Abstract
Innovation intermediaries are believed to have a beneficial influence on innovation processes, but as there are no universally accepted metrics of intermediary performance it is difficult for these organisations to provide the evidence of their contributions. We present a general-purpose methodology for measuring the impact of innovation intermediaries that applies across all types of intermediaries. We demonstrate the methodology by assessing the impact of the Global Access Program (GAP), which is made available to Finnish firms through Tekes, an intermediary organisation whose mission is to enhance Finnish industry through technology and innovation. Our findings show that the GAP program has had an impact on the performance of participating firms in terms of revenue growth, exports, new international customers, and employment growth. Consistent with our expectation that impacts on firm performance are a consequence of earlier impacts on firm resources and capabilities, we find a statistically significant relationship between the immediate impact of strategic information and advice, and information and advice on new markets, and longer term impact on firm performance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
References
Audretsch, D. B., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2002). Public/private technology partnerships: Evaluating SBIR-supported research. Research Policy, 31, 145–158.
Cote, J. A., & Buckley, M. R. (1987). Estimating trait, method, and error variance: Generalizing across 70 construct validation studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 315–318.
Dalziel, M. (2006). The impact of industry associations. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 8, 296–306.
Dalziel, M. (2010). Why do innovation intermediaries exist? 2010 DRUID Conference, London, UK. http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewabstract.php?id=500976&cf=43.
Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? Research Policy, 32, 209–227.
Feldman, M. P., & Kelley, M. R. (2006). The ex-ante assessment of knowledge spillovers: Government R&D Policy, economic incentives and private firm behavior. Research Policy, 35, 1509–1521.
Furman, J., Porter, M., & Stern, S. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy, 31, 899–933.
Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35, 715–728.
Human, S. E., & Provan, K. G. (1997). An emergent theory of structure and outcomes in small-firm strategic manufacturing networks. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 368–403.
Inkinen, T., & Suorsa, K. (2010). Intermediaries in regional innovation systems: High-technology enterprise survey from Northern Finland. European Planning Studies, 18(2), 169–186.
Kaufmann, A., & Tödtling, F. (2001). Science-industry interaction in the process of innovation: The importance of boundary-crossing between systems. Research Policy, 30, 791–804.
King, A. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2000). Industry self-regulation without sanctions: The chemical industry’s responsible care program. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 698–716.
Koskenlinna, M., Smedlund, A., Ståhle, P., Köppä, L., Niinikoski, M.-L., Valovirta, V., Halme, K., Saapunki, J., & Leskinen, J. (2005). Välittäjäorganisaatiot – moniottelijat innovaatioita edistämässä [Intermediary organisations – allrounders promoting innovations]. Technology Review 168/2005. Helsinki: Tekes. (In Finnish.)
Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science parks and the growth of new technology-based firms – academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy, 31, 859–876.
Markman, G. D., Phan, P. H., Balkin, D. B., & Gianiodis, P. T. (2005). Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 241–263.
McEvily, B., & Zaheer, A. (1999). Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 1133–1156.
McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (1999). Logic models: a tool for telling your program’s performance story. Evaluation and Planning, 22, 65–72.
Millar, A., Simeone, R. S., & Carnevale, J. T. (2001). Logic models: a systems tool for performance management. Evaluation and Program Planning, 24, 73–81.
Renger, R., & Titcomb, A. (2002). A three-step approach to teaching logic models. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(4), 493–503.
Rogers, P. J. (2005). Logic model. In S. Mathison (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (pp. 232–235). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sakakibara, M., & Branstetter, L. G. (2003). Measuring the impact of US research consortia. Managerial and Decision Economics, 24, 51–69.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48.
Ståhle, P., Smedlund, A., & Köppä, L. (2004). Välittäjäorganisaatioiden rakenteelliset ja dynaamiset haasteet: osaselvitys innovatiivisesta johtamisesta monen toimijan verkostossa [Structural and dynamic challenges of intermediary organisations: A partial investigation of innovative management in a multi-actor network]. Finland’s Ministry of Trade and Industry. http://ktm.elinar.fi/ktm_jur/ktmjur.nsf/All/82C22418EEFA2836C2256F26003D29AA/$file/jaettu_johtajuus_final.pdf. (In Finnish.)
Suvinen, N., Konttinen, J., & Nieminen, M. (2010). How necessary are intermediary organizations in the commercialization of research? European Planning Studies, 18, 1365–1389.
Tekes Annual Review 2009. http://www.tekes.fi/en/community/Annual%20review/341/Annual%20review/1289.
Yu, Z., & Heshmati, A. (2007). Growth and performance of science parks in China. In A. Heshmati (Ed.), Recent developments in the Chinese economy (pp. 55–82). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Minh Lam and Raine Hermans of Tekes, Bob Foster and Elwin Svenson of the UCLA Global Access Program, and Brian Barge and Andree Boisvert of The Evidence Network.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dalziel, M., Parjanen, S. (2012). Measuring the Impact of Innovation Intermediaries: A Case Study of Tekes. In: Melkas, H., Harmaakorpi, V. (eds) Practice-Based Innovation: Insights, Applications and Policy Implications. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21723-4_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21723-4_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-21722-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-21723-4
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)