Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe extant literature runs short in understanding openness of innovation regarding and the different pathways along which internal and external knowledge resources can be combined. This study proposes a unique typology for outside‐in innovations based on two distinct ways of boundary spanning: whether an innovation idea is created internally or externally and whether an innovation process relies on external knowledge resources. This yields four possible types of innovation, which represent the nuanced variation of outside‐in innovations. Using historical data from Canada for 1945–1980, this study unveils different implications of these innovation types for different levels of innovation novelty. Copyright © 2016 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explain in detail the strategic asset‐seeking OFDIs of Chinese firms in Denmark through a theoretical lens that combines the updated OLI (Ownership, Location, Internalization) paradigm and the internalization theory. Meanwhile, the authors hope to unveil the unique characteristics of firm specific advantages (FSAs, including O and I advantages) and country specific advantages (CSAs, including L advantages).Design/methodology/approachThe authors chose two case firms that just started investing and a third one that was in the process of preparing investment in Denmark. Primary data were collected by semi‐structured interviews in English at various locations in late 2009 and early 2010. The three Chinese firms in this study share a common primary objective in their strategic orientation of OFDIs. That is to seek strategic assets that are complementary and critical to augment their existing FSAs.FindingsRugman stated that strategic asset‐seeking OFDIs are supposed to have high levels of FSAs and CSAs. This study presents a more detailed analysis regarding the O, L and I advantages that Chinese investing firms in Denmark are perceived to possess. It was found that these Chinese investing firms had high levels of Oa and Oi but Ot was largely absent; furthermore, although Lr was obviously appreciated in Denmark, Li presented a mixed picture. The paper also found that internalization advantages were only able to be realized when investing firms were good at utilizing networking and guanxi, which were largely derived from their prior Oi advantages.Originality/valueFew have analyzed strategic asset‐seeking OFDIs made by emerging markets based on the FSA/CSA matrix that combines the OLI paradigm and the internalization theory. This study pursued this research endeavor by enriching a refined framework that connects the OLI paradigm, which recognizes multiple dimensions of O advantages and an institutional perspective, to the internalization theory, which converts O and I advantages into FSAs and associates L advantages with CSAs.

The essays in this book aims to map the nature and extent of the societal impacts of Big Science and the mechanisms that generate such effects, as well as highlight the complex realities that can be used as guidelines to fund Big Science facilities, and how we can maximize their impact. As science itself has become a subject of study and debate beyond the scientific community, these collected essays aim to encourage a dialogue with relevant stakeholders (such as scientists, policymakers, research managers and industry) and highlight the complex role that science plays in today's society.

The interactions between universities and businesses have become key drivers of today's economic growth and firms' business success. However, a key factor, the existing relationship between government and industry funding, is largely underexplored. This study investigates the relationship between government and industry funding for universities, in the context of developing countries, specifically taking China as a case. We found that there is a substitution effect between the two types of funding and this effect varies from different types of universities. We discuss our findings and draw implications for firms that seek to collaborate with universities.

The EU and its leadership is often criticized as lacking a coherent long-term vision on Europe's future. Thus far, EU policy in the area of innovation and economic growth has been primarily framed as an effort to close the so-called innovation gap with USA, South-Korea, and other countries. In this discussion paper, a group of EuroTech Universities professors in the area of Innovation and Entrepreneurship address and highlight several key challenges in the transformation towards an inclusive and sustainable European economy. In the absence of along-term systemic perspective on Europe's challenges in the area of innovation and economic growth, we propose such a perspective here.