Group items tagged

Based on the Community Innovation Survey, this paper suggests new indicators of innovation adoption. The magnitude of innovation adoption is assessed for 22 EU countries and different industries. The most striking feature is the correlation between the innovation activities and the adoption rate. Countries with strong R&D and human resources and high innovation output exhibit the highest adoption rates. This supports the idea that innovation adoption requires an absorption capability. In addition, the specificities of each country regarding the prevailing types of innovation and adoption (product or process, cooperation-based adoption or internal adoption) allow us to draw up a typology of the EU countries, for which a specific geographical pattern is observed.

Although R&D has been highlighted as the main source of firm-level innovations, a significant group of firms develop innovations without performing R&D activities. The primary goal of this study is to understand the sources of innovation in such firms. To accomplish this goal, we explore the role played by other, non-R&D activities that can lead to innovation - activities such as technology forecasting, design, use of advanced manufacturing technologies and training. Our empirical analysis is based on a representative panel of Spanish manufacturing firms. The results strongly support the view that non-R&D activities are critical factors in explaining both product and process innovations attained by any firm, especially in the case of firms not performing R&D. Academic, managerial, and policy implications are derived from these results.

Technology and change are so closely related that the use of the word innovation seems synonymous with technology in many contexts, including that of higher education. This paper contends that university culture and existing capability constrain such innovation and to a large extent determine the nature and extent of organisational change. In the absence of strong leadership, technologies are simply used as vehicles to enable changes that are already intended or which reinforce the current identity. These contentions are supported by evidence from e-learning benchmarking activities carried out over the past five years in universities in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.

This article reviews and compares the developments in six countries which claim to be an education hub. It explores the meaning of education hub, introduces a working definition, and proposes a typology of three kinds of education hubs as follows: student hub, skilled work force hub, and knowledge/innovation hub. Furthermore, it identifies issues requiring further research and reflection on whether hubs are a fad, a brand or an innovation worthy of serious attention and investment.

In this paper, we introduce a new framework that generates a list of strategic actions to support successful management of the innovation process as new technologies are taken to market. The framework links different stakeholders inside and outside the organisation to obtain an holistic view of the requirements necessary to develop the new technology. It integrates and synthesises existing frameworks into an inclusive set of guidelines. The framework is then tested in a case study located in a mid-size semiconductor organisation currently seeking new business opportunities in the emerging photovoltaic market. We conclude by reflecting on the usefulness of the model. Theoretically, the paper contributes to the literature on the management of the introduction of new technologies; practically, the framework provides a normative tool for practising managers.

The race to establish regional education hubs is a recent development in cross-border higher education. This article briefly examines the rationales and strategies used by three countries in the Middle East and three in South East Asia which are working towards positioning themselves as regional education hubs. The different approaches and purposes among the six countries highlight the need for a typology of education hubs. Three types are proposed: the student hub, the training and skilled workforce hub, and the knowledge/innovation hub. The final section of the paper takes a closer look at Malaysia's cross-border education initiatives and its actions to establish itself as a competitive education hub in a region where Singapore and Hong Kong have similar intentions. Whether Malaysia has the ability to make a quantum leap from being a student hub to becoming a knowledge/innovation hub remains to be seen and appears to be an optimistic outlook.

"The nano initiative in the US and elsewhere encourages and promotes various forms of multi-stakeholder activities, such as industrial collaborations. Forming part of the discourse of expectations around emerging technologies, collaboration is an important resource holding together different practices of knowledge production. In the conversations between policy and science, collaboration becomes a measurable entity and a measure in itself, figuring in the evaluations of the performance of individual faculty and research centres; however, the policy metaphor of 'collaboration' stands for a variety of different forms and shapes of interactions between university and industry. From a discourse analysis perspective, 'folk theories' of nano collaboration help to explore the dynamics of the university/industry boundary in the scientific organisational discourse as in a recent series of interactions with scientists, university officials and technology transfer officers in a number of US universities. What does the introduction of the new entity (nano) mean for scientists, and for university practices of technology transfer and commercialisation, in terms of trying to accommodate individual 'nano' cases into university regulations and procedures? How are these practices and experiences discussed in terms of collaboration? Assessments of value of collaboration ranged between polarised views, raising questions about occasions, audiences and communities of assessors invoked in the construction of acceptable accounts of nano collaboration. Metaphors and analogies were used to mobilise specific meanings in the discourses of the innovative potential of emerging fields. As such, assessments of the potential of terms pertinent to the emerging discourses, such as collaboration, would be better based on the assumption of shared meanings, not fixed and given, but actively achieved."