TRIPLE HELIX noms.pmd

O-141Strategic openness for successful innovations: the case of SMEs in theChaudière-Appalaches regionMoulay Othman Idrissi Fakhreddine, Nabil Amara, Réjean Landry, Laval University, Quebec, CanadaCurrent understanding: Recently growing attention has been devoted to the concept of Open Innovation which is describedas: combining internal and external ideas as well as internal and external paths to market to advance the development of newtechnologies (Chesbrough, 2003). This concept redefines relations between the firm and its surrounding environment (Laursenand Salter, 2006), making it more prone to work with different actors such as universities, R&D institutes, technology transferagencies, and so forth. The use of these institutions and others to leverage innovation inside firms were conceptualized by theconcept of openness (Laursen and Salter, 2006). In this study, we are interested in the pattern of use of external source ofinformation (ESI) by SMEs in the region of Chaudière-Appalaches in the province of Quebec (Canada). In fact, few studies haveanalyzed the openness in the context of SMEs (van der Vrande et al., 2009). There are many type of ESI to which firms couldbe open, notably, suppliers, customers, competitors, universities, etc. Given strategic choice, different openness to a variety ofESI is likely to exhibit differences in the process of innovation. This issue raise the question: how firms, especially SMEs, goopen to a set of ESI to support their innovative activities? This is very important since SMEs have limited resources (OCDE,2005). When considering innovation under theses circumstances, openness by SMEs will be dependent on their strategic useof ESI. Thus, two hypotheses emerge. The first, complementary hypothesis, suggests that openness to one external source ofinformation is complementary to another source. The second, substitution hypothesis, rest on the idea that openness to oneESI come at the expense of openness to other sources.Research question: This paper addresses three questions: to what type of ESI SMEs in the Chaudière-Appalaches region areopen? Do SMEs in this region are simultaneously open to a set of ESI? Are there differences in the determinants of theopenness of these SMEs to different ESI?Contribution to the field: Studies on the openness of firms have been analyzed using a variety of ESI (Leiponen and Helfat,2009). Other studies have been content to study the effect of a single source such as universities (Teixeira and Costa, 2006).Finally, some studies have studied more specialized source such as universities, research institutions, and private consultants(Tajar and Tether, 2008). The evidence of the openness of SMEs to a set of ESI in complementary or substitution ways is stillscanty. To the extent to our knowledge, there are no studies documenting this type of hypothesis in the case of SMEs. Thispaper has two purposes. First, it explores whether a set of ESI are complementary or substitute (or conflicting). Second, itexplores heterogeneities in the determinants of openness of SMEs in the Chaudière-Appalaches region regarding their innovativeactivities.Methodology: To explore these research questions, first we use a survey database that was designed and collected byCHSRF/CIHR Chair on Knowledge transfer and innovation. The survey targeted a total population of 1214 of which 615 manufacturingfirms have participated. Secondly, to distinguish the set of ESI that SMEs in this region are most open to, ESI variables arerecoded. Third, in order to verify that SMEs in this region are open simultaneously to ESI previously identified a MultivariateProbit Model is used. This paper uses this model to reflect the fact these SMEs consider simultaneously whether or not to beopen to a set of ESI. Finally, the same econometric model is used to identify the determinants of the openness of these SMEs.Expected findings and implications: The main outcome of this paper is two fold: first level descriptive statistics will show thatSMEs in the region Chaudière-Appalaches are open mainly to six ESI. Second, using Multivariate Probit Model, we expect theresults to provide evidence of the existence of complementarities (positive correlations) or substitution (negative correlations)between the ESI. The implication of the statistics results will be discussed in relation to the formulation of supportive policies toSMEs in their openness to ESI.Selected references:Chesbrough, H. W (eds) (2003). Open innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston:Harvard Business School Press.Laursen, K and A Salter (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K.manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131-150.Leiponen, A. and C. E. Helfat (2009). "Innovation Objectives, Knowledge Sources, and the Benefits of Breadth." StrategicManagement Journal. 31 (2): 224-236.OCDE (2005). Oslo Manual, Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, Paris, OCDE and Eurostat.Teixeira, A. A. C. and J. Costa (2006). What type of firm forges closer innovation linkages with Portuguese Universities? FEPWorking Papers 207, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto, revised.Tether, B. S. and A. Tajar (2008). "Beyond industry-university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, privateresearch organisations and the public sciencebase." Research Policy 37(6-7): 1079-1095.van de Vrande, V., J. P. J. de Jong, W. Vanhaverbeke and M. de Rochemont (2009). "Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motivesand management challenges." Technovation 29(6-7): 423-437.Madrid, October 20, 21 & 22 - 2010159