dissertation in pdf-format - Aalto-yliopisto

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 2. Logistic Regression analysis of the factors differentiating IPR intensity Dependent variable (0,1): Model 1 Model 2 (firms with no IPRs / firms with IPRs) Coeff. S.E. Wald Df Exp. (b) Coeff. S.E. Wald Df Exp. (b) Independent variables Constant 0.398 1.231 0.104 1 1.488 0.425 1.119 0.144 1 1.530 Location 0.514 0.740 0.482 1 1.672 Size - 0.002 0.005 0.135 1 0.998 Age - 0.004 0.046 0.009 1 0.998 Success Index - 0.027* 0.017 2.707 1 0.973 - 0.027* 0.016 2.777 1 0.973 Public R&D funding 0.175** 0.066 7.067 1 1.192 0.186** 0.065 8.305 1 1.204 Turnover / employee 0.003 0.003 1.151 1 1.003 0.003 0.002 1.257 1 1.003 Model summary Number of firms 348 348 A priori probability firms with IPRs 0.500 0.500 A priori probability firms with no IPRs 0.500 0.500 Log likelihood 55.185 56.427 Hosmer and Lemeshow test sig. 0.294 0.192 Cox & Snell R² 0.232 0.222 Nagelkerke R² 0.310 0.297 Classification Rates (%) Overall classification 68.0 72.0 Firm with IPRs 60.9 65.2 Firm with no IPRs 74.1 77.8 Cross validation 81.2 78.2 Note: Level of significance * p .1, ** p < .01
5. Conclusions About 8% of the firms in the sample could be defined as innovative growth SMEs. Most of these firms belong to the branches of services and manufacturing. Firms with IPRs are small in size, employing 10-49 people, and belong to the age range of 5 – 19 years, similarly to the distribution of the whole sample (Table 1). One-fifth of them is located in rural areas. In this study the impact of location, branch of industry, size and age as well as success and public R&D funding on innovativeness has been tested. Finnish growing SMEs cannot be characterized to be outstandingly radically innovative either in rural or in urban areas. The result is parallel to that of North and Smallbone (2000) who concluded that relatively little difference is found in the level of innovation between SMEs in the different areas. The size and age of the firm did not differentiate IPR-intensive firms from their non-IPR intensive counterparts. This does not inevitably mean that such differences do not exist but the result is opposite to those of many former studies (Battacharya and Bloch, 2004; Bouwer and Kleinknecht, 1999) that support the resource advantage of large firms or the importance of age (Churchill, 2000; Davidsson and Delmar 1997; Huergo and Jaumandreu, 2004) in creating IPRs. The conclusions are parallel to those of Kohn and Scott (1982), who suggested that scale economies in producing innovative output are not necessarily decisive. Coad and Rao (2008) discovered that IPRs may be of crucial importance, especially to highly growing firms. This study confirms that the connection between IPRs and success is a complex phenomenon. In the short term a negative relationship may even exist between innovations and success (Bhide 2000; Freel and Robson 2004). The results also propose that there is a positive correlation between innovativeness and productivity of labour. On the other hand, higher productivity of labour may result from the increase in capital intensiveness, which may decrease the productivity of capital (return on investment). Thus, higher productivity may lead to lower success because success is a function of the productivity of capital. IPR-intensive growing firms may confront more financial pressures than those without IPRs. One explanation for this may be simultaneous heavy investment in R&D and the need for plenty of working capital at the growth stage. The results support the prior findings of Autio (2009), Bhide (2000) and Davidsson and Delmar (1997) that most successful businesses do not start or look for new opportunities by exploiting new radical innovative concepts. Instead, most entrepreneurs seem to start or grow by imitating or slightly modifying the existing products or services or by acquiring external innovations.
Page 3 and 4:
Aalto University publication series
Page 5:
Author Tomi Heimonen Name of the do
Page 9 and 10:
Acknowledgements This dissertation
Page 11 and 12:
CONTENTS PART 1: Overview of the di
Page 13:
List of Articles This thesis is bas
Page 16 and 17:
1 Introduction Some scholars claim
Page 18 and 19:
1 Introduction In addition, the dur
Page 20 and 21:
1 Introduction Figure 1: Framework
Page 22 and 23:
1 Introduction factors that affect
Page 24 and 25:
1 Introduction 1.4 Key concepts and
Page 26 and 27:
2 Literature review and conceptual
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
3 Research methodology Constructivi
Page 48 and 49:
3 Research methodology and the meth
Page 50 and 51:
3 Research methodology The data use
Page 52 and 53:
3 Research methodology 3.4 Models a
Page 54 and 55:
3 Research methodology reliable. Se
Page 56 and 57:
3 Research methodology concluded th
Page 58 and 59:
4 Results, evaluation of the studie
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67: 4 Results, evaluation of the studie
Page 68 and 69: 4 Results, evaluation of the studie
Page 70 and 71: References Abetti, P. A. (2001). Ac
Page 72 and 73: References Bhide, A. (2000). The or
Page 74 and 75: References Creswell, J. W. (2003).
Page 76 and 77: References Golafshani, N. (2003). U
Page 78 and 79: References Leitch, C., Hill, F., an
Page 80 and 81: References Pellikka, J. and Laurone
Page 82 and 83: References Storper, M. (1992). The
Page 84 and 85: Appendixes Overview: Appendix 1: Ke
Page 86 and 87: Appendixes High growth When examini
Page 88 and 89: Appendixes profitability, liquidity
Page 90 and 91: Appendixes Appendix 1 Continued (Ke
Page 92 and 93: Appendixes Appendix 2 Construction
Page 94 and 95: Appendixes Appendix 2 Continued (Co
Page 96 and 97: not increased compared to Eastern F
Page 98 and 99: ___________________________________
Page 100 and 101: propensity for risk taking (Covin a
Page 102 and 103: 2. Former studies and derivation of
Page 104 and 105: firm’s annual sales growth (Arund
Page 106 and 107: H4. Firm success has an impact on t
Page 108 and 109: other branches in which employment
Page 110 and 111: and Rao, 2008). Because of the unev
Page 112 and 113: Table 1. Characteristics of the dat
Page 114 and 115: firms from other firms. The data in
Page 118 and 119: Public R&D funding was shown to inc
Page 120 and 121: References Achtenhagen, L., Naldi,
Page 122 and 123: Kanter, R. (1985), “Supporting in
Page 124 and 125: Appendix 1. Corporate population ch
Page 126 and 127: Appendix 3. Distribution of personn
Page 128 and 129: 12 Int. J. Business and Globalisati
Page 130 and 131: 14 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen we u
Page 132 and 133: 16 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen suff
Page 134 and 135: 18 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen Glan
Page 136 and 137: 20 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen 3.2.
Page 138 and 139: 22 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen diff
Page 140 and 141: 24 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen sepa
Page 142 and 143: 26 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen Tabl
Page 144 and 145: 28 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen All
Page 146 and 147: 30 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen 5.2
Page 148 and 149: 32 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen Tabl
Page 150 and 151: 34 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen The
Page 152 and 153: 36 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen Davi
Page 154 and 155: 38 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen Appe
Page 156 and 157: 40 T. Heimonen and M. Virtanen 100
Page 158 and 159: ___________________________________
Page 160 and 161: 412 M. Virtanen and T. Heimonen “
Page 162 and 163: 414 M. Virtanen and T. Heimonen gro
Page 164 and 165: 416 M. Virtanen and T. Heimonen 6 f
Page 166 and 167:
418 M. Virtanen and T. Heimonen Fig
Page 168 and 169:
420 M. Virtanen and T. Heimonen The
Page 170 and 171:
422 M. Virtanen and T. Heimonen the
Page 172 and 173:
424 M. Virtanen and T. Heimonen 4.6
Page 174 and 175:
426 M. Virtanen and T. Heimonen exc
Page 176 and 177:
428 M. Virtanen and T. Heimonen Dav
Page 178 and 179:
430 M. Virtanen and T. Heimonen The
Page 180 and 181:
432 M. Virtanen and T. Heimonen Cha
Page 182 and 183:
392 Int. J. Entrepreneurial Venturi
Page 184 and 185:
394 J. Siikonen et al. firms’ gro
Page 186 and 187:
396 J. Siikonen et al. generally re
Page 188 and 189:
398 J. Siikonen et al. determinants
Page 190 and 191:
400 J. Siikonen et al. 3.1 National
Page 192 and 193:
402 J. Siikonen et al. 2 the firm
Page 194 and 195:
404 J. Siikonen et al. 4 Results 4.
Page 196 and 197:
406 J. Siikonen et al. innovation a
Page 198 and 199:
408 J. Siikonen et al. the responde
Page 200 and 201:
410 J. Siikonen et al. activities i
Page 202 and 203:
412 J. Siikonen et al. Eastern Finl
Page 204 and 205:
414 J. Siikonen et al. Delmar, F.,
Page 206 and 207:
416 J. Siikonen et al. Oerlemans, L
Page 208 and 209:
418 J. Siikonen et al. Appendix 1 V
Page 211:
9HSTFMG*afacab+
show all

dissertation in pdf-format - Aalto-yliopisto

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?