DATOS PERSONALES a) Nombre completo:
2.6. b Asimilación del proyecto escala Cuestionario
Porter asserts that ‘the enduring competitive advantages in a global economy lies
increasingly in local things – knowledge, relationships, motivations – that distant
rivals cannot match’ (1998, p.78). On the basis that the national dimension
constitutes an abiding feature of SIs, the nation state plays a central role in
mobilising resources and establishing competency bases through education
(Lundvall et al., 2009). Innovation activity in SMEs responds to different
41 | P a g e
defining influence. Although US firms have dominated the market for traded
software since its origin, turnover among leading software companies
demonstrates competitive strength at the level of the nation rather than the firm.
This is in keeping with Mowery’s (1999) assertion that ‘comparative’ advantage is
more enduring than ‘competitive advantage’(p.133), a noteworthy aspect of system
design.
The policies and programs of governments, their laws, common language and
shared cultures, define boundaries that largely affect how technical advances occur
(Nelson, 1993). Indeed, the international exploitation of innovation developed on a
national basis has been identified as the most diffuse form of globalisation
(Archibugi, Howells and Michie, 1999). Delineating national-cultural and statist-
political dimensions, SIs are described as:
…. constituted by elements and relationships which interact in the production, diffusion and use of new and economically useful knowledge and that a national system encompasses elements and relationships, either located within or rooted inside the borders of a nation state (Lundvall, 1992, p.2).
The OECD (1999) proposes a model that describes the market and non-market
institutions influencing the direction and speed of innovation and technology
diffusion, including the connections between components designed to facilitate
performance. It articulates the roles of the main actors and the forms and intensity
of their interrelations, including the key processes of knowledge generation,
42 | P a g e
their relationships. Supporting these activities are other aspects of the commercial,
technological and regulatory environment within which firms operate (Roper &
Love, 2006). As depicted in Figure 2-2, the SI focuses on countries' innovative
abilities but more specifically, on the relations between company actions and the
broader national context, including input providers, customers, government
agencies and universities who help define ‘maps’ for firms’ search activities (Sloth
Andersen, 1997, p.177). In summary, the model provides a tool for analysing
country specificities in the innovation process as well as a guide for policy
formulation (OECD, 1999, p.22).
Figure 2-2: Actors and linkages in the Innovation System (OECD, 1999, p.23)
The NSI concept presumes the existence of a nation under the control of a state
authority, albeit ‘drawing the precise boundaries of an ecosystem is an impossible,
and in any case, academic exercise’ (Iansiti and Levine , 2004, p.2). Throughout
43 | P a g e
developed superior product and process technologies, production mechanisms and
marketing strategies which have conferred significant advantage on their host
nations (Mowery and Nelson, 1999). These factors support the logic of NSI (and its
derivations) as a conceptual framework recognising that much innovation relies on
resources and interactions outside organisational boundaries (Lundvall, 2007).
At the national level, ‘countries and companies vary in respect of their structural
adjustment to different starting points in economic evolution, technological and
industrial specialisations, institutions, policies and attitudes to change’ (OECD,
1998, p.3). Early studies emphasise nation-specific innovation patterns in their
historical, political and cultural context (Balzat and Hanusch, 2004), along with a
tendency to cluster spatially and temporally (Breschi & Malerba, 1996; Howells,
2005), aspects which have particular resonance for analysis of firm-fit. In order to
understand why some countries, and indeed some companies in some countries,
are more successful at innovation than others, McKelvey (1993) describes the
search for a normative perspective on the SI approach.
Anchored in socio economics, the concept is credited with delivering a holistic
perspective on the roles of policy governance and institutions for the analysis and
application of technical and social innovation. NSI provide a much broader
foundation for policy than the market failure-based approach whereby measures
are driven by the identification of failure and parallel justification as to how policy
change can bring the system closer to its optimal state. Given the link between
innovative know-how and economic performance, the proactive role of the state in
44 | P a g e
of fundamental importance. While the stereotypical image of innovation is one of
path breaking endeavour, most firms engage in incremental rather than pure play
innovation (Danneels, 2002), possibly in the knowledge that innovations with a
closer fit to firm competencies tend to be more successful (Autio et al., 2000;
Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1987, 1993; Kleinschmidt & Cooper, 1991). Although most
innovations are incremental, many are built on technologies with links to science
and engineering principles. Freeman (1992) reflects both scenarios:
When there is a radical discontinuity in technology systems the role of the Science and Technology network becomes exceptionally important. But when the main direction of technical change is the improvement and diffusion of a familiar technology, the interaction with users becomes more important (p.187).
System hierarchy and intervention
While the SI is commonly applied at macro and meso levels, the firm itself
constitutes a system. As firms grow, develop new technologies and become
increasingly interdependent, they foster both vertical and lateral relationships
(Child and Kieser, 1981). Schilling (2000) describes organisations as systems within
the context of an industry, and industries as systems within the context of an
economy.
While seen as a framework built from the bottom-up rather than one imposed from
above, there are differing views on levels of interventionism within SIs. Rather than
creating jobs per se, the role of government is to create and maintain an enabling
environment. For example, the drivers of Silicon Valley’s ecosystem appear
45 | P a g e
architectures in Europe (Cooke, 2001). Reflecting on the role of government,
Breznitz (2007) contrasts variants of market liberalism in Israel and Taiwan with
‘neoliberal interventionism’ in Ireland. Cooke (2001) interprets public intervention
as a symptom of market failure, suggesting that the innovation gap between
Europe and the US is due in part to European entrepreneurs failing to recognise
innovation opportunities in marked contrast to their North American counterparts.
Whether traits, culture, institutions or resources are at the root of their contrasting
fortunes is unclear. This research addresses institutional aspects of fit.
Metcalfe (1995) contrasts two policy perspectives; the first, the enabling stance
aimed at building an economic environment which is conducive to technological
advance. The second is intervention directed at particular firms, products or
technologies leading to policies which support the development of particular
sectors. Depending on the technologies or sectors selected, policy is not
automatically welfare-improving (Metcalfe, 1999) and it is important to understand
the consequences that follow. Policy makers strive to nominate technologies with
the potential to offer enhanced returns, but influencing expectations as to winning
technologies or ‘picking winners’ may have far reaching and unintended
implications. More broadly, governments need to make careful assessments of the
balance between support for high technology sectors and that aimed at innovation
and technology diffusion throughout the wider economy (OECD, 1999). The impact
46 | P a g e
Scientific Research and Education
Incremental and science-based innovations are not opposites - science-based
technologies require systemic innovations in both products and processes to be
adopted and used by industry (McKelvey, 1993). Supporting the transition from S&T
policy towards Innovation policy, the systems approach has helped to shift the
perspective from linear to interactive processes with greater emphasis on people,
organisations and competence building (Lundvall, 2007). In an assessment of what
makes basic research economically viable, Pavitt (1991) notes the indirect
contributions made by scientists, who due to their training, can perform a variety of
activities within industry. This, he suggests is as important as more typical output
measures, such as patents and publications.
Referring to education and training as the ‘Achilles’ heel’ of British Industry for over
a century, Freeman (1987) argues that policy responses have been hindered for a
range of institutional and political reasons. Organisations and other social systems
resist change even when the environment provides strong pressure for it, so change
can be frustrated by conflicts and compromises. O’Malley, Hewitt-Dundas and
Roper (2008) suggest that education in Ireland acts as a general ‘signal’ to help
secure employment, however the system is seen to lack correlation between
educational attainment and required competencies. While recognised disciplines
are supported, there is often a failure to integrate commercially-relevant
components, such as the ability to understand product-market fit, or to combine
business acumen with foreign language fluency in support of export growth, or
47 | P a g e
Domain expertise
While incremental innovations in established sectors mainly consist of private
initiatives using private funds, more radical technology shifts tend to require
government intervention through public R&D funding or through procurement
policy. Such interventions demonstrate that policy is not neutral, but rather
‘countries should accept the idea of picking winners while avoiding subsidising
losers’ (Edquist and Hommen, 2008, p.463). Maintaining competitive advantage in
high-cost countries relies significantly on innovation driven by policy instruments,
facilitated by universities and research institutes (Audretsch and Beckmann, 2007).
While the US has the appearance of the most marketised SI in the world, federal
funding is seen to sustain its scientific leading edge (Cooke, 2002).
The US hardware and software industries illustrate important differences in
national patterns of supply and demand. As well as the VC sector providing smart
money, Mowery and Nelson (1993) describe the importance of Defence
Department funded R&D and procurement programs backed by university research
and training, in developing a skills pool substantially deeper than Japanese and
European equivalents. In Japan, funding was instead focused on a small number of
established firms. The development of domain expertise in the US was bolstered by
a substantial domestic market for mainframe computers, a sophisticated user base
and strong antitrust policy that nurtured the emergence of independent software
firms. This position contrasts with the erosion of the US position in the chemical
industry, emphasising the differing impacts of national and sectoral policy
48 | P a g e
frameworks, Balzat and Hanusch (2004) call into question the appropriateness of
the NSI approach suggesting the superiority of regional, technological or sectoral
criteria. Sectoral Systems are analysed below including qualification their selection
as the conceptual framework on which the research is based.