Regional facial asymmetries in unilateral orofacial clefts

OBJECTIVES Assess facial asymmetry in subjects with unilateral cleft lip (UCL), unilateral cleft lip and alveolus (UCLA), and unilateral cleft lip, alveolus, and palate (UCLP), and to evaluate which area of the face is most asymmetrical. METHODS Standardized three-dimensional facial images of 58 patients (9 UCL, 21 UCLA, and 28 UCLP; age range: 8.6-12.3 years) and 121 controls (age range 9-12 years) were mirrored and distance maps were created. Absolute mean asymmetry values were calculated for the whole face, cheek, nose, lips, and chin. One-way analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, and t-test were used to assess the differences between clefts and controls for the whole face and separate areas. RESULTS Clefts and controls differ significantly for the whole face as well as in all areas. Asymmetry is distributed differently over the face for all groups. In UCLA, the nose was significantly more asymmetric compared with chin and cheek (P = 0.038 and 0.024, respectively). For UCL, significant differences in asymmetry between nose and chin and chin and cheek were present (P = 0.038 and 0.046, respectively). In the control group, the chin was the most asymmetric area compared to lip and nose (P = 0.002 and P = 0.001, respectively) followed by the nose (P = 0.004). In UCLP, the nose, followed by the lips, was the most asymmetric area compared to chin, cheek (P < 0.001 and P = 0.016, respectively). LIMITATIONS Despite division into regional areas, the method may still exclude or underrate smaller local areas in the face, which are better visualized in a facial colour coded distance map than quantified by distance numbers. The UCL subsample is small. CONCLUSION Each type of cleft has its own distinct asymmetry pattern. Children with unilateral clefts show more facial asymmetry than children without clefts.

Diseño de una Metodología de Política Pública de I+D+i para el Desarrollo de la Capacidad de la Innovación en el Sector PYMIS del estado Bolívar, Venezuela

El estado Bolívar con una superficie de 238.000 Km2 se encuentra ubicado al SE de Venezuela y su capital es Ciudad Bolívar. Ocupa el 26,24% de la superficie del territorio nacional. Ciudad Guayana es la principal región del desarrollo económico del estado siendo sede de las empresas básicas de los sectores siderúrgicos y del aluminio que se encargan de la extracción, procesamiento y transformación del mineral de hierro y de la transformación de la bauxita en aluminio primario. Además, cuenta con un gran potencial hidroeléctrico, garantizando el suministro de energía eléctrica para el funcionamiento de las empresas básicas, para el parque industrial de la región, así como para el desarrollo industrial, económico y social de la nación. Con relación al sector de la industria del mineral de hierro y del aluminio, las empresas destinan más del 60 por ciento de su producción al mercado internacional. A pesar de que el sector de las Pequeñas y Medianas Industrias (PYMIS) del estado Bolívar cuenta con un mercado cercano y seguro, no se le ha propiciado un desarrollo integral en términos de orientar sus esfuerzos en innovar en nuevos productos o mejoras de procesos. Debido a la falta del personal de investigación calificado, la escasa vinculación con centros de investigación, la baja inversión en investigación, desarrollo tecnológico e innovación (I+D+i), la ausencia de la aplicación de una política pública de I+D+i y la desarticulación de los miembros del Sistema Regional de Innovación (SRI), constituyen los principales obstáculos para generar bienes y servicios con un alto valor agregado. Esta situación desequilibra y hace ineficiente el funcionamiento del SRI. La baja capacidad de las PYMIS del estado Bolívar en I+D+i, es una situación que impide generar por si sola nuevos productos o procesos para satisfacer las demandas del mercado regional. Por lo tanto, se requiere de la intervención y participación activa de la institución gubernamental responsable del diseño y aplicación de una política pública de I+D+i para dinamizar la capacidad de innovación en las PYMIS, en su articulación y vinculación con los miembros del SRI. xiii El presente proyecto se planteó como objetivo diseñar una metodología de política pública de I+D+i para liderar, coordinar y direccionar el SRI del estado Bolívar, para el desarrollo de la capacidad de innovación en el sector industrial y específicamente en las PYMIS. La presente tesis representa una investigación no experimental de tipo proyectivo que analiza la situación actual del Sistema Regional de Innovación del estado Bolívar. El análisis de los resultados se ha dividido en tres fases. En la primera se realizan diagnósticos por medio de encuestas de las PYMIS en materia de I+D+i, de los centros y laboratorios de investigación pertenecientes a las universidades de la región en el área de Materiales y de los sectores financieros público y privado. En dichas encuestas se evalúa el nivel de integración con los entes gubernamentales que definen y administran la política pública de I+D+i. En la segunda fase, con el diagnóstico y procesamiento de los resultados de la primera fase, se procede a desarrollar un análisis de las fortalezas, oportunidades, debilidades y amenazas (FODA) del Sistema Regional de Innovación, permitiendo comprender la situación actual de la relación y vinculación de las PYMIS con los centros de investigación, instituciones financieras y entes gubernamentales. Con la problemática detectada, resultó necesario el diseño de estrategias y un modelo de gestión de política pública de I+D+i para la articulación de los miembros del SRI, para el apoyo de las PYMIS. En la tercera fase se diseña la metodología de política pública de I+D+i para fortalecer la innovación en las PYMIS. La metodología se representa a través de un modelo propuesto que se relaciona con las teorías de los procesos de innovación, con los modelos de sistemas de innovación y con las reflexiones y recomendaciones hechas por diferentes investigadores e instituciones de cooperación internacional referentes a la aplicación de políticas públicas de I+D+i para dinamizar la capacidad de innovación en el sector industrial. La metodología diseñada es comparada con diferentes modelos de aplicación de política pública de I+D+i. Cada modelo se representa en una figura y se analiza su xiv situación presente y la función que desempeña el ente gubernamental en la aplicación del enfoque de política pública de I+D+i. El diseño de la metodología de política pública de I+D+i propuesta aportará nuevos conocimientos y podrá ser aplicado para apoyar el progreso de la I+D+i en las PYMIS de la región, como caso de estudio, con el fin de impulsar una economía más competitiva y reducir el grado de dependencia tecnológica. La metodología una vez evaluada podrá ser empleada en el contexto de la gran industria y en otras regiones de Venezuela y además, puede aplicarse en otros países con características similares en su tejido industrial. En la tesis doctoral se concluye que el desarrollo de la capacidad de innovación en las PYMIS depende del diseño y aplicación de la política pública de I+D+i como elemento dinamizador y articulador del SRI del estado Bolívar. xv ABSTRACT The Bolivar state with an area of 238,000 km2 is located in the SE of Venezuela and its capital is Ciudad Bolivar. It occupies a surface which is 26.24% of the national territory. Ciudad Guayana is the main area of the state's economic development and the location of the corporate headquarters of the basic steel and aluminum sectors that are responsible for the extraction, processing and transformation of iron ore and bauxite processing for primary aluminum. It also has a great hydroelectric potential, ensuring the supply of electricity for the operation of enterprises, for the regional industrial park as well as for the industrial, economic and social development of the nation. With regard to the iron ore and aluminum industry, companies allocate more than 60 percent of their production to the international market. Although the sector of Small and Medium Industries (SMIs) of the Bolivar state has a secure market, it has not been led to an integral development in terms of targeting its efforts on innovating new products or improving processes. Due to the lack of qualified research staff, poor links with research centers, low investment in research, technological development and innovation (R & D & I), the absence of the implementation of a public policy for R & D & I and the dismantling of the members of the Regional Innovation System (RIS), are the main obstacles to generate goods and services with high added value. This situation makes the RIS unbalanced and inefficient. The low capacity of Bolivar state’s SMIs in R & D & I, is a situation that cannot generate by itself new products or processes to meet regional market demands. Therefore, it requires the active involvement and participation of the government institution responsible for the design and implementation of R & D & I public policy to boost the innovation capacity in SMIs, through the connection and integration with members of the RIS. This project is intended to design a methodology aimed at public policy for R & D & I to lead, coordinate and direct the RIS of Bolivar state, for the development of innovation capacity in the industrial sector and specifically in the SMIs. xvi This thesis is an experimental investigation of projective type which analyzes the current situation of the Regional Innovation System of the Bolivar state. The analysis of the results is divided into three phases. In the first one, a diagnosis is performed through surveys of SMIs in R & D & I centers and research laboratories belonging to the universities of the region in the area of materials and public and private financial sectors. In such surveys the level of integration with government agencies that define and manage the public policy of R & D & I is assessed. In the second phase, with the diagnosis and processing of the results of the first phase, we proceed to develop an analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of the Regional Innovation System, allowing the comprehension of the current status of the relationship of SMIs with research centers, financial institutions and government agencies. With the problems identified it was necessary to design strategies and a model of public policy management of R & D & I for the articulation of the members of the RIS, to support the SMIs. In the third phase a public policy methodology for R & D & I is designed in order to strengthen innovation in SMIs. The methodology is shown through a proposed model that relates to the theories of the innovation process, with models of innovation systems and with the discussions and recommendations made by different researchers and institutions of international cooperation concerning the implementation of policies public for R & D & I to boost innovation capacity in the industrial sector. The methodology designed is compared with different models of public policy implementation for R & D & I. Each model is represented in a figure and its current situation and the role of the government agency in the implementation of the public policy approach to R & D & I is analyzed. The design of the proposed public policy methodology for R & D & I will provide new knowledge and can be applied to support the progress of R & D & I in the region’s SMIs, as a case study, in order to boost a more competitive economy and reduce the degree of technological dependence. After being evaluated the methodology can be used in the context of big industry and in other regions of Venezuela and can also be applied in other countries with similar characteristics in their industrial structure. xvii The thesis concludes that the development of the innovation capacity in SMIs depends on the design and implementation of the public policy for R & D & I as a catalyst and coordination mechanism of the Regional Innovation System of the Bolivar state.

Differences between innovative and non-innovative microenterprises: internal factors

This exploratory study presents a comparison between two samples of microenterprises. One sample is formed by companies involved in product innovation during the current economic crisis and the other is formed by companies not involved in product innovation during the same period. The comparison analyzes which internal factors, supported by the literature as the influential factors of small business innovation, are significant when explaining the main differences between innovative microenterprise and non-innovative ones. The results suggest that the factors related to the organization and activity of the company are the factors which explain the differences between these two types of firms, rather than those factors related to micro-entrepreneurs own profile.

Un modelo de relación entre los programas de innovación abierta y la creación de valor

En un mundo donde el cambio es constante y cada vez más vertiginoso, la innovación es el combustible que utilizan las empresas que permite su renovación constante y, como consecuencia, su supervivencia en el largo plazo. La innovación es sin dudas un elemento fundamental para determinar la capacidad de las empresas en crear valor a lo largo del tiempo, y por ello, las empresas suelen dedicar esfuerzos considerables y recursos de todo tipo para identificar nuevas alternativas de innovación que se adapten a su estrategia, cultura, objetivos y ambiciones corporativas. Una forma específica para llevar a cabo la innovación es la innovación abierta. Esta se entiende como la innovación que se realiza de manera conjunta con otras empresas o participantes del ecosistema. Cabe la aclaración que en este documento se toma la definición de ecosistema referida al conjunto de clientes, proveedores, competidores y otros participantes que interactúan en un mismo entorno donde existen posiciones de liderazgo que pueden cambiar a lo largo del tiempo (Moore 1996). El termino de innovación abierta fue acuñado por Henry Chesbrough hace algo mas de una década para referirse a esta forma particular de organizar la innovación corporativa. Como se observa en el presente trabajo la innovación abierta es un nuevo paradigma que ha capturado el interés académico y empresarial desde algo más de una década. Se verán varios casos de innovación abierta que se están llevando a cabo en diversos países y sectores de la economía. El objetivo principal de este trabajo de investigación es el de desarrollar y explicar un modelo de relación entre la innovación abierta y la creación de valor en las empresas. Para ello, y como objetivos secundarios, se ha investigado los elementos de un Programa de Innovación Abierta, los impulsores 1 de creación de valor, el proceso de creación de valor y, finalmente, la interacción entre estos tres elementos. Como producto final de la investigación se ha desarrollado un marco teórico general para establecer la conexión entre la innovación abierta y la creación de valor que facilita la explicación de la interacción entre ambos elementos. Se observa a partir de los casos de estudio que la innovación abierta puede abarcar todos los sectores de la economía, múltiples geografías y empresas de distintos tamaños (grandes empresas, pequeñas y medianas empresas, incluso empresas de reciente creación) cada una de ellas con distinta relevancia dentro del ecosistema en el que participan. Elementos de un Programa de Innovación Abierta La presente investigación comienza con la enumeración de los distintos elementos que se encuentran presentes en los Programas de Innovación Abierta. De esta manera, se describen los diversos elementos que se han identificado a través de la revisión de la literatura académica que se ha llevado a cabo. En función de una serie de características comunes, los distintos elementos se agrupan en cuatro niveles diferentes para lograr un mejor entendimiento de los Programas de Innovación Abierta. A continuación se detallan estos elementos § Organización del Programa. En primer lugar se menciona la existencia de una estructura organizativa capaz de cumplir una serie de objetivos establecidos previamente. Por su naturaleza de innovación abierta deberá existir cierto grado de interacción entre los distintos miembros que participen en el proceso de innovación. § Talento Interno. El talento interno asociado a los programas de innovación abierta juega un rol fundamental en la ejecución y éxito del programa. Bajo este nivel se asocian elementos como la cultura de innovación abierta y el liderazgo como mecanismo para entender uno de los elementos que explica el grado de adopción de innovación en una empresa. Estrechamente ligados al liderazgo se encuentran los comportamientos organizacionales como elementos diferenciadores para aumentar las posibilidades de creación de innovación abierta. § Infraestructura. En este nivel se agrupan los elementos relacionados con la infraestructura tecnológica necesaria para llevar a cabo el programa incluyendo los procesos productivos y las herramientas necesarias para la gestión cotidiana. § Instrumentos. Por último, se mencionan los instrumentos o vehículos que se utilizan en el entorno corporativo para implementar innovación abierta. Hay varios instrumentos disponibles como las incubadoras corporativas, los acuerdos de licenciamiento o las áreas de capital de riesgo corporativo. Para este último caso se hará una mención especial por el creciente y renovado interés que ha despertado tanto en el entorno académico como empresarial. Se ha identificado al capital de riesgo corporativo como un de los elementos diferenciales en el desarrollo de la estrategia de innovación abierta de las empresas ya que suele aportar credibilidad, capacidad y soporte tecnológico. Estos cuatro elementos, interactuando de manera conjunta y coordinada, tienen la capacidad de crear, potenciar e incluso desarrollar impulsores de creación de valor que impactan en la estrategia y organización de la empresa y partir de aquí en su desempeño financiero a lo largo del tiempo. Los Impulsores de Creación de Valor Luego de identificar, ordenar y describir los distintos elementos presentes en un Programa de Innovación Abierta se ha avanzado en la investigación con los impulsores de creación de valor. Estos pueden definirse como elementos que potencian o determinan la capacidad de crear valor dentro del entorno empresarial. Como se puede observar, se detallan estos impulsores como punto de interacción entre los elementos del programa y el proceso de creación de valor corporativo. A lo largo de la presente investigación se han identificado 6 impulsores de creación de valor presentes en un Programa de Innovación Abierta. § Nuevos Productos y Servicios. El impulsor de creación de valor más directo y evidente en un Programa de Innovación Abierta es la capacidad de crear nuevos productos y servicios dado que se relacionan directamente con el proceso de innovación de la empresa § Acceso a Mercados Adyacentes. El proceso de innovación también puede ser una fuente de valor al permitir que la empresa acceda a mercados cercanos a su negocio tradicional, es decir satisfaciendo nuevas necesidades de sus clientes existentes o de nuevos clientes en otro mercado. § Disponibilidad de Tecnologías. La disponibilidad de tecnologías es un impulsor en si mismo de la creación de valor. Estas pueden ser tanto complementarias como de apalancamiento de tecnologías ya existentes dentro de la empresa y que tengan la función de transformar parte de los componentes de la estrategia de la empresa. § Atracción del Talento Externo. La introducción de un Programa de Innovación Abierta en una empresa ofrece la oportunidad de interactuar con otras organizaciones del ecosistema y, por tanto, de atraer el talento externo. La movilidad del talento es una característica singular de la innovación abierta. § Participación en un Ecosistema Virtuoso. Se ha observado que las acciones realizadas en el entorno por cualquiera de los participantes también tendrán un claro impacto en la creación de valor para el resto de participantes por lo tanto la participación en un ecosistema virtuoso es un impulsor de creación de valor presente en la innovación abierta. § Tecnología “Dentro--‐Fuera”. Como último impulsor de valor es necesario comentar que la dirección que puede seguir la tecnología puede ser desde la empresa hacia el resto del ecosistema generando valor a partir de disponibilizar tecnologías que no son de utilidad interna para la empresa. Estos seis impulsores de creación de valor, presentes en los procesos de innovación corporativos, tienen la capacidad de influir en la estrategia y organización de la empresa aumentando su habilidad de crear valor. El Proceso de Creación de Valor en las Empresas Luego se ha investigado la práctica de la gestión basada en valor que sostiene la necesidad de alinear la estrategia corporativa y el diseño de la organización con el fin de obtener retornos financieros superiores al resto de los competidores de manera sostenida, y finalmente crear valor a lo largo del tiempo. Se describe como los impulsores de creación de valor influyen en la creación y fortalecimiento de las ventajas competitivas de la empresa impactando y alineando su estrategia y organización. Durante la investigación se ha identificado que las opciones reales pueden utilizarse como una herramienta para gestionar entornos de innovación abierta que, por definición, tienen altos niveles de incertidumbre. Las opciones reales aportan una capacidad para la toma de decisiones de forma modular y flexible que pueden aplicarse al entorno corporativo. Las opciones reales han sido particularmente diseñadas para entender, estructurar y gestionar entornos de múltiples incertidumbres y por ello tienen una amplia aplicación en los entornos de innovación. Se analizan los usos potenciales de las opciones reales como complemento a los distintos instrumentos identificados en los Programas de Innovación Abierta. La Interacción Entre los Programas de Innovación Abierta, los Impulsores de Creación de Valor y el Proceso de Creación de Valor A modo de conclusión del presente trabajo se puede mencionar que se ha desarrollado un marco general de creación de valor en el entorno de los Programas de Innovación Abierta. Este marco general incluye tres elementos fundamentales. En primer lugar describe los elementos que se encuentran presentes en los Programas de Innovación Abierta, en segundo lugar como estos programas colaboran en la creación de los seis impulsores de creación de valor que se han identificado y finalmente en tercer lugar como estos impulsores impactan sobre la estrategia y la organización de la empresa para dar lugar a la creación de valor de forma sostenida. A través de un Programa de Innovación Abierta, se pueden desarrollar los impulsores de valor para fortalecer la posición estratégica de la empresa y su capacidad de crear de valor. Es lo que denominamos el marco de referencia para la creación de valor en un Programa de Innovación Abierta. Se presentará la idea que los impulsores de creación de valor pueden colaborar en generar una estrategia óptima que permita alcanzar un desempeño financiero superior y lograr creación de valor de la empresa. En resumen, se ha desarrollado un modelo de relación que describe el proceso de creación de valor en la empresa a partir de los Programas de Innovación Abierta. Para ello, se han identificado los impulsores de creación de valor y se ha descripto la interacción entre los distintos elementos del modelo. ABSTRACT In a world of constant, accelerating change innovation is fuel for business. Year after year, innovation allows firms to renew and, therefore, advance their long--‐term survival. Undoubtedly, innovation is a key element for the firms’ ability to create value over time. Companies often devote considerable effort and diverse resources to identify innovation alternatives that could fit into their strategy, culture, corporate goals and ambitions. Open innovation refers to a specific approach to innovate by collaborating with other firms operating within the same business ecosystem.2 The term open innovation was pioneered by Henry Chesbrough more than a decade ago to refer to this particular mode of driving corporate innovation. Open innovation is a new paradigm that has attracted academic and business interest for over a decade. Several cases of open innovation from different countries and from different economic sectors are included and reviewed in this document. The main objective of this study is to explain and develop a relationship model between open innovation and value creation. To this end, and as secondary objectives, we have explored the elements of an Open Innovation Program, the drivers of value creation, the process of value creation and, finally, the interaction between these three elements. As a final product of the research we have developed a general theoretical framework for establishing the connection between open innovation and value creation that facilitates the explanation of the interaction between the two. From the case studies we see that open innovation can encompass all sectors of the economy, multiple geographies and varying businesses – large companies, SMEs, including (even) start--‐ups – each with a different relevance within the ecosystem in which they participate. Elements of an Open Innovation Program We begin by listing and describing below the items that can be found in an Open Innovation Program. Many of such items have been identified through the review of relevant academic literature. Furthermore, in order to achieve a better understanding of Open Innovation, we have classified those aspects into four different categories according to the features they share. § Program Organization. An organizational structure must exist with a degree of interaction between the different members involved in the innovation process. This structure must be able to meet a number of previously established objectives. § Internal Talent. Internal talent plays a key role in the implementation and success of any Open Innovation program. An open innovation culture and leadership skills are essential for adopting either radical or incremental innovation. In fact, leadership is closely linked to organizational behavior and it is essential to promote open innovation. § Infrastructure. This category groups the elements related to the technological infrastructure required to carry out the program, including production processes and daily management tools. § Instruments. Finally, we list the instruments or vehicles used in the corporate environment to implement open innovation. Several instruments are available, such as corporate incubators, licensing agreements or venture capital. There has been a growing and renewed interest in the latter, both in academia and business circles. The use of corporate venture capital to sustain the development of the open innovation strategy brings ability, credibility, and technological support to the process. The combination of elements from these four categories, interacting in a coordinated way, makes it possible to create, enhance and develop value creation drivers that may impact the company’s strategy and organization and affect its financial performance over time. The Drivers of Value Creation After identifying describing and categorizing the different elements present in an Open Innovation Program our research examines the drivers of value creation. These can be defined as elements that enhance or determine the ability to create value in the business environment. As can be seen, these drivers can act as interacting points between the elements of the program and the process of value creation. The study identifies six drivers of value creation that might be found in an Open Innovation Program. § New Products and Services. The more direct and obvious driver of value creation in any Open Innovation Program is the ability to create new products and services. This is directly related to the company’s innovation process. § Access to Adjacent Markets. The innovation process can also serve as a source of value by granting access to adjacent markets through satisfying new needs for existing customers or attracting new customers from other markets. § Availability of Technologies. The availability of technology is in itself a driver for value creation. New technologies can either be complementary and/or can leverage existing technologies within the firm. They can partly transform certain elements of the company’s strategy. § External Talent Strategy. Incorporating an Open Innovation Program offers the opportunity to interact with other organizations operating in the same ecosystem and can therefore attract external skilled resources. Talent mobility is a unique feature of open innovation. § Becoming Part of a Virtuous Circle. The actions carried out in the environment by any of its members will also have a clear impact on value creation for the other participants. Participation in a virtuous ecosystem is thus a driver for value creation in an open innovation strategy. § Inside--‐out Technology. Value creation may also evolve by allowing other firms in the ecosystem to incorporate internally developed under--‐utilized technologies into their own innovation processes. These six drivers that are present in the innovation process can influence the strategy and the organization of the company, increasing its ability to create value. The Value Creation Process Value--‐based management is the management approach that requires aligning the corporate strategy and the organizational design to create value and obtain sustained financial returns (at least, higher returns than its competitors). We describe how the drivers of value creation can enhance corporate advantages by aligning its strategy and organization. During this study, we were able to determine that real options can be used as managing tools in open innovation environments which, by definition, have high uncertainty levels. Real options provide capability for flexible and modular decision--‐making in the business environment. In particular, real options have been designed for uncertainty management and, therefore, they may be widely applied in innovation environments. We analyze potential uses of real options to supplement the various instruments identified in the Open Innovation programs. The Interaction Between Open Innovation Programs, Value Creation drivers and Value Creation Process As a result of this study, we have developed a general framework for value creation in Open Innovation Programs. This framework includes three key elements. We first described the elements that are present in Open Innovation Programs. Next, we showed how these programs can boost six drivers of value creation that have been identified. Finally, we analyzed how the drivers impact on the strategy and organization of the company in order to lead to the creation of sustainable value. Through an Open Innovation Program, value drivers can be developed to strengthen a company’s strategic position and its ability to create value. That is what we call the framework for value creation in the Open Innovation Program. Value drivers can collaborate in generating an optimal strategy that helps foster a superior financial performance and a sustained value creation process. In sum, we have developed a relationship model that describes the process of creating value in a firm with an Open Innovation Program. We have identified the drivers of value creation and described how the different elements of the model interact with each other.

(EU) friends: NGO cooperation and involvement across multi-level policy processes. IES Working Paper 1/2007

A growing body of research focuses on the expanding roles of NGOs in global and supranational governance. The research emphasizes the increasing number of participation patterns of NGOs in policymaking and cross-national cooperation. It has produced important insights into the evolving political role of NGOs and their growing involvement in governance. The focus on activities at a transnational level has, however, lead to the virtual exclusion of research on other levels of governance. It has not been possible to tell whether the locus of their political activity is shifting from the national to the transnational environment, or whether it is simply broadening. Missing from the literature is an examination of the variety of cooperative relationships, including those between NGOs, which impact policy involvement across different levels of governance. To bridge this gap, I address two key questions: 1) Is the strategy of cooperation among NGOs a common feature of social movement activity across levels of governance, and if so, what does the structure of cooperation look like? 2) What impact, if any, does cooperation have on the expanding political involvement of NGOS, both within and across levels of governance? Using data from an original survey of migrant and refugee organizations across much of Europe, I test several hypotheses that shed light on these issues. The findings broadly indicate that 1) Cooperation is a widely-used strategy across levels of governance, 2) Cooperation with specific sets of actors increases the likelihood of NGO involvement at different levels of governance. Specifically, cooperation with EU-level actors increases the likelihood of national-level involvement, and 3) NGOs are more likely to extend their involvement across a range of institutions if they cooperate with a broad range of actors.

China on Central-Eastern Europe: ‘16+1’ as seen from Beijing. OSW COMMENTARY NUMBER 166/15.04.2015

From the Introduction. In 2012, China approached the countries of Central-Eastern Europe (CEE) with a proposal concerning regional cooperation in the ‘16+1’ formula. According to Chinese analysts, the rationale behind this breakthrough decision was Beijing’s acknowledgment of the growing importance of the region’s states within the European Union as well as a partial elimination of the ideological differences which had hamstrung cooperation in previous years. It seems that the eurozone crisis may be perceived as the reason for the CEE states’ increased interest in developing their cooperation with China. These circumstances have opened a ‘window of opportunity’ which Beijing has decided to exploit to create a kind of bridgehead in the region which it could later use in its further economic expansion in Europe. Apart from opening the CEE region up for investments, the ‘16+1’ format was intended to facilitate the shaping of relations between China and the EU and to become a tool in building a positive image for China. Chinese experts agree that after three years of functioning, the ‘16+1’ regional cooperation format has helped Beijing achieve its goals only to a limited extent. The major obstacles have included: the immense diversification of the region, barriers related to EU law, insufficient expertise on the part of Chinese companies, the asymmetry of economic needs on both sides, and no willingness within the region itself to develop cooperation. Regardless of the limited effectiveness of activities carried out so far, China has continued its ‘16+1’ initiative. This continuation and the progressing institutionalisation of cooperation in the ‘16+1’ format have often seemed superficial. China has been using this multi-party formula to improve its long-term bilateral relations with selected states in the region and thereby to create a basis for Beijing’s political and economic presence in Central-Eastern Europe.

Utah combined hydrocarbon leasing regional final EIS /

One map on folded leaf in pocket of Vol. 1.

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.

Human resource management, innovation and performance:looking across levels

The importance of innovation can hardly be exaggerated, given that landmark change has defined human progress in our technological age. The business pages of popular journals are replete with a dazzling array of inventions that have overturned existing ways of working and fundamentally changed human experience — from agricultural drones that offer farmers new ways to increase crop yield to genome editing that provides powerful insights into genetically baffling brain disorders. Innovation has become a topical theme within organisations, too, with no shortage of advice and suggestions often targeted at business leaders about how to craft an innovation strategy or increase the number and quality of ideas with a view to enriching organisational life. The quote at the start of this chapter bears testament to the sheer effort of moving away from familiar, habitual practices in the direction of less-certain, risky future terrain. Setting aside what has gone before to move in new directions requires determination, resilience and courage at a personal level. Often overlooked, though, are the multi-level dynamics that this entails.

Miként befolyásolják a stratégiai gondolkodásmódok a vállalat innovativitását? (How can strategic mindsets influence innovative capability of the firm?)

A stratégiai gondolkodásmód a szervezetben működő egyének olyan kognitív sémáinak összessége, melyek alapjaiban befolyásolják a szervezet üzleti lehetőségeivel kapcsolatos feltevéseiket, valamint ezáltal a vállalati stratégiát és innovációt. Jelen tanulmány egy koncepcióalkotó munka, mely négy alapvető stratégiai gondolkodásmódot azonosít, amelyek mindegyike sajátos módon kapcsolódik az innovációhoz. Későbbi empirikus vizsgálathoz kapcsolódóan három feltevést azonosít, melyek a következőek: 1. Minél dinamikusabb a vállalat stratégiai gondolkodásmódja, annál radikálisabb innovációs kezdeményezéseket támogat. 2. Időben a vállalatok (a stabilitásra való törekvésük miatt) a statikusabb stratégiai gondolkodásmód felé mozdulnak el. 3. Minél konzisztensebb a vállalat stratégiai gondolkodásmódja, annál nagyobb mértékben kerül megvalósításra a tervezett stratégia. _____ Strategic mindset is the sum of those cognitive patterns of a group of individuals in an organization which fundamentally influence their assumptions about business opportunities. Four types of strategic mindsets can be distinguished which fundamentally influence the strategy and innovation capability of the firm. This paper is a conceptual framework which describes three assumptions such as 1. the more dynamic strategic mindset results the more radical innovation strategy; 2. in time strategic mindsets become more static; and 3. the more consistent strategic mindsets inside the firm, the greater possibility of the intended strategy is implemented. By this way it is a first step of a future research examining why start-up companies can lose their innovation capability and why large firms can keep it?

Internal Capital, External Knowledge, and Random Draws: Three Drivers of Organizational Structure

This dissertation explores the complex interactions between organizational structure and the environment. In Chapter 1, I investigate the effect of financial development on the formation of European corporate groups. Since cross-country regressions are hard to interpret in a causal sense, we exploit exogenous industry measures to investigate a specific channel through which financial development may affect group affiliation: internal capital markets. Using a comprehensive firm-level dataset on European corporate groups in 15 countries, we find that countries

with less developed financial markets have a higher percentage of group affiliates in more capital intensive industries. This relationship is more pronounced for young and small firms and for affiliates of large and diversified groups. Our findings are consistent with the view that internal capital markets may, under some conditions, be more efficient than prevailing external markets, and that this may drive group affiliation even in developed economies. In Chapter 2, I bridge current streams of innovation research to explore the interplay between R&D, external knowledge, and organizational structure–three elements of a firm’s innovation strategy which we argue should logically be studied together. Using within-firm patent assignment patterns,

we develop a novel measure of structure for a large sample of American firms. We find that centralized firms invest more in research and patent more per R&D dollar than decentralized firms. Both types access technology via mergers and acquisitions, but their acquisitions differ in terms of frequency, size, and i\ntegration. Consistent with our framework, their sources of value creation differ: while centralized firms derive more value from internal R&D, decentralized firms rely more on external knowledge. We discuss how these findings should stimulate more integrative work on theories of innovation. In Chapter 3, I use novel data on 1,265 newly-public firms to show that innovative firms exposed to environments with lower M&A activity just after their initial public offering (IPO) adapt by engaging in fewer technological acquisitions and

more internal research. However, this adaptive response becomes inertial shortly after IPO and persists well into maturity. This study advances our understanding of how the environment shapes heterogeneity and capabilities through its impact on firm structure. I discuss how my results can help bridge inertial versus adaptive perspectives in the study of organizations, by

documenting an instance when the two interact.

A rewarding experience? Exploring how crowdfunding is affecting music industry business models.

This paper provides an exploratory study of how rewards-based crowdfunding affects business model development for music industry artists, labels and live sector companies. The empirical methodology incorporated a qualitative, semi-structured, three-stage interview design with fifty seven senior executives from industry crowdfunding platforms and three stakeholder groups. The results and analysis cover new research ground and provide conceptual models to develop theoretical foundations for further research in this field. The findings indicate that the financial model benefits of crowdfunding for independent artists are dependent on fan base demographic variables relating to age group and genre due to sustained apprehension from younger audiences. Furthermore, major labels are now considering a more user-centric financial model as an innovation strategy, and the impact of crowdfunding on their marketing model may already be initiating its development in terms of creativity, strength and artist relations.