australia, as a pilot study, to examine any linkages between firm dynamic capabilities and supply chains developing innovative capacity to meet competitive and market changes. Initial findings indicate that although firms focus on developing capabilities, particularly dynamic capabilities to innovate individually, these preliminary findings indicate little reliance on developing their supply chain innovation capacity. This study is the initial stage of more extensive research on this topic.