The Evolution of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Research - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – The Evolution of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Research PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 6881db-M2VlY



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

The Evolution of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Research

Description:

The Evolution of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Research Ben R. Martin SPRU Science Policy Research Unit, The Freeman Centre, University of Sussex – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:9
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Date added: 18 May 2020
Slides: 65
Provided by: BenMa49
Learn more at: http://www.bi.edu
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: The Evolution of Science, Technology and Innovation Policy Research


1
The Evolution of Science, Technology and
Innovation Policy Research
  • Ben R. Martin
  • SPRU Science Policy Research Unit, The Freeman
    Centre, University of Sussex
  • B.Martin_at_sussex.ac.uk
  • Presentation to the Norwegian Research School in
    Innovation (NORSI), Oslo, 3-5 September 2014

2
Introduction
  • Structure
  • Nature of field
  • Methodology
  • Pre-history
  • The pioneers
  • The field matures
  • Discussion conclusions
  • 20 major advances in understanding
  • Impact on policy/management agenda?
  • Where next? Emerging challenges
  • Some concluding questions

3
Scope of field
  • Economic, policy, management and organisational
    studies of science, technology and innovation
    (STI) with a view to providing useful inputs to
    decision-makers concerned with policies for and
    the management of STI.
  • Primary focus policy/management issues rather
    than theory
  • Research multi/inter-disciplinary Mode 2
  • Grown from a dozen or so researchers in 1950s to
    several thousand today

4
Scope of field
  • Terminology changed over time
  • Science/research policy, eng/RD management
  • ST policy, technology innovation management
  • Neo-Schumpeterian/evolutionary economics,
    innovation studies
  • Science policy and innovation studies
  • Policy science/research, technology, innovation
  • Economics science, technology, innovation
  • Management RD, technology, innovation,
    knowledge
  • Organisational studies innovation,
    resource-based view of the firm, organisational
    learning
  • Sociology e.g. diffusion of technology
    innovation (but excluding science and
    technology studies/STS)
  • History of technology and innovation, econ/bus
    history
  • Psychology org psychology, psychology of
    creativity

5
Previous reviews
  • Reviews of literature in books, review articles
  • But most based on
  • subjective assessment
  • limited aspect/perspective
  • Tried to adopt
  • rigorous approach to identifying main
    contributions
  • global perspective on entire field of science
    policy innovation studies

6
Methodology
  • Search for high-impact publications
  • No obvious measure of impact on policy/practice
  • Use HCPs as indicator of high academic impact,
    then subjectively assess impact on
    policy/practice
  • Assumes most highly cited most influential
  • Also various problems and biases with SSCI
  • Starting point
  • List of 600 leading STI policy authors
  • Surveyed 90 journals
  • Key word search
  • Identified 270 publications with gt300 citations
  • smaller threshold for more recent publications
  • (From these, synthesised 20 major advances)

7
Pre-history
  • Schumpeter (1934, 1939, 1942)
  • Importance of innovation in economic development
  • Role of entrepreneurs
  • Role of organised industrial RD
  • But also a few others
  • Ogburn (1922) theory of social change
    technology primary source of progress
  • Bush (1945) Science the Endless Frontier
    linear model of innovation
  • Barnett (1953) innovation the basis of
    cultural change

8
The pioneers
  • Economists
  • Solow (1957) technology 3rd factor in
    production
  • Griliches (1957) rate of return to RD (hybrid
    corn)
  • Nelson (1959), Arrow (1962) economics of
    research
  • Mansfield (1961, 1968) economics of tech change
  • Schmookler (1966) demand-pull model of
    innovation
  • Economic historians
  • Gershenkron (1962) how backward countries can
    benefit from tech innovation
  • Rosenberg (1976) role of technology in ind
    development
  • Also contributions to SPIS from outsiders
  • Penrose (1959) growth of firms later central
    in development of RBV

9
The pioneers
  • Sociology
  • Coleman et al (1957, 1966) diffusion of medical
    innovations by contagion
  • Rogers (1962 later editions)
  • diffusion of innovation follows S-curve
  • different categories of innovators early
    adopters, early/late majority, laggards
  • Management
  • Woodward (1958) relationship between org
    structure and performance, and influence of
    technology
  • Abernathy Utterback (1975) dynamic model of
    innovation

10
The pioneers
  • Organisational studies
  • Burns Stalker (1961) relationship between
    innovation different forms of organisation
  • Zaltman et al. (1973) ditto
  • Tushman (1977) boundary roles in innovation
    process
  • Also contributions from outsiders to SPIS
    e.g. Cyert March (1963) successful
    organisations possess spare resources that can
    channel towards innovative activity
  • Other fields
  • Political science Walker (1969) diffusion of
    new progs
  • Psychology Pelz Andrews (1966) effects of
    orgs on performance of scientists
  • Business history Chandler (1962, 1977) org
    changes, innovation emergence of
    multidivisional firm

11
The pioneers interdisciplinary
  • SPRU
  • Rothwell et al. (1974) Project SAPPHO factors
    affecting success failure in innovation
  • Freeman (1974, 1982, 1997) economics of
    innovation 1st textbook on innovation
  • Freeman et al. (1982) long waves econ
    development
  • Dosi (1982) - tech paradigms trajectories
  • Pavitt (1984) taxonomy of firms tech change
  • Dosi (1988) sources micro-econ effects of
    innovation
  • Dosi et al. (1988) tech change econ theory
    major role in development of evolutionary
    economics

12
The field matures - economics
  • Innovation evolutionary economics
  • Nelson Winter (1977) in search of a useful
    theory of innovation
  • Nelson Winter (1982) An Evolutionary Theory
    of Econ Change single most HCP in SPIS
  • Economics of technology innovation
  • David (1985) QWERTY lock-in
  • Arthur (1989) increasing returns
  • Technology, innovation growth
  • Rosenberg (1982) opened black box of
    technology
  • Abramowitz (1986) role of technology in
    catching up
  • Also contributions from outsiders, especially
    endogenous growth theory e.g. Romer (1990),
    Grossman Helpman (1991), Aghion Howitt (1992)

13
Innovation management
  • Kanter (1983) segmentalist VS integrative
    managemnt effects on innovation
  • Kline Rosenberg (1986) interactive model of
    innovation
  • Teece (1986) how firms profit from innovation
    why some fail to do so
  • Von Hippel (1986, 1988, 1994) lead users,
    sources of innovation, sticky information
  • Levin et al. (1987) appropriating returns from
    RD
  • Womack al. (1990) Japanese approaches (just
    in time, lean production)
  • Henderson Clark (1990) architectural
    innovation
  • Much work on product development innovation
    e.g. Clark Fujimoto (1991), Wheelwright Clark
    (1992)
  • Influential books e.g. Utterback (1994),
    Christensen (1997) (and by outsiders e.g.
    Porter, 1980, 1985, 1990)
  • NB Prominence of Harvard MIT

14
Innovation management
  • Resource-based view of the firm (RBV)
  • Emerged from work at interface of org studies
    (e.g. Wernerfelf, 1984 Grant, 1991, 1996) and
    SPIS
  • Built on earlier classics (e.g. Coase, 1937
    Penrose, 1959)
  • Winter (1987) knowledge competence
    strategic assets
  • Cohen Levinthal (1980, 1990) two faces of
    RD, absorptive capacity
  • Other contributions to RBV from e.g. Kogut
    Zander (1992), Leonard-Barton (1992) (core
    rigidities)
  • Teece et al. (1997) dynamic capabilities

15
Organisations innovation
  • Organisational innovation
  • Kimberly Evanisko (1981) org innovation in
    hospitals
  • Damanpour (1991) determinants of org innovation
  • Co-evolution of organisations innovation
  • Drew on new institutionalism (e.g. DiMaggio
    Powell, 1983) and others (e.g. Piore Sabel,
    1984 Chandler, 1990)
  • Tushman Anderson (1986, 1990) technological
    discontinuities often introduced by new entrants,
    destroying competence of incumbents
  • Davis et al. (1989) factors influencing
    acceptance of new technology

16
Organisations innovation
  • Org learning knowledge management
  • Drew on e.g. Argyris Schon (1978), Levitt
    March (1988), Senge (1990)
  • Hayes et al. (1988) the learning organisation
  • Brown Duguid (1991) related org learning to
    communities of practice
  • Levinthal March (1993) 3 forms of learning
    myopia
  • Nonaka (1991, 1994, 1995 Takeuchi) org
    knowledge creation
  • Leonard-Barton (1995) firm success in
    innovation depends on ability to develop manage
    knowledge

17
Networks, collaboration and open innovation
  • Networks
  • Powell et al. (1996) locus of innovation often
    in networks rather than individual firms
  • Alliances
  • Mowery et al. (1996) inter-firm knowledge
    transfers within alliances
  • Open innovation etc.
  • Chesbrough (2003) open innovation
  • Von Hippel (2005) democratized innovation

18
Systems of innovation
  • National systems of innovation
  • Freeman (1987) used NSI to explain Japanese
    success in hi-tech sectors
  • Concept co-developed with Lundvall (1988, 1992)
    and further elaborated in Nelson (1993)
  • Regional SI econ geography of innovation
  • NSI concept extended to regions e.g. Cooke
    Morgan (1998)
  • Built on earlier work by Jaffe (1986, 1989,
    1993), Griliches (1992) and Audretsch Feldman
    (1996) on RD spillovers geographic
    localisation (e.g. Saxenian, 1994)
  • Florida (2002) ability of cities to attract
    creative class vital to innovation economic
    growth

19
Systems of innovation
  • Sectoral systems
  • Contributions from e.g. Malerba, Breschi,
    Orsenigo, McKelvey but none yet highly cited
  • Tech systems, regimes niches
  • One of few cases where STS had major impact on
    SPIS
  • Bijker et al. (1987) social construction of
    tech systems
  • Taken up and applied in work on relationship
    between innovation sustainability
  • e.g. Kemp, Rip, Schot, Geels
  • socio-technical transitions, strategic niche
    management, multi-level perspective
  • Triple Helix
  • Etzkowitz Leydesdorff (2000) developing
    relationship between universities, industry
    government
  • entrepreneurial universities, third mission

20
Sociological other contributions
  • Rogers (1983, 1995, 2003)
  • updated contributions on diffusion of innovations
  • collectively the most HCP in SPIS
  • Outsiders e.g. Granovetter (1985) analysis of
    social networks much cited in SPIS
  • Burt (1987) reassessment of social contagion
    theory
  • Burt (1992) importance of structural holes
  • Gibbons et al. (1994) Mode 1 VS Mode 2
    knowledge production

21
Measuring technology innovation
  • SPIS developed various tools
  • e.g. patents (Scherer, 1965 Schmmokler, 1966
    Griliches, 1984, 1990)
  • bibliometrics (Price, 1963 Garfield, 1979)
  • But few methods or indicators publications very
    highly cited
  • unlike in economics 7 out of 10 top HCPs deal
    with econometric/statistical methods (Kim et al.,
    2006)

22
Discussion conclusions
  • Seen how intellectual foundations of SPIS emerged
    developed
  • Evolutionary economics as alternative to
    neo-classical economics
  • Interactive (chain-linked) model of innovation
    process
  • Resource-based view of the firm capabilities/
    competences of various forms
  • Notion of systems of innovation national,
    regional, sectoral
  • Gradually begun to come together fuse
  • Beginnings of an embryo paradigm?

23
Disciplinary origins of SPIS?
  • 1950s
  • Just a handful of economists (e.g. Griliches) and
    sociologists (e.g. Rogers)
  • When tribes met, confrontational debate!
  • Also a few early contributions from
  • scientists engineers (e.g. Bush)
  • management org researchers (e.g. Woodward)
  • 1960s 70s growing contribution from
  • economists (e.g. Nelson, Arrow, Mansfield)
  • econ historians (Gershenkron, Rosenberg, David)
  • org studies (e.g. Burns Stalker)
  • management (e.g. Abernathy, Utterback, Allen)
  • business history (e.g. Chandler)
  • (but relatively few from political science or
    psychology)

24
Coalescence of SPIS as a field?
  • Gradually, initially separate research activities
    started to interact
  • Often catalysed by interdisciplinary groups
    (SPRU, Manchester) e.g. Freeman (1974) book
  • But not until mid-1980s that SPIS began to become
    more integrated
  • especially round notion of evolutionary economics
    (Nelson Winter)
  • but with other important contributions from e.g.
    Kline, Rosenberg, Dosi
  • Further encouraged by development of notion of
    systems of innovation (Freeman, Lundvall, Nelson)
  • Emergence of Stanford-Yale-Sussex synthesis
    (Dosi)

25
Missing links?
  • SPIS succeeded in forging links with many
    adjacent social sciences, but also several
    missing links
  • Mainstream economics despite recognising
    importance of technology innovation, studiously
    ignored SPIS
  • Nelson Winter (1982) highly cited by all
    soc scs except economics
  • Endogenous growth theory a form of sailing
    ship effect?
  • Sociology of medical innovations (few citations
    in SPIS)
  • Marketing
  • Political science
  • Psychology
  • STS
  • Some links in 1960s (e.g. de Solla Price)
  • Relatively few interactions in 70s 80s
  • More so from 1990s on, especially in Netherlands

26
US dominance artefact or reality?
  • HCPs heavy growing dominance of US authors
  • 70s 80s - parity between US Europe (e.g.
    Freeman, Pavitt, Dosi)
  • 90s on US-based authors dominate HCPs
  • Possible reasons?
  • US largest market for attracting citations
    to earn gt300, need major influence in US
  • SPIS a relatively small community cf. economics
    or management to earn gt300 citations, need
    major influence in one of these easier in US
    where innovation scholars embedded in economics
    depts or bus schools?
  • Differences in type of research? US more
    positivist and empirical, Europe more qualitative
    interpretive? Former ? more citations?
  • US academics pay more attention to marketing,
    branding, packaging etc? i.e. more academically
    entrepreneurial?

27
Is SPIS becoming a discipline?
  • SPIS acquired some disciplinary characteristics
  • Train own PhD students rather than recruit from
    other disciplines (in early years SPIS all
    immigrants)
  • Built up set of SPIS journals
  • Shift from books to journal articles as primary
    output
  • Established quantitative methodologies
  • Identifiable core group of leading researchers
  • Shift from policy-driven agenda to more internal
    and theoretical research agenda?
  • But lack
  • Dedicated funding sources
  • An SPIS-wide professional association
  • Own regular confs to which all wings of SPIS
    bring best papers
  • An established paradigm

28
Concluding remarks
  • In 1950s a handful of researchers in economics,
    sociology management started to make
    contributions to embryo field
  • Joined by others ind psychologists, org
    scientists, historians (economic, business,
    technology)
  • Interactions between these grew, field began to
    take shape
  • From mid-1980s SPIS became a more coherent field
    centred on
  • Evolutionary/neo-Schumpeterian economics
  • Interactive model of innovation
  • Resource-based view of the firm
  • Concept of systems of innovation
  • SPIS now a community of several thousand
    researchers
  • Produced many HCPs influence extends far
    outside SPIS
  • Begun to acquire at least some characteristics of
    a discipline

29
QUESTIONS/DISCUSSION
30
What have we learned?
  • Field now 50 years old
  • Evolution of research agenda?
  • What have we learned about the interaction
    between science, technology and innovation, and
    the nature of the innovation process?
  • What have been the key developments in our
    understanding?
  • How do these help us with improving policies for,
    and the management of, STI?

31
From individual entrepreneur to corporate
innovators
  • Schumpeter (1934, 1939, 1942)
  • One of few economists in early 20th Century to
    recognise importance of innovation
  • Innovation central in competition between firms
  • Distinction between invention and innovation
  • Schumpeter Mark I
  • stressed central role of individual entrepreneur
  • Schumpeter Mark II
  • gave increasing importance to collective
    innovative activities of large firms and in-house
    RD
  • reflected changes in US industry in mid-20th
    Century
  • But still examples of Schumpeter Mark I
    (especially in IT)

32
From laissez faire to government intervention
  • Pre-WWII limited involvement of govt in RD
    innovation, except in agriculture medicine
  • WWII Manhattan project, radar, cryptography
    etc.
  • Post-WWII major RD programmes in defence,
    nuclear energy, space, health etc.
  • Based on belief in linear model of innovation
    (Bush, 1945)
  • Basic res ? Applied res ? Tech devlpt ?
    Innovation
  • Simple, clear (and convenient!) model
  • 1950-60s Govt emphasis on supply-side policies
  • Public investment in RD
  • Training of QSEs

33
From laissez faire to government intervention
  • Economic justification for govt intervention in
    STI based on market failure
  • Nelson (1959), Arrow (1962)
  • Scientific knowledge a public good i.e.
  • non-rival
  • non-excludable
  • Because they cant appropriate all the benefits
    from their investment, private firms tend to
    under-invest in RD
  • To achieve socially optimal level of investment
    in ST, govt ... needs to fund RD
  • Public funding thus expands pool of economically
    useful knowledge

34
From 2 factors of prodn to 3
  • Solow (1957)
  • Economic growth not just ... changes in labour
    capital
  • A large residual attributed to technical
    change
  • Griliches (1957, 1958)
  • High rates of return to RD
  • Social rate of return gt private rate of return
  • Other important contributions by
  • economists, e.g. Mansfield (1961, 1968),
    Schmookler (1966), Scherer (1965, 1970)
  • economic historians, e.g. Gerschenkron (1962),
    David (1975), Rosenberg (1976)
  • Freeman and SPRU colleagues
  • The Economics of Industrial Innovation (1974
    later editions)
  • Long waves and economic development (1982)

35
From single division to multi-divisional efforts
  • Burns Stalker (1961), Management of Innovation
  • Technological innovation influenced by different
    forms of organisation (e.g. mechanistic VS
    organic) with associated communication patterns
  • Successful innovation requires integration of RD
    with knowledge of market etc. often hindered by
    internal divisions in the firm
  • Zaltman et al. (1973), Innovations and
    Organisation
  • Allen (1977), Managing the Flow of Technology
  • Importance of communication flows
  • Certain organisational structures enhance
    innovation

36
From technology adoption to innovation diffusion
  • Adoption of technology not just a single point
    event but a gradual process of diffusion
  • Coleman et al. (1957, 1966)
  • individs/orgns respond to innovn opportunities
    in different ways ? social contagion model of
    diffusion
  • Rogers (1962 later editions), Diffusion of
    Innovations
  • diffusion of techy innovation often follows
    logistic S-curve
  • slow diffusion, rapid growth, growing saturation,
    then slow-down
  • different categories of innovators
  • early adopters, early majority, late majority,
    laggards
  • Vernon (1966)
  • four-stage model of the product cycle
  • new goods (i.e. innovations) generally developed
    first in industrialised countries, then diffused
    to LDCs as product matures
  • Model later formalised by Krugman (1979)

37
From sc push to demand pull
  • Science-push model Bush (1945)
  • Provided rationale for govt funding
  • Favoured by scientists
  • Demand-pull model changed market demand calls
    forth innovation
  • Mkt demand ? App res ? Tech devlpt ? Innovation
  • Often attributed to Schmookler (1966)
  • Model picked up by e.g. Myers and Marquis (1969)
  • Study of gt550 innovations in 5 industries
  • Recognition of demand is a more frequent factor
    in innovation than recognition of technical
    potential
  • 2 models have very different policy implications,
    so various empirical studies to investigate

38
Science push VS demand pull
  • Project Hindsight (1967) DoD funded
  • Study of 20 military innovations
  • Critical research events primarily technology
    rather than science'
  • 95 of critical research events directed towards
    a DoD need
  • ? demand pull more important
  • BUT arbitrary cut-off point of 20 years
  • TRACES (1968) NSF funded
  • Study of 5 civilian innovations
  • Much longer time-period
  • 70 of critical research events
    non-mission-oriented
  • ? science push more important
  • Battelle (1973) NSF funded
  • Study of 10 civilian innovations
  • Recognition of technical opportunity important
    in 89 of decisive events, cf. 69 for
    recognition of need

39
Science push VS demand pull
  • Comroe Dripps (1976) NIH funded
  • Key research underpinning advances in
    cardiovascular medicine
  • 62 of the research basic pays off twice as
    handsomely
  • Langrish et al., Wealth from Knowledge (1972)
  • Study of 84 innovations
  • Innovation must involve synthesis of some kind
    of need with some kind of technical possibility
  • Rejected simple linear models the sources of
    innovation are multiple
  • Mowery Rosenberg (1979) review
  • Innovation an iterative process, in which both
    demand and supply forces are responded to
  • i.e. both demand and supply side influences
    crucial to understanding the innovation process

40
From single factor to multifactor explanations of
innovation
  • Early studies focus on successful innovations
  • Project SAPPHO (Rothwell et al., 1974)
  • 43 matched pairs of successful unsuccessful
    innovations
  • Most important factor user needs understood
  • Other significant factors include
  • attention to marketing ? support of senior
    product champion
  • size of project team ? coordination of RD,
    production marketing
  • good communication with ext scientific community
  • Success not greatly affected by
  • RD organisation, incentives, academic
    qualifications of staff, size of firm, no. of
    QSEs, project planning, growth rate of firm
  • Subsequent work on how best to manage exploit
    innovation
  • e.g. Hayes Wheelwright (1984), Abernathy
    Clark (1985), Teece (1986), Womack et al. (1990),
    Clark Fujimoto (1991), Utterback (1994),
    Christensen (1997)

41
From a static to a dynamic model of innovation
  • Abernathy Utterback (1975 1978) dynamic
    model of product process innovation
  • Initial period dominated by radical product
    innovation
  • Attracts new entrants ? several competing designs
  • Process innovations then become more important
  • Emergence of a dominant design
  • QWERTY typewriter
  • Model T Ford
  • Hoover
  • Boeing 747
  • IBM PC

42
(No Transcript)
43
From a static to a dynamic model of innovation
  • Barras (1986 1990) innovation in services
    follows reverse product cycle?
  • Cycle starts with process improvements to
    increase efficiency of delivery of existing
    services larger firms likely to dominate
  • Moves on to process innovations which improve
    service quality
  • Leads to product innovations through generation
    of new types of services scope for small
    entrepreneurial firms to generate radical
    innovations

44
From the linear model to the interactive
chain-link model
  • Kline and Rosenberg (1986)

45
(No Transcript)
46
  1. From the linear model to the interactive
    chain-link model

Research
Knowledge
Design testing
Redesign adaptation
Customer interaction
Concep-tion
Market evaluation
Adapted from Kline Rosenberg (1986)
A better representation of (complex) reality But
harder to use for policy/mngt purposes STI
researchers keep slaying the linear model But
what happened to the other linear model?
47
From one innovation process to several
sector-specific types
  • From earlier empirical studies, clear that
    sources nature of innovation process vary with
    sector
  • Pavitt (1984) analysed sectoral patterns
  • SPRU database of 2000 innovations
  • Taxonomy of sectors
  • supplier-dominated
  • scale-intensive
  • specialised equipment suppliers
  • science-based
  • Taxonomy resolves some earlier differences in
    empirical findings re
  • ST push VS demand pull
  • product VS process innovation
  • relationship between firm size and innovation
  • Recent work shows this sectoral approach too
    static

48
From neo-classical to evolutionary economics
  • Nelson Winter (1977)
  • In search of a useful theory of innovation
  • Existing economic literature fundamentally flawed
  • Nelson Winter (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of
    Economic Change
  • Technological change and innovation central
    generate variation in form of new products,
    services etc.
  • Firms compete with these products/services
    market provides selection mechanism
  • Products/services strongly influenced by
    routines within firms provide
    self-replication mechanism
  • Analogy with biological evolution and survival
    of the fittest
  • Single most cited publication in field
  • Cited by most social scientists apart from
    economists!

49
From old to new growth theory
  • Solow (1956) neo-classical economic growth
    theory
  • Technology treated as exogenous
  • David (1985), Katz and Shapiro (1986)
  • Technology adoption ? network externalities
  • Romer (1986, 1990) New/endogenous growth
    theory
  • Neo-classical econs cant explain rate of
    growth depends on exogenous factors e.g. rate
    of savings, rate of tech change
  • Human capital and new technologies crucial
    latter can generate increasing returns (Arthur,
    1989)
  • RD can create important spillovers (Jaffe,
    1986)
  • Investment in education RD can boost growth,
    as can other incentives to innovate (e.g.
    patents)
  • ? investment in intangibles cf. previous
    emphasis on investment in tangibles (e.g.
    capital goods)
  • Further developed by Grossman Helpman (1991)
    and Aghion Howitt (1992, 1998)

50
From the optimising firm to resource-based view
of the firm
  • Neo-classical economists
  • Firm an optimising organisation, with perfect
    information rationality
  • Resource-based view of the firm (RBV)
  • e.g. Wernerfelt (1984), Grant (1991, 1996)
  • Firm a collection of resources (human,
    physical, etc.)
  • e.g. brand names, technological knowledge,
    equipment, skilled personnel, trade contacts,
    efficient procedures, capital
  • Built on earlier work by Coase (1937) and Penrose
    (1959)

51
From the optimising firm to the resource-based
view of the firm
  • Subsequent work on e.g.
  • knowledge competence as strategic assets
    (Winter, 1987)
  • absorptive capacity (Cohen Levinthal, 1990)
    (see below)
  • core competences (Prahalad Hamel, 1990)
  • the learning organisation (Senge, 1990)
  • organisational learning communities of
    practice (Brown Duguid, 1991)
  • learning myopia (Levinthal March, 1993)
  • core capabilities rigidities (Leonard-Barton,
    1992)
  • dynamic capabilities (Teece et al., 1997
    Eisenhardt Martin, 2000 Zollo Winter, 2002))
  • social intellectual capital (Nahapiet
    Ghoshal, 1998)

52
From individual actors to systems of innovation
  • Freeman (1987) success of Japan heavily
    dependent on wider national system of innovation
    (NSI)
  • Lundvall (1988, 1992), Nelson (1993) extended
    to other countries
  • NSI definition
  • that set of distinct institutions which jointly
    and individually contribute to the development
    and diffusion of new technologies and which
    provides the framework within which governments
    form and implement policies to influence the
    innovation process. As such it is a system of
    inter-connected institutions to create, store
    and transfer the knowledge, skills and artefacts
    which define new technologies. (Metcalfe, 1995)
  • How effectively a NSI operates depends not just
    on the strength of the individual actors
    (companies, govt labs, universities etc.) but
    more particularly on the strength of the links
    between them

53
From market failure to system failure
  • Nelson (1959) Winter (1962)
  • Private firms tend to under-invest in RD
  • To overcome this market failure, government
    needs to fund RD
  • cf. new rationale govt needs to overcome
    system failures develop/strengthen links in
    NSI (e.g. Smith, 2000)
  • From picking winners to building/strengthening
    links
  • e.g. via networks, collaboration, strategic
    alliances etc.
  • Technology Foresight as a means of wiring up the
    national system of innovation

54
From one to two faces of RD
  • Cohen Levinthal (1989 1990) two roles (or
    faces) of in-house company RD
  • to develop new knowledge internally
  • to identify potentially useful external
    knowledge, access and quickly exploit it
  • Concept of absorptive capacity crucial for
  • combining technologies (see below)
  • successful open innovation (see below)
  • Jaffe et al. (1993) RD generates spillovers
  • firms need to be in position to exploit
    effectively spillovers generated by others

55
From Mode 1 to Mode 2?
  • Gibbons et al. (1994), The New Production of
    Knowledge
  • Mode 1 discipline-based, largely in academic
    institutions, primarily concerned with furthering
    knowledge, subject to internal scrutiny
  • Mode 2 transdisciplinary, in variety of
    institutions, pursuing knowledge in the context
    of application, subject to ext accountability
  • Shift over time from Mode 1 to Mode 2?
  • But disputed by historians of science and
    technology
  • Pasteurs Quadrant Stokes (1997)
  • Research that is aimed both at increasing
    knowledge and at generating useful results cf.
  • Bohrs Quadrant aimed solely at increasing
    knowledge
  • Edisons Quadrant aimed solely at generating
    useful results
  • Triple Helix (Etzkowitz Leydesdorff, 1997)
  • Growing 3-sided interaction of universities,
    industry and government
  • The second academic revolution adoption of
    3rd Mission ? emergence of the
    entrepreneurial university

56
From single-technology to multi-technology firms
  • Many major innovations involve bringing together
    previously separate streams of technology
  • confluence or technology fusion (Kodama)
  • Granstrand, Patel Pavitt (1997)
  • Technological diversity of growing importance to
    innovation
  • In some sectors, firms need to combine several
    technologies
  • ? Need for strategic alliances, links with
    universities etc.

57
From national to multi-level systems of innovation
  • NSI concept extended to other dimensions
  • Regional system of innovation e.g. Saxenian
    (1994), Jaffe et al. (1993), Audretsch Feldman
    (1996), Morgan (1997), Cooke Morgan (2000)
  • Sectoral system of innovation e.g. Malerba,
    Breschi, Orsenigo, McKelvey
  • Technological systems e.g. Bijker Hughes,
    Carlsson
  • Regional system of innovation also influenced by
    e.g. cultural factors
  • R Florida (2002) cities/regions with more
    cultural diversity bohemian lifestyles more
    creative/ innovative?
  • Firms need to have effective links with all these
    different levels of systems if to benefit fully

58
From closed to open innovation
  • Knowledge required for innovating becoming more
    organisationally dispersed (?)
  • Locus of innovation shifting from within the firm
    to networks, alliances, collaborations etc.
    i.e. innovation increasingly co-produced with
    partners (suppliers, users, universities etc.)
  • Variously characterised (e.g. by Powell et al.,
    1996 Chesborough, 2003 von Hippel, 2005) as
  • open innovation
  • networked innovation
  • distributed innovation
  • interactive innovation
  • democratic innovation
  • Firms need good links with external knowledge
    sources ability to exploit these promptly
    effectively

59
20 developments in science policy
  • From individual entrepreneur to corporate
    innovator
  • From laissez faire to government intervention
  • From 2 factors of production to 3
  • From single division to multi-divisional efforts
  • From technology adoption to innovation diffusion
  • From science push to demand pull?
  • From single factor to multi-factor explanations
    of innovation
  • From static to dynamic model of innovation
  • From linear model to interactive chain-link
    model
  • From one innovation process to several
    sector-specific types
  • From neo-classical to evolutionary economics
  • From neo-classical to new growth theory
  • From optimising firm to resource-based view of
    the firm
  • From individual actors to systems of innovation
  • From market failure to system failure
  • From one to two faces of RD
  • From Mode 1 to Mode 2
  • From single-technology to multi-technology firms
  • From closed to open innovation
  • From national to multi-level systems of
    innovation

60
Impact on TI management
  • From individual entrepreneur to corporate
    innovator
  • From laissez faire to government intervention
  • From 2 factors of production to 3
  • From single division to multi-divisional efforts
  • From technology adoption to innovation diffusion
  • From science push to demand pull?
  • From single factor to multi-factor explanations
    of innovation
  • From static to dynamic model of innovation
  • From linear model to interactive chain-link
    model
  • From one innovation process to several
    sector-specific types
  • From neo-classical to evolutionary economics
  • From neo-classical to new growth theory
  • From optimising firm to resource-based view of
    the firm
  • From individual actors to systems of innovation
  • From market failure to system failure
  • From one to two faces of RD
  • From Mode 1 to Mode 2
  • From single-technology to multi-technology firms
  • From closed to open innovation
  • From national to multi-level systems of
    innovation

61
Impact on STI policy
  • From individual entrepreneur to corporate
    innovator
  • From laissez faire to government intervention
  • From 2 factors of production to 3
  • From single division to multi-divisional efforts
  • From technology adoption to innovation diffusion
  • From science push to demand pull?
  • From single factor to multi-factor explanations
    of innovation
  • From static to dynamic model of innovation
  • From linear model to interactive chain-link
    model
  • From one innovation process to several
    sector-specific types
  • From neo-classical to evolutionary economics
  • From neo-classical to new growth theory
  • From optimising firm to resource-based view of
    the firm
  • From individual actors to systems of innovation
  • From market failure to system failure
  • From one to two faces of RD
  • From Mode 1 to Mode 2
  • From single-technology to multi-technology firms
  • From closed to open innovation
  • From national to multi-level systems of
    innovation

62
Where next?
  • Have we kept up with our changing world?
  • Or are we
  • like generals, still fighting the last war?
  • like politicians, in the thrall of the ideas of
    some long-dead economist?
  • Focus of many innovation studies still reflects
    central issues of previous decades e.g.
  • innovation in manufacturing (especially hi-tech)
    rather than services other sectors
  • innovation for productivity rather than
    sustainability
  • innovation for wealth creation rather than
    wellbeing or quality of life
  • Need to refocus research agenda on new/emerging
    challenges (Martin, 2013)

63
Concluding questions
  • After 50 years of advances in science, technology
    and innovation policy research,
  • Is STI policy now more effective?
  • Do we have evidence that evidence-based policy is
    better?
  • Are the benefits from using inputs from science
    policy innovation studies greater than the
    costs and unintended adverse consequences?
  • Are science and technology now better?
  • Is the world a better place?

64
References
  • B.R. Martin, 2010, Science Policy Research
    Having an Impact on Policy?, OHE Seminar
    Briefing, No.7, Office of Health Economics,
    London.
  • B.R. Martin, 2012, The evolution of science
    policy and innovation studies, Research Policy,
    41, 1219-1239.
About PowerShow.com