Ph.D. Candidate:

Xabier Alberdi Pons

Supervisors:

Ph. D. Mario Davide Parrilli &

Ph. D. Juan José Gibaja Martíns

The Role of Intermediaries in Solving System

Problems in Regional Innovation Systems

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

2.3 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)

2. Background

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).

3. Intermediary organizations. Beyond

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:

3. Intermediary organizations. Beyond

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

3. Intermediary organizations. Beyond

knowledge transfer.

3. Intermediary organizations. Beyond

knowledge transfer.

3.3 The

“intermediary

component”

4.1 Research Question

4. Research Question, Database and

Methodology

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

Characteristics

Novel Design

A total of 27 indicators

4. Research Question, Database and

Methodology

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).

4. Research Question, Database and

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. Results of the Analysis

6.2 …and we also explore the relationship between

them (1)

component)

6. Results of the Analysis

6.2 …and we also explore the relationship between

them (2)

Dimension 1

Dim

en

sio

n 2

Dimension 1

Dim

en

sio

n 2

Gap 1

Gap 2

Gap 3

Gap 4

Cat 1

Cat 2Cat 3

Cat 4Navarre

Basque Country

Madrid

Catalonia

Rioja

Asturias

Aragon

CantabriaCastile Leon

Galicia

Valencia

Extremadura

Andalusia

Castile La Mancha

Murcia

Canary IslandsBalearic

Islands

6. Results of the Analysis

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

Design New Sets of Variables to assess intermediary

organizations under Evolutionary Rationales

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…

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. Limitations

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 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…).

The thesis builds on novel conceptual and methodological

advancements and techniques to assess the presence of

intermediary organizations over a number of system

problems.

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.