BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Autor
Littunen Hannu (University of Eastern Finland, Finland), Tohmo Timo (Jyväskylä University School of Business and Economics), Storhammar Esa (Jyväskylä University School of Business and Economics)
Tytuł
Innovation among SMEs in Finland : The Impact of Stakeholder Engagement and Firm-Level Characteristics
Źródło
Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI), 2021, vol. 17, nr 4, s. 157-196, tab., aneks, bibliogr. s. 183-194
Tytuł własny numeru
Entrepreneurship and Innovation in the Age of Digital Transformation
Słowa kluczowe
Małe i średnie przedsiębiorstwa, Innowacyjność, Źródła informacji, Interesariusze, Sektor przedsiębiorstw, Wielkość przedsiębiorstwa
Small business, Innovative character, Information source, Stakeholders, Manufacturing sector, Enterprise size
Uwagi
Klasyfikacja JEL: D22, O31
streszcz., summ.
Kraj/Region
Finlandia
Finland
Abstrakt
CEL: Celem artykułu jest analiza znaczenia zarówno wewnętrznych zdolności (zasobów), jak i zewnętrznych źródeł informacji we wdrażaniu innowacji produktowych, procesowych, marketingowych i organizacyjnych mających na celu maksymalizację przewagi konkurencyjnej firmy oraz tworzenie wartości dla interesariuszy. Ponadto w szczególności badamy rolę organizacji publicznych, sieci biznesowych, wielkości firmy i sektora przemysłu w pojawianiu się różnego rodzaju innowacji produktowych, procesowych, marketingowych i organizacyjnych. Badania oparto na typologii innowacji (produktowej, procesowej, marketingowej i organizacyjnej) przyjętej przez OECD. METODYKA: Artykuł opiera się na danych z 389 MŚP zlokalizowanych w Finlandii i opisuje opracowanie modelu do testowania czynników zwiększających innowacyjność MŚP. Jako metodologię zastosowano model regresji logistycznej. WYNIKI: Wyniki pokazują, że tworzenie nowych produktów, procesów i innowacji marketingowych jest powiązane z różnymi zewnętrznymi źródłami informacji, takimi jak targi, media i internet. Ponadto związek między wewnętrznymi zdolnościami, takimi jak know-how firmy, zwiększa innowacyjność marketingową i organizacyjną MŚP. Nasze wyniki wykazały, że tworzenie innowacji produktowych jest pozytywnie powiązane z produkcją. Ponadto stwierdzamy, że tworzenie nowych procesów i innowacji organizacyjnych jest związane z wielkością firmy, tak iż firmy zatrudniające mniej niż 20 pracowników (firmy najmniejsze) były skoncentrowane wśród nieinnowatorów, a firmy zatrudniające więcej niż 20 pracowników były skoncentrowane wśród innowatorów. IMPLIKACJE DLA TEORII I PRAKTYKI: Wkładem naszego badania jest przeanalizowanie, w jakim stopniu różne rodzaje innowacji opierają się na konkretnych źródłach informacji. Niniejsze badanie zawiera również sugestie dla praktyków i decydentów. Wbrew oczekiwaniom dotyczącym naszych wyników organizacje wsparcia publicznego nie były statystycznie istotne w żadnym modelu innowacji. Dlatego organizacje wsparcia publicznego powinny opracować lepsze mechanizmy znajdowania MŚP z silną motywacją do opracowywania nowych produktów i możliwości rynkowych. ORYGINALNOŚĆ I WARTOŚĆ: Ten artykuł przedstawia nowy i aktualny punkt widzenia dla literatury, badając możliwe czynniki wyjaśniające wzrost prawdopodobieństwa wdrożenia przez MŚP innowacji produktowych, procesowych, marketingowych i organizacyjnych. Nasze badanie dostarcza wyczerpujących informacji na temat tego, w jaki sposób różni interesariusze przyczyniają się do powstawania innowacji w MŚP. (abstrakt oryginalny)

PURPOSE: The aim of the paper is to analyse the importance of both internal capabilities (resources) and external information sources in implementing product, process, marketing and organizational innovations aiming to maximize firm competitive advantage and create value for stakeholders. Furthermore, in particular, we examine the role of public organizations, business networks, firm size, and the industry sector, in the emergence of different types of product, process, marketing, and organizational innovations. The research was based on the typology of innovation (product, process, marketing, and organizational) adopted by the OECD. METHODOLOGY: The paper is based on data from 389 SMEs located in Finland and describes the development of a model for testing the factors that increase the innovativeness of SMEs. The logistic regression model is used as a methodology. Findings: The results show that the creation of novel products, processes and marketing innovation is connected to various external sources of information, such as fairs, the media and the internet. Moreover, the relationship between internal capabilities such as the firm's know-how increases the marketing and organizational innovativeness of SMEs. Our results demonstrated that the creation of product innovation is positively connected to manufacturing. Furthermore, we find that the creation of novel processes and organizational innovation is related to firm size, such that firms with fewer than 20 employees (smallest firms) were concentrated among non-innovators and companies with more than 20 employees were concentrated among innovators. IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY AND PRACTICE: The contribution of our study is to analyse to what extent various types of innovation rely on specific information sources. This study also provides suggestions for practice and policymakers. Contrary to expectations regarding our findings, public support organizations were not statistically significant in any innovation model. Therefore, public support organizations should develop better mechanisms to find SMEs with strong motivations to develop new products and market opportunities. ORIGINALITY AND VALUE: This paper provides a new and topical viewpoint for the literature by examining the possible factors explaining the increase in SMEs' likelihood of implementing product, process, marketing, and organizational innovations. Our study provides comprehensive information on how different stakeholders contribute to the emergence of SME innovation. (original abstract)
Pełny tekst
Pokaż
Bibliografia
Pokaż
  1. Abel-Koch, J., Del Bufalo, G., Fernandez, M., Gerstenberer, J., Lo, V., Navarro, B., & Thornary, B. (2015). Investment and innovation. France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Retrieved from https://www.ico.es/documents/19/14629/SME+Investment+and+Innovation +2015.pdf/1fa1ff45-66c6-4463-9ea0-61297e3ad630
  2. Amara, N., D'Este, P., Landry, R., & Doloreux, D. (2016). Impacts of obstacles on innovation patterns in KIBS firms. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4065-4073. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.045.
  3. Amara, N., & Landry, R. (2005). Sources of information as determinants of novelty of innovation in manufacturing firms: Evidence from the 1999 statistics Canada innovation survey. Technovation, 25(3), 245-259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00113-5.
  4. Antonelli, C., & Scellato, G. (2015). Firms size and directed technological change. Small Business Economics, 44(1), 207-218. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9593-1.
  5. Arvanitis, S. (1997). The impact of firm size on innovative activity - an empirical analysis based on Swiss firm data. Small Business Economics, 9(6), 473-490.
  6. Asheim, B. T., Coenen, L., & Svensson-Henning, M. (2003). Nordic SMEs Regional Innovation Systems: Final Report. Oslo: Nordic Innovation Center.
  7. Audretsch, D. B. (2002). The dynamic role of small firms: Evidence from the US. Small Business Economics, 18(1-3), 13-40.
  8. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
  9. Beaudry, C., & Swann, G. M. P. (2009). Firm growth in industrial clusters of the United Kingdom. Small Business Economics, 32(4), 409-424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-007-9083-9.
  10. Beaver, G., & Prince, C. (2004). Management, strategy and policy in the UK small business sector: A  critical review. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 11(6), 34-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14626000410519083.
  11. Becker, W., & Dietz, J. (2004). R&D cooperation and innovation activities of firms evidence for the German manufacturing industry. Research Policy, 33(2), 209-223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.07.003.
  12. Belderbos, R., Gilsing, V. A., & Suzuki, S. (2016). Direct and mediated ties to universities: "Scientific" absorptive capacity and innovation performance of pharmaceutical firms. Strategic Organization, 14(1), 32-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476127015604734.
  13. Belderbos, R., Gilsing, V., Lokshin, B., Carree, M., & Sastre, J. F. (2018). The antecedents of new R&D collaborations with different partner types: On the dynamics of past R&D collaboration and innovative performance. Long Range Planning, 51(2), 285-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.10.002.
  14. Borrás, S., & Edquist, C. (2013). The choice of innovation policy instruments. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80 (8), 1513-1522. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.03.002.
  15. Boter, H., & Lundström, A. (2005). SME perspectives on business support services: The role of company size, industry and location. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 12(2), 244-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14626000510594638.
  16. Bridoux, F., & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2014). Microfoundations for stakeholder theory: Managing stakeholders with heterogeneous motives. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 107-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.2089.
  17. Bruhn, N. C. P., Alcantara, J. N., & Calegario, C. L. L. (2016). Multinational enterprises and spillover effects: A study on the factors associated with the innovation capacity of SMEs in Brazil. Revista ESPACIOS, 37(10), 1- 12.
  18. Cainelli, G., Evangelista, R., & Savona, M. (2004). The impact of innovation on economic performance in services. The Service Industries Journal, 24(1), 116-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642060412331301162.
  19. Caloghirou, Y., Giotopoulos, I., Kontolaimou, A., Korra, E., & Tsakanikas, A. (2021). Industry-university knowledge flows and product innovation: How do knowledge stocks and crisis matter?. Research Policy, 50 (3), 104195.
  20. Carroll, A. (1993). Business and Society, Business Ethics, and Stakeholder Management. Dallas: South-Western Publishing.
  21. Carroll, A. (1995). Stakeholder thinking in three models of management morality: A perspective with strategic implications. In J. Näsi (Ed.), Understanding Stakeholder Thinking (pp. 44-47). Jyväskylä, Finland: LSR Publications.
  22. Carvalho, L., Costa, T., & Caiado, J. (2013). Determinants of innovation in a small open economy: A multidimensional perspective. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 14(3), 583-600. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2012.701225.
  23. Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52(1), 68-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0470.
  24. Cassiman, B., Di Guardo, M. C., & Valentini, G. (2009). Organizing R&D projects to profit from innovation: Insights from co-opetition. Long Range Planning, 42(2), 216-233.
  25. Chang, Y. Y., Hughes, M., & Hotho, S. (2011). Internal and external antecedents of SMEs' innovation ambidexterity outcomes. Management Decision, 49(10), 1658-1676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251741111183816.
  26. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393553.
  27. Cravo, T. A., & Piza, C. (2019). The impact of business-support services on firm performance: A meta-analysis. Small Business Economics, 53(3), 753-770. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-0065-x.
  28. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3), 297-334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555.
  29. Damanpour, D. (2010). An integration of research findings of effects of firm size and market competition on product and process innovations. British Journal of Management, 21(4), 996-1010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00628.x.
  30. De Jong, J. P. J., & Marsili, O. (2006). The fruit flies of innovations: A taxonomy of innovative small firms. Research Policy, 35(2), 213-229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.09.007.
  31. De Jong, J. P .J., & Vermeulen, P. A. M. (2006). Determinants of product innovation in small firms: A  comparison across industries. International Small Business Journal, 24(6), 587-609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0266242606069268.
  32. Demirel, P., & Mazzucato, M. (2012). Innovation and firm growth: Is R & D worth it?. Industry and Innovation, 19(1), 45-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2012.649057.
  33. Deschryvere, M. (2014). R&D, firm growth and the role of innovation persistence: An analysis of Finnish SMEs and large firms. Small Business Economics, 43(4), pp.767-785. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9559- 3.
  34. Dickson, P. H., Weaver, K. M., & Hoy, F. (2006). Opportunism in the R&D alliances of SMES: The roles of the institutional environment and SME size. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 487-513. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.02.003.
  35. Doloreux, D. (2004). Regional networks of small and medium sized enterprises: Evidence from the metropolitan area of Ottawa in Canada. European Planning Studies, 12(2), 173-189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965431042000183923.
  36. Drejer, I. (2004). Identifying innovation in surveys of services: A Schumpeterian perspective. Research Policy, 33(3), 551-562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2003.07.004.
  37. Eesley, C., & Lenox, M. J. (2006). Firm responses to secondary stakeholder action. Strategic Management Journal, 27(8), 765-781. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.536.
  38. European Union. (2020). The revised user guide to the SME definition. SME definition | Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/sme-definition_en
  39. Freel, M. (2003). Sectoral patterns of small firm innovation, networking and proximity. Research Policy, 32(5), 751-770. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00084-7.
  40. Freel, M. S., & Robson, P. J. A. (2004). Small firm innovation, growth and performance. International Small Business Journal, 22(6), 561-575.
  41. Freel, M., & De Jong, J. P. (2009). Market novelty, competence-seeking and innovation networking. Technovation, 29(12), 873-884. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.07.005.
  42. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management- A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.
  43. Freeman R. E., Harrison J. S., & Wicks A. C. (2007). Managing for Stakeholders: Survival, Reputation and Success. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  44. Ghosh, B. C., Liang, T. W., Meng, T. T., & Chan, B. (2001). The key success factors, distinctive capabilities and strategic thrusts of top SMEs in Singapore. Journal of Business Research, 51(3), 209-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00047-8.
  45. Grama-Vigouroux, S., Saidi, S., Berthinier-Poncet, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Madanamoothoo, A. (2020). From closed to open: A comparative stakeholder approach for developing open innovation activities in SMEs. Journal of Business Research, 119, 230-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.016.
  46. Hagedoorn, J. (1996). Innovation and entrepreneurship: Schumpeter revisited. Industrial and Corporate Change, 5(3), 883-896. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icc/5.3.883.
  47. Hagedoorn, J. (2002). Inter-firm R&D partnerships: An overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy, 31 (4), 477-492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00120-2.
  48. Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.801.
  49. Henrekson, M., & Johansson, D. (2010). Gazelles as job creators: A survey and interpretation of the evidence. Small Business Economics, 35 (2), 227-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9172-z.
  50. Hervas-Oliver, J. L., Garrigos, J. A., & Gil-Pechuan, I. (2011). Making sense of innovation by R&D and non-R&D innovators in low technology contexts: A forgotten lesson for policymakers. Technovation, 31(9), 427-446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.06.006.
  51. Hervas-Oliver, J. L., Boronat-Moll, C., & Sempere-Ripoll, F. (2016). On process innovation capabilities in SMEs: A taxonomy of process-oriented innovative SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 54, 113-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12293.
  52. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd edition. New York: Wiley.
  53. Hossain, M., & Kauranen, I. (2016). Open innovation in SMEs: A systematic literature review. Journal of Strategy and Management, 9(1), 58-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JSMA-08-2014- 0072.
  54. Howells, J. (2005). Innovation and regional economic development: A matter of perspective?. Research Policy, 34(8), 1220-1234. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.014.
  55. Howells, J., & Roberts, J. (2000). From innovation systems to knowledge systems. Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation, 18 (1), 17-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08109020050000636.
  56. Huang, C., Arundel, A., & Hollanders, H. (2010). How firms innovate: R&D, non-R&D, and technology adoption. Retrieved from http://collections.unu.edu/view/UNU:405#viewAttachments
  57. Ilori, A. B., Lawal, A., & Simeon-Oke, O. O. (2017). Innovations and innovation capability in palm kernel processing industry in southwestern Nigeria. International Journal of Innovation Science, 9(1), 102-114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-10-2016-0045.
  58. Ipinnaiye, O., Dineen, D., & Lenihan, H. (2017). Drivers of SME performance: A holistic and multivariate approach. Small Business Economics, 48(4), 883-911. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016 -9819-5.
  59. Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of Business Research, 64(4), 408-417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.09.010.
  60. Jones T. M., & Wicks A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 206-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.1893929.
  61. Jones, T. M., Harrison, J. S., & Felps, W. (2018). How applying instrumental stakeholder theory can provide sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 43(3), 371-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0111.
  62. Jones-Evans, D., Gkikas, A., Rhisiart, M., & MacKenzie, N. G. (2018). Measuring open innovation in SMEs. In F.F. W. Vanhaverbeake, F. Frattini, N. Roijakkers, M. Usman (Eds.), Researching Open Innovation in SMEs (pp. 399- 427). New Jersey: https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813230972_0013
  63. Kafetzopoulos, D., & Psomas, E. (2015). The impact of innovation capability on the performance of manufacturing companies: The Greek case. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 26(1), 104-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-12-2012-0117.
  64. Kang, K., & Park, H. (2012). Influence of government R&D support and inter-firm collaborations on innovation in Korea biotechnology SMEs. Technovation, 32(1), 400-414.
  65. Kaufmann, A., & Tödtling, F. (2002). How effective is innovation support for SMEs? An analysis of the region of Upper Austria. Technovation, 22(3), 147-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(00)00081- X.
  66. Keskin, H. (2006). Market orientation, learning orientation, and innovation capabilities in SMEs: An extended model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(4), 396-417. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14601060610707849.
  67. Khairuddin, S., Qureshi, Z. H., Wahid, R. A., Tehseen, S., Pathan, Z. H., & Khan, M. R. K. (2019). A conceptual study on contingent impact of external integration on innovation SME business success relationship. International Journal of Financial Research, 10(5), 370. http://dx.doi.org/10.5430/ijfr.v10n5p370.
  68. Kirchhoff, B. A., Linton, J. D., & Walsh, S. T. (2013). Neo-Marshellian equilibrium versus Scumpeterian creative destruction: Its impact on Business research and economic policy. Journal of Small Business Management, 51(2), 159-166.
  69. Knoben, J. (2009). Localized inter-organizational linkages, agglomeration effects, and the innovative performance of firms. The Annals of Regional Science, 43(30), 757-779. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00168-008-0229-8.
  70. Kreiser, P. M., Marino, L. D., & Weaver, K.M. (2002). Assessing the psychometric properties of the entrepreneurial orientation scale: A Multi-Country Analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4), 71-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104225870202600405.
  71. Laforet, S. (2008). Size, strategic, and market orientation affects on innovation. Journal of Business Research, 61(7), 753-764. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.08.002.
  72. Landoni, P., Dell'Era, C., Ferraloro, G., Peradotto, M., Karlsson, H., & Verganti, R. (2016). Design contribution to the competitive performance of SMEs: The role of design innovation capabilities. Creativity and Innovation Management, 25(4), 484-499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/caim.12165.
  73. Lecerf, M., & Omrani, N. (2020). SME internationalization: The impact of information technology and innovation. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 11(2), 805-824. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13132-018-0576-3.
  74. Lechner, C., & Dowling, M. (2003). Firm networks: external relationships as sources for the growth and competitiveness of entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 15(1), 1-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08985620210159220.
  75. Leiponen, A. (2005). Organization of knowledge and innovation: the case of Finnish business services. Industry and Innovation, 12(2), 185-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13662710500087925.
  76. Leiponen, A. (2012). The benefits of R&D and breadth in innovation strategies: A comparison of Finnish service and manufacturing firms. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(5), 1255-1281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icc/dts022.
  77. Leiponen, A., & Helfat, C. E. (2010). Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth. Strategic Management Journal, 31(2), 224-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.807.
  78. Leonidou, E., Christofi, M., Vrontis, D., & Thrassou, A. (2020). An integrative framework of stakeholder engagement for innovation management and entrepreneurship development. Journal of Business Research, 119, 245-258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.054.
  79. Littunen, H., & Huovinen, J. (2020). Innovation and performance among firms in Finland: The impact of firm-level characteristics. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 9(2), 102 -120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJIRD.2020.110505.
  80. Littunen, H., & Rissanen, S. (2015). Information sources and innovation linked networking: Relations to health and social service enterprises' performance in Finland. Innovation and Development, 5(1), 93-111, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2014.994261.
  81. Llerena, P., & Oltra, V. (2002). Diversity of innovative strategy as a source of technological performance. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 13(2), 179-201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0954-349X(01) 00036-4.
  82. Lukovszki, L., Rideg, A., & Sipos, N. (2020). Resource-based view of innovation activity in SMEs: An empirical analysis based on the global competitiveness project. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 31(3), 513-541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/CR-01-2020-0018.
  83. Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2001). Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firm performance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 429- 451.
  84. Lööf, H., & Heshmati, A. (2006). On the relationship between innovation and performance: A sensitivity analysis. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 15(4-5), 317-344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10438590500512810.
  85. Maldonado-Guzmán, G., Garza-Reyes, J. A., Pinzón-Castro, S. Y., & Kumar, V. (2019). Innovation capabilities and performance: Are they truly linked in SMEs?. International Journal of Innovation Science, 11(1), 1757 -2223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-12-2017-0139.
  86. Malerba, F. (1992). Learning by firms and incremental technical change. The Economic Journal, 102(413), 845-859. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2234581.
  87. Mansury, M. A., & Love, J. H. (2008). Innovation, productivity and growth in US business services: A firm-level analysis. Technovation, 28 (1-2), 52-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.06.002.
  88. March J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71- 87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71.
  89. De Martino, M., & Magnotti, F. (2018). The innovation capacity of small food firms in Italy. European Journal of Innovation Management. 21(3), 362-383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-04-2017-0041.
  90. Mejia, A., & Arias-Perez, J. (2017). Approach to differences in product and process innovation capabilities and financial performance in manufacturing companies. Revista ESPACIOS, 38 (04). https://www.revistaespacios.com/a17v38n04/17380412.html
  91. Miles, I., Kastrinos, N., Flanagan, K., Bilderbeek, R., Den Hertog, P., Huntink, W., & Bouman, M. (1995). Knowledge-intensive business services: Their role as users, carriers and sources of innovation. Retrieved from https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/files/32800224/FULL_TEXT.PDF
  92. Mole, K., North, D., & Baldock, R. (2017). Which SMEs seek external support? Business characteristics, management behaviour and external influences in a contingency approach. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 35(3), 476-499. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0263774X16665362.
  93. Muller, E., & Zenker, A. (2001). Business services as actors of knowledge transformation: The role of KIBS in regional and national innovation systems. Research Policy, 30(9), 1501-1516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048- 7333(01)00164-0.
  94. Negassi, S., Lhuillery, S., Sattin, J. F., Hung, T. Y.,, & Pratlong, F. (2019). Does the relationship between innovation and competition vary across industries? Comparison of public and private research enterprises. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 28(5), 465-482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2018.1527552.
  95. Nieto, M. J., & Santamaría, L. (2007). The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation. Technovation, 27(6-7), 367-377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2006.10.001.
  96. Nunally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York. NY: McGraw-Hill.
  97. O'Cass, A., & Sok, P. (2014). The role of intellectual resources, product innovation capability, reputational resources and marketing capability combinations in firm growth. International Small Business Journal, 32(8), 996-1018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0266242613480225.
  98. OECD. (1997). Oslo Manual: Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Technological Innovation Data. 2nd edition. Paris: OECD.
  99. OECD. (2005). The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, Oslo Manual, 3rd ed. Paris: OECD.
  100. OECD/Eurostat. (2018). The measurement of scientific, technological and innovation activities: Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data for innovation, Oslo Manual 2018, 4th ed. Paris/Eurostat, Luxembourg: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en.
  101. Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2020). Innovaatiotoiminta 2018. Innovation. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Tiede, teknologia ja tietoyhteiskunta 2020. Part of Eurostat Community Innovation Survey (CIS). Retrieved from http://www.stat.fi/til/inn/index_en.html.
  102. Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2021). Structural business and financial statement statistics. Helsinki: Statistics Finland. Retrieved from http://www.stat.fi/til/yrti/meta_en.html.
  103. Olmos-Peñuela, J., García- Granero, A., Castro-Martínez, E., & D'Este, P. (2017). Strengthening SMEs' innovation culture through collaborations with public research organizations. Do all firms benefit equally?. European Planning Studies, 25(11), 2001-2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2017.1279592.
  104. Park, Y., Shin, J., & Kim, T. (2010). Firm size, age, industrial networking, and growth: A case of the Korean manufacturing industry. Small Business Economics, 35(2), 153-168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009 -9177-7.
  105. Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6), 343-373. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(84) 90018-0
  106. Peeters, C., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2006). Innovation strategy and the patenting behaviour of firms. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 16(1-2), 109- 135.
  107. Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York, NY: John Wiley.
  108. Petrou, A., & Daskalopoulou (2013). Social capital and innovation in service sector. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16(1), 50-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14601061311292850.
  109. Phillips R. A. (2003). Stakeholder Theory and Organizational Ethics. San Francisco, CA.: Berrett-Koehler.
  110. Pollack, J. M., Barr, S., & Hanson, S. (2017). New venture creation as establishing stakeholder relationships: A trust-based perspective. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 7, 15-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2016.12.003.
  111. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(May-June), 79- 91.
  112. Prajogo, D. I. (2006). The relationship between innovation and business performance-a comparative study between manufacturing and service firms. Knowledge and Process Management, special issue: Continuous Innovation, Performance and Knowledge Management, 13(3), 218-225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/kpm.259.
  113. Rigtering, J. C., Kraus, S., Eggers, F., & Jensen, S. H. (2014). A comparative analysis of the entrepreneurial orientation/growth relationship in service firms and manufacturing firms. The Service Industries Journal, 34(4), 275-294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2013.778978.
  114. Rodriguez, M., Doloreux, D. & Shearmur, R. (2017). Variety in external knowledge sourcing and innovation novelty: Evidence from the KIBS sector in Spain. Technovation, 68(December), 35-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.06.003.
  115. Rogers, M. (2004). Networks, firm size and innovation. Small Business Economics, 22(2), 141-153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:SBEJ.0000014451.99047.69.
  116. Rosenzweig, S. (2017). The effects of diversified technology and country knowledge on the impact of technological innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(3), 564-584. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9492-5.
  117. Saastamoinen, J., Reijonen, H., & Tammi, T. (2018). Should SMEs pursue public procurement to improve innovative performance?. Technovation, 69, 2-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.10.003.
  118. Santoro, G., Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., & Dezi, L. (2018). The Internet of Things: Building a  knowledge management system for open innovation and knowledge management capacity. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 347-354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.02.034.
  119. Saunila, M. (2016). Performance measurement approach for innovation capability in SMEs. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(2), 162-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-08-2014-0123.
  120. Saunila, M. (2020). Innovation capability in SMEs: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5(4), 260-265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.11.002.
  121. Sawang, S., & Unsworth, K. (2011). Why adopt now? Multiple case studies and survey studies comparing small, medium and large firms. Technovation, 31(10), 554-559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.06.002.
  122. Schumpeter. J.A. (1939) Business Cycles. Philagdelphia: Porcupine Press.
  123. Segarra, A,. & Teruel, M. (2014). High-growth firms and innovation: An empirical analysis for Spanish firms. Small Business Economics, 43(4), 805-821. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-014-9563-7.
  124. Shane, S. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship, the Individual-Opportunity Nexus. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
  125. Shearmur, R., & Doloreux, D. (2019). KIBS as both innovators and knowledge intermediaries in the innovation process: Intermediation as a contingent role. Papers in Regional Science, 98(December), 191-209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12354.
  126. Statistics Finland. (2014). Structural Business and Financial Statement Statistics. Helsinki. Retrieved from https://www.stat.fi/til/yrti/tup_en.html
  127. Storey, D. (1994). Understanding the Small Business Sector. London: Routledge.
  128. Tang, Z., & Tang, J. (2012). Stakeholder-firm power difference, stakeholders' CSR orientation, and SMEs' environmental performance in China. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(4), 436-455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.11.007.
  129. Tang, J., Tang, Z., Marino, L. D., Zhang, Y., & Li Q. (2008). Exploring an inverted u-shape relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and performance in Chinese Ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 219-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540- 6520.2007.00223.x.
  130. Tansey, R., White, M., Long, R. G., & Smith, M. (1996). A comparison of loglinear modeling and logistic regression in management research. Journal of Management, 22(2), 339-358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639602200207.
  131. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.
  132. Tether, B. S. (2002). Who co-operates for innovation, and why: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 31(6), 947- 967.
  133. Tether, B. S. (2005). Do services innovate (differently)? Insights from the European Innobarometer Survey. Industry and Innovation, 12(2), 153-184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13662710500087891.
  134. Trott, P. (2002). Innovation Management and New Product Development, 2nd ed. Essex: Pearson Education.
  135. Tödtling, F., & Kaufmann, A. (2001). The role of the region for innovation activities of SMEs. European Urban and Regional Studies, 8(3), 203-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/096977640100800303.
  136. Tödtling, F., Lehner, P., & Kaufmann, A. (2009). Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge interactions?. Technovation, 29(1), 59-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.05.002.
  137. Van Dijk, B., Hertog, R., Menkveld, B., & Thurik, R. (1997). Some new evidence on the determinants of large and small-firm innovation. Small Business Economics, 9(4), 335-343.
  138. Vaona, A., & Pianta, M. (2008). Firm size and innovation in European manufacturing. Small Business Economics, 30 (3), 283-299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-006-9043-9.
  139. Varis, M., & Littunen H. (2010). Types of innovation, sources of information and performance in entrepreneurial SMEs. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13(2), 128-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14601061011040221.
  140. Vedung, E. (1998). Policy instruments: typologies and theories. In M.L. Bemelmans-Videc, R.C. Rist, & E. Vedung (Eds.), Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation (pp. 21-58). London: Routledge.
  141. Vega-Jurado, J., Gutiérrez-Gracia A., Fernández-de-Lucio, I., & Manjarrés- Henríquez, L. (2008). The effect of external and internal factors on firms' product innovation. Research Policy, 37(4), 616-632. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.001.
  142. Vos, J-P. (2005). Developing strategic self-descriptions of SMEs. Technovation, 25(9), 989-999. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.02.014.
  143. Voudouris, I., Lioukas, S., Iatrelli, M., & Caloghirou, Y. (2012). Effectiveness of technology investment: Impact of internal technological capability, networking and investment's strategic importance. Technovation, 32(6), 400-414. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2012.04.001.
  144. Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., Santoro, G., & Papa, A. (2017). Ambidexterity, external knowledge and performance in knowledge-intensive firms. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(2), 374-388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9502-7.
  145. Walsh, S. T., & Linton, J. D. (2001). The competence pyramid: A framework for identifying and analysing firm and industry competence. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 13(2), 165-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537320124246.
  146. Weerawardena, J., O'Cass, A., & Julian, C. (2006). Does industry matter? Examining the role of industry structure and organizational learning in innovation and brand performance. Journal of Business Research, 59(1), 37-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.02.004.
  147. Wong, P. K., Ho, T.P., & Autio, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth: Evidence from GEM data. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 335-350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-005-2000- 1.
  148. Woschke, T. & Haase, H., & Kratzer, J. (2017). Resource scarcity in SMEs: Effects on incremental and radical innovations. Management Research Review, 40(2), 195-217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MRR-10-2015-0239.
  149. Zahra, S. A. (1991). Predictors and financial outcomes of corporate entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 6(4), 259-285. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(91)90019- A.
  150. Zahra, S. A., & Covin, J. G., (1993). Business strategy, technology policy and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 14(6), 451-478. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140605.
  151. Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., & Tam, C. M. (2010). Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation, 30(3), 181-194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.08.003.
Cytowane przez
Pokaż
ISSN
2299-7075
Język
eng
URI / DOI
https://doi.org/10.7341/20211746
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu