Suchergebnisse

Although systems of innovation approach is gaining popularity among researchers and policy-makers, it is still rather difficult to apply this approach to specific policy settings and designs, because the approach is too general and does not provide many direct suggestions for building up an innovation system. It is often pointed out that in catching-up countries the innovation policy is not aligned with the specific circumstances of the innovation systems, but copies similar policies in more developed countries instead. This article finds by analysing the functional side of Estonian national innovation system, that the functions involving the provision of knowledge inputs and constituents of the innovation system, but also support services for innovating firms rather than demand-side activities are recognized by local policy designers. We suggest that by aligning the structure of the innovation system, more coherent logic of public-private co-evolution and better alignment of respective innovation policy measures should be followed. By looking at individual functions, it is clear, that the demand-side activities of innovation policy can be used more to enhance innovation activities in a more targeted way. More generally, we find that the functions that public sector performs in a national innovation system, should be designed and developed carefully in a balanced way, which is especially important for a small catching-up country, where the risk to create misalignments in the system is larger.

Empirical studies have shown that the internationalization processes of firms in re-search and development (R&D) are slower compared to those of trade or investments. The pioneers of R&D internationalization have been high-tech companies in small mar-kets with little research resources in their home countries. The motives for internation-alization in R&D besides widening the R&D resource base concern the search for the novelty value of collaboration for innovation, but the costs are associated with collab-orative capacity and lack of experience. EU has aimed at boosting Europe's industrial leadership and competitiveness via different policy instruments, mainly R&D subsidies to SMEs and larger firms for collaborative partnerships with various institutional and geographical scopes. By comparing FP7 and Horizon2020, two recent Framework Pro-grammes (FPs), the innovation focus has strengthened besides basic research within subsidized R&D activities. Additionally, the projects involve more partnerships between higher education and research institutions, private firms and public sector bodies. The picture of the network formed by supported projects shows a concentration around larger and older EU member states while the smaller countries, but also EU13 (the new member states) locating on the periphery. Individual countries are engaged in international R&D networks with different patterns, but for EU13 countries the network-ing barriers seem to be higher, even in the most successful cases the single partner (mostly SME) projects dominate. In gaining stronger hub roles in the private firm R&D networks, the economies in all countries need to improve connectivity within and out-side their communities.

To enhance competition in the construction industry, EU policies have created and harmonised functional building codes. Moreover, many actors advocate the construction industry moves towards a lean production, process-based way of working for quality and cost reasons. Here, Timber Framed Engineering approaches are considered to have a competitive and environmental advantage. There is however underlying concerns that conservatism in the construction industry, and lack of timber engineering skills, may be obstacles to change. This paper therefore assesses whether EU construction policy innovation contributed to innovation at the firm level. Timber framed innovators in six European countries were identified, and their sources of innovation assessed. The results indicate that timber framed firms have become actors in the construction industry. Firms have made product, process and organisation innovations. All case firms have similar sources for innovation. The common factor that triggers the firms to innovate is business opportunities that arise from demographic changes in the environment outside the firm, such as environmental sustainability and affordable housing for lower income groups. To address these opportunities, the case firms implicitly recognised that traditional project and site-based construction approaches are an incongruity. The firms have consequently established in-house prefabrication, including developed of lean production processes to ensure quality as well as effectiveness. The firms have all recognised that a fundamental barrier to their business was the lack of timber framed engineering competencies in their customers organisations. Accordingly, a business necessity for the case firms was developing construction design competencies. Firms benefited from governmental policy instruments that support timber framed Randamp;D and knowledge transfer. However, firms also gained new knowledge from their own experiences, which they also use in their operations. Accordingly, policy instruments are not a sole or dominant source for innovation in the case firms. Nonetheless, the change in building codes has been a pre-requisite the firms commercial developments. ; Original Publication: Saana Tykkae, Denise McCluskey, Tomas Nord, Pekka Ollonqvist, Marten Hugosson, Anders Roos, Kadri Ukrainski, Anders Q Nyrud and Fahrudin Bajric, Development of timber framed firms in the construction sector - Is EU policy one source of their innovation?, 2010, FOREST POLICY AND ECONOMICS, (12), 3, 199-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2009.10.003 Copyright: Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam. http://www.elsevier.com/