Doctoral dissertation presentation 2014

The Role of Intermediaries in Solving System
Problems in Regional Innovation Systems
Ph.D. Candidate:
Xabier Alberdi Pons
Supervisors:
Ph. D. Mario Davide Parrilli &
Ph. D. Juan José Gibaja Martíns

1. Motivation of the study
To call into question the collective
effectiveness of intermediary
organizations in solving a number
of system problems (i.e. lack of
managerial or technological
competences of private firms).

2. Background
2.1 The Importance of Innovation as a Key Driver of
Economic Growth and Welfare (World Economic
Forum, 2014; Global Innovation Index, 2014)
 Innovation leads to economic development and
competitiveness.
 Europe´s competitiveness is far from even.
 These differences call for academic attention.

2. Background
2.2 Difficulties Faced by Firms to Innovate
 In economics, innovation has been particularly linked to
technological betterments (Fagerberg, 2013).
 However, technologies come at a cost and not all firms
can invest:
 Resource constraints
 Innovation results are not automatic or guaranteed

2. Background
2.3 The Neoclassic Answer
 Governments have often funded the creation of new
knowledge and technologies as a means to support the
innovation of private sectors.
 This support stems from neoclassic rationales (Nelson,
1959; Arrow, 1962).
 …but firms, particularly SMEs, often incur in a wider
number of limitations that exceed the “technological”
perspective.

2. Background
2.4 This means that “technological gaps” often come
together with other limitations, or “system problems”
 “Technological” gaps: Lack of technological capabilities.
 “Human resource” gaps: Lack of management capabilities of
private firms.
 “Openness and learning” gaps: Lack of networking
capabilities.
 “Financial” gaps: Lack of financial capabilities.
 (Bessant and Rush, 1995 & 2000; Altenburg et al., 1998; Nauwelaers and
Wintjes, 1999; Beck and Demirguc-Kunt, 2006; Parrilli et al., 2010)

3. Intermediary organizations. Beyond
knowledge transfer.
3.1 Firms are often unable to overcome all these
limitations by themselves
 Consequently, interaction begins to be presented as a key
determinant that could help them overcome these limitations.
 Best accepted Innovation System definitions will describe them
as self-motivated environments.
 “The elements and relationships which interact in the production, diffusion
and use of new and economically useful knowledge” (Lundvall, 1992);
 …“firms and other organizations are systematically engaged in interactive
learning” (Cooke et al., 1998);
 “A system of innovation networks and institutions (…) defined by strong,
regular, internal interaction promoting innovativeness” (Kostiainen, 2002).

knowledge transfer.
3.2 Experience proves that interaction does not
necessarily occur in an automatic fashion
 System problems are also opportunities for the intermediary
viewpoint.
 “…agents or brokers in any aspect of the innovation
process between two or more parties” (Howells, 2006).
 There´s an evolution in their services to satisfy new systemic
demands (Howells, 2006; Nauwelaers, 2011).
 Their specialization has contributed to the creation of a
number of types of organizations and services, as follows:

knowledge transfer.
Table 1 Intermediary Categories, a typology:
Category System problem Profile Empirical evidence
Intermediary
Category 1
Gap 1. Lack of
management
capabilities.
Knowledge Intensive
Business Service
Organizations (KIBS)
Bessant and Rush 1995 and 2000;
Hagardon and Sutton, 1997; Hagardon
1998; Nauwelaers and Wintjes, 1999; Muller
and Doloreux, 2007.
Intermediary
Category 2
Gap 2. Lack of
networking capabilities.
Burt, 1992; Hagardon, 1998; Nauwelaers
and Wintjes, 1999; Muller and Doloreux,
2007.
Intermediary
Category 3
Gap 3. Lack of
technological
capabilities.
TTAs, technical
advisory groups,
business and trade
associations.
Nauwelaers and Wintjes, 1999; Martin and
Scott, 2000; Parrilli et al., 2010; Dalziel,
2010.
Intermediary
Category 4
Gap 4. Lack of financial
capabilities.
Venture capitalists,
Banks, business angels.
Nauwelaers and Wintjes, 1999 ; Murphy
and Edwards, 2000; Beck and Demirguc-
Kunt, 2006

knowledge transfer.
3.3 The
“intermediary
component”

4. Research Question, Database and
Methodology
4.1 Research Question
Does a dense network of intermediary
organizations predict well integrated
Innovation Systems?
… Does each intermediary category tap into
the corresponding system problem?

4.2 Database
Methodology
 Characteristics
 Novel Design
 A total of 27 indicators

4.3 Methodology
 The data is gathered in two different matrices.
 First, we perform a Multiple Factor Analysis on each dataset.
 Then, we perform a Cluster Analysis on the results of each
Multiple Factor Analysis.
 Last, Canonical Correlation Analysis unfolds the relationship
between the former outputs.
 In terms of data analysis, our outputs stem from R (R Development Core
Team, 2011).
Methodology

5. Contributions
5.1 Conceptual Contributions
 New “intermediary” component
 Creation of intermediary categories
 Location of problems
 Better communication among literature strands

5. Contributions
5.2 Methodological Contributions
 We add up to a recent literature tradition that specializes
in the analysis of RISs (Coronado and Acosta, 1999;
Susiluoto, 2003; Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, 2007; Chaminade
et al., 2012; Navarro and Gibaja, 2012).
 However, our exploratory approach changes the subject
of analysis to intermediation as a new possible way to
explain innovation capacity.

6. Results of the Analysis
6.1 We Produce two Typologies
The first typology categorizes Spanish regions with
regards to the existence or absence of system problems.
Regions are classified in four groups, from integrated to
disintegrated RISs.
The second typology categorizes Spanish regions with
regards to the presence or absence of intermediary
categories tapping into these problems. Regions are also
classified in four groups, from active to inactive -or
inexistent- intermediary components.

6.2 …and we also explore the relationship between
them (1)
component)

6.2 …and we also explore the relationship between
them (2)
Dimension 1
Dimension 2
Extremadura
Castile La Mancha
Asturias
Aragon
Dimension 1
Dimension 2
Gap 1
Gap 2
Gap 3
Gap 4
Cat 1
Cat 2
Cat 3
Cat 4
Navarre
Basque Country
Madrid
Catalonia
Rioja
Andalusia
Cantabria
Castile Leon
Galicia
Valencia
Murcia
Canary Islands
Balearic
Islands

6.3 The dissertation establishes that the level of
integration of a RIS can be predicted through the
analysis of the density of its intermediary components
 The results build on the statistical significance of our model.
 Wilks´s λ of 0.09, p-value < 0.001.
 These results support that active intermediary components
come together with integrated RIS, and vice versa. 1.
Navarre, BC, Catalonia and Madrid. 2. Andalusia,
Extremadura, Murcia, etc…

7. Further Research
Identify New Pairs of System Problems and Intermediary
Categories
Re-engineer the innovation intermediation agenda and its
relation with “great challenges” and regional –smart-strategies”
…it is not only interaction what produces innovation, but
clever intermediation…
Design New Sets of Variables to assess intermediary
organizations under Evolutionary Rationales

8. Limitations
8.1 Methodological limitations
 Longitudinal analyses could help improve the robustness of
the results.
 Secondary data.
 It implies inherent difficulties in drawing inferences about
intermediary performance.
8.2 Theoretical imitations
 This is still a narrow observation of a “wider” array of system
problems (i.e. lock in, fragmentation, etc…).

9. Summary
We study the influence of intermediaries on the
competitiveness of –Spanish- regional economies and
create typologies that group these regions according to
the presence or absence of system problems and
intermediary categories.
The thesis builds on novel conceptual and methodological
advancements and techniques to assess the presence of
intermediary organizations over a number of system
problems.
The presence of intermediary organizations comes
together with the absence of system problems in Spanish
regions (i.e. Navarre, BC, Madrid and Catalonia) and vice
versa (i.e. Andalusia, Extremadura…).

10. Thanks!!
This is it! & now is time for me to thank…
 The members of the panel,
 My thesis directors, Davide and Juanjo (Happy birthday
Juanjo!!!) ,
 My family and friends, and university colleagues,
 Members of the University of Deusto, Orkestra and
CIRCLE.

Doctoral dissertation presentation 2014

More Related Content

Similar to Doctoral dissertation presentation 2014 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Doctoral dissertation presentation 2014