Innovation processes in moderately innovative countries

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – UNDER PRESS

Innovation processes in moderately innovative countries: the competencies of knowledge brokers1

Cannavacciuolo Lorella, University of Naples Federico II, Piazzale Tecchio 80,80125, Napoli, [email protected] Capaldo Guido, University of Naples Federico II, Piazzale Tecchio 80,80125, Napoli, [email protected] Rippa Pierluigi, University of Naples Federico II, Piazzale Tecchio 80,80125, Napoli, [email protected]

Lorella Cannavacciuolo, Phd in Economic and Managerial Engineering, carries out her research activity at the Department of Business and Managerial Engineering of the University of Naples Federico II. Her research interest are technology transfer System to foster innovation in SMEs, network system among SMEs studied through the Social Network Analysis approach, Planning and Control Systems with a particular attention towards design and implementation of Planning and Control Systems in healthcare public institutions, such as hospitals and local healthcare delivery structures, Innovative Costing Model to study the cost related to processes. She is author of several international publication.

Guido Capaldo received a PhD in Business and Management from the University of Rome Tor Vergata (Italy) in 1996. He is full Professor of Business Economics and Organizations at the Faculty of Engineering of the University of Naples Federico II (Italy). He carries out his research activity in the Department of Business and Managerial Engineering at the University of Naples Federico II. His main research interests include management and organization of public services companies, small innovative companies, and human resource management evaluation through the competency-based approach. His papers have been published in Omega, R&D Management and Small Business Economics.

Pierlugi Rippa is Assistant Professor at Federico II University of Naples, School of Managerial Engineering. He received his PhD in Business Management at the Engineering Faculty of the Federico II. He spent a period as Visiting Researcher at California State University, Chico, USA and one at Wayne State University, Michigan. His research interests include information system management, ERP systems, Knowledge Management Systems, Innovation. He is author of papers published in international journals and presented at international conferences, and he received two awards for best paper in two different international conferences. He is president elect for the year 2014 of the Global Information and Technology Management Association.

1

Results from this analysis are part of a wider research project named REBASING, funded with support from the

European Commission. The aim of this project is to verify the level of adaptability of successful brokers activities experienced in northern region of Europe into different economical and geographical contexts such as Italy. The project partners are Confindustria Veneto SIAV (Italy), University of Padua (Italy), Treviso Tecnologia (Italy), August Horch Akademie Gmbh (Germany), Tallin University of Technology (Estonia) Bergen University College (Norway) and University of Naples Federico II (Italy).

1


ABSTRACT Successful innovation processes are strongly related to collaborations among actors in the business environment, including small and medium enterprises, local institutions, business associations, liaison offices, and technology transfer offices. Such collaborations are not well guided in moderately developed regions, where actors are not well supported by local institutions, and the level and quality of communication among them is extremely low. The success of collaborative processes is strongly related to the competence level of professionals known in the literature as “individual knowledge brokers”. In this paper, results from a field research aimed at exploring the types, roles, activities and competences of knowledge brokers in different brokerage processes in Southern Italy are presented. Results are discussed in order to define guidelines for education and training policy to enhance the coverage and to strengthen the capacity of the knowledge brokers in moderately developed countries.

Keywords: knowledge broker, innovation, SMEs, moderate innovative countries, competences based approach

2


1. INTRODUCTION A crucial ingredient of any system of innovation is the connection of different parties, including industrial firms, universities and research institutes, and political arrangements that support innovation (Van Lente et al., 2003). Intermediaries that connect, translate and facilitate flows of knowledge guarantee the connections of these parties. As Pansera (2013) argued, in order to support innovation sustainability in less developed countries, Innovation Systems (IS) have to focus their strategy on firms’ competence-building, that is the process of learning and renewal of skills that are necessary to innovate. Hence, IS have to stimulate and to activate effective relationships between economic and political institutions with the aim to invest in endogenous capability through a process of interactive learning (Wagner 2011). In particular, brokerage processes can improve the exchange of knowledge amongst companies and research centres, and can provide a link between research producers and end users by developing a mutual understanding of goals and cultures (Kitson et al., 1998; Dobbins et al., 2009; Sowe et al., 2006; Pratim, 2007; Howells, 2006). Different typologies of knowledge brokers can act in brokering processes with different roles: entrepreneurs and managers seek the external environment to acquire technological knowledge enabling product or process innovations; researchers and scientists act as knowledge providers to enrich development processes of new products and processes in the business environment; consultants working as intermediaries among firms, research centres and governmental institutions facilitate knowledge and technology transfer processes. Identifying the key competences of knowledge brokers is crucial to define innovation development policies in moderately developed country. Moderately innovative countries are the ones that show weak or modest levels of innovative performance and intermediate levels of development. In moderately innovative contexts, the limited presence of high-technology industries implies that much of the R&D effort will be made by universities and public laboratories rather than by domestic firms, hence the great relevance of public R&D expenditure (Salavisa and Vali, 2011). The study of these actors’ performance and activities is therefore especially important in these countries. This paper will present a case study realized in Italy, a country widely recognized by the European Union as a moderately developed one. More in depth, the research was undertaken in the Southern part of Italy, a less developed region if compared to the Northern part of Italy. In this context, what is evident is how Southern Italy is currently a region where, due to the high number of applied research centres and technology transfer offices (some funded with Regional incentives), and several doctorate initiatives funded by private companies, there exists a potential “research manager” professional figure that could aspire to be enrolled as knowledge broker. Moreover, in the last 20 years, local governments in Southern Italy have invested substantially in the development of local organizations devoted to sustain innovation processes at a local dimension, which are mainly public funded and managed and controlled by the public institutions. This investment gave rise to the development of direct interventions which were poorly contextualized and inadequately met the expectations of the industry in these regions, thus promoting a distribution of funds without a specific focus on the real and local innovation needs and trends. To give an example, the Campania Region promoted the internationalization of local science and encouraged extensive international mobility of scientists. These developments essentially took place at the level of public research organizations and were not paralleled at the industrial level. Or, some master degree programs in collaboration with leading international universities were totally supported by the government for local citizens (who participated to these masters for free). But those citizens are now employed out of Italy, and as a consequence, the return of the investment for the Region in the local environment is very low, and the impact of this effort in the industrial structure is very limited. The thesis of this paper is that policies must be focused on the development of skills and competences supporting innovation processes in a region all along different period of time, thus creating a culture in the region “autosustainable”. For all of these reasons, the questions posed in this paper are: which kind of knowledge broker’s skills and competences should be reinforced to increase the level of successful interactions among firms, research centers and local institutions? How can they be spread within the regional context through specific training and educational policies? Which specific measures should be programmed by the local governmental institutions to better promote the role of the knowledge broker?

3

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – UNDER PRESS The paper is so structured: first, a literature review on the role and the definition of the knowledge broker will be presented; then, the based case studies will be showed; finally, discussions from case studies, results, and implications will be presented.

2. KNOWLEDGE BROKERS SUSTAINING INNOVATION PROCESSES Brokerage processes can be viewed from different perspectives: as a contributor to innovation by facilitating the integration of knowledge (Innovator role, Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Hargadon and Sutton, 1997; Cillo, 2005; Bidault and Fischer, 1994); as a facilitator in the diffusion into a social system of new ideas from outside the system (Facilitator role, Aldrich and von Glinow, 1992); as a developer of new applications for new technologies in new ways (Seeking role, Hargadon, 1998); or as a gap filler in information and knowledge in industrial networks (Bridge role, Provan and Human, 1999). Individuals (Zook 2004), groups and/or organizations (Lavis et al. 2003, Hargadon 1998, 2002), and entire countries (Oldham and McLean, 1997) can play this role. Hargadon and Sutton (2000) define knowledge brokers as third parties who connect, recombine, and transfer knowledge to companies in order to facilitate innovation. According to Kitson et al. (1998), the knowledge broker provides a link between research producers and end users by developing a mutual understanding of goals and cultures, and collaborates with end users to identify issues and problems for which solutions are required. Dobbins et al. (2009) highlight that “a knowledge broker is linked with a group of end users and focuses on promoting the integration of the best available evidence into policy and practice-related decisions. The knowledge broker also synthesizes local community […] with general and specific research knowledge to assist users in translating the evidence into locally relevant recommendations for policy and practice”. Briefly, the knowledge broker contributes to innovation by facilitating the transfer of knowledge between individuals, organizations and industries and offering new solutions based on the combination of old and new ideas (Batterink et al., 2010; Sowe et al., 2006; Pratim, 2007; Howells, 2006). S/he carries out a pivotal role in connecting and transferring knowledge between actors with very high cognitive distance, such as SMEs and Research Centres, and in favouring SME’s competence-building to support innovation sustainability in less developed countries (Pansera, 2013, Neto et al., 2014). According to Gould and Fernandez brokering structures (1989), the broker can belong to one of the two organizations to connect or it can be external of both organizations. Kirkels and Duysters (2010) adapted Gould and Fernandez brokering structure to innovation process and identified five brokerage typologies (figure 1).

Figure 1 - The brokerage typologies in innovation process (Kirkels and Duysters, 2010, adapted from Gould and Fernandez, 1989)

An individual j is said to broker between i and k (solid points in Fig. 1) if and only if i is tied directly to j, j is tied directly to k, and i is not tied directly to k. Depending on different configurations of group membership among actors i, j and k, one of five types of brokerage relations may result. An actor in a network can fulfil several of these roles. On one hand, the actor can be a gatekeeper for the group s/he belongs to; on the other hand the actor can function as a liaison that passes along information to a cluster of people he does not belong to. This concept points to the individual broker’s capacity in networks and also describes what types of brokers are present in a network. It provides information about the mixture of relations in a network. A lack of certain roles in a network tells us something about the flow and transformation of knowledge in the field. The brokering structure affects the activities carried out by brokers to manage an innovation process.

4

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – UNDER PRESS Regarding brokers’ functions and activities, in table 2 a synthesis of the literature on brokers’ activities is proposed: Authors (Year) Klerkx and Leeuwis (2009) Howells (2006)

Dobbins et al. (2009)

Gregory (1995), Bessant and Rush, (1995), Batterink et al, (2010)

Broker’s activities  demand articulation;  network formation;  innovation process management.  foresight and diagnostics;  scanning and information processing;  knowledge processing and combination/recombination;  gatekeeping and brokering;  testing and validation;  accreditation;  validation and regulation;  protecting the results;  commercialization;  evaluation of outcomes.  initial and ongoing needs assessments;  scanning the horizon;  knowledge management;  network development,  maintenance, and facilitation;  facilitation of and support for organizational change.  technology assessment;  technology/market scanning;  technology forecasting;  project management;  identification options for patent;  funding;  linking R&D and basic sciences Table 1 – Typologies of activities in brokering process

Based on these, we identified the following as typical phases in a brokerage activity: 1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

Firm’s innovation needs identification: Realisation of a systematically and regular audit of technological needs of the enterprise, so as to identify initial and on-going needs; analysis of emerging trends, implementation of organisational audit; Innovation goals identification and selection: Assessment of new technologies and innovation priority setting; Acquisition and planning: Planning and acquisition of investments for a research and development process/project; Exploitation and protection: Innovation exploitation and patent protection; Networking: Building, maintaining and expanding networks among R&D providers and users.

This process will represent the basis of the field study illustrated below. 2.1 BROKERS’ COMPETENCES Regarding brokers’ competences, we focused on the role they play in helping Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in finding competent partners that provide them with complementary assets and resources for sustaining innovation processes. In fact, limited resources and time to spend on learning to acquire knowledge (Lavie and Rosenkopf, 2006; MacGregor, 2004; Narula, 2004; Powell et al., 1996) and limited scanning ability make SMEs unable to find competent partners (Grimaldi et al., 2013). In this perspective, Kolodny et al. (2001) identified the following requirements as essential for the proper functioning of innovation brokers: visibility and accessibility to SMEs, trustworthiness to SMEs, access to appropriate sources of knowledge and information relevant to the innovation process, credibility of the intermediary organization with these sources, quick response to the requests of SMEs, and complementarity to the weaknesses of the SMEs it serves. Bessant and Rush (1995) emphasize how managerial

5

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – UNDER PRESS capabilities are also needed to carry out the transfer of knowledge. Other main skills of brokers, related to the success of this activity, are: expertise in both end users' and researchers' domains (Pyper 2002; Jackso-Bowers, 2006); ability to tailor the key messages from research evidence to the local/regional perspective, ensuring the 'language' used is meaningful for different end users (Hargadon 2002; Lavis et al. 2003; Wolpert 2002); capability to develop a trusting and positive relationship with end users and to assist them to incorporate research evidence in their policy and practice decisions (Lavis et al. 2003; Roy et al. 2003); capability of create networks of people with common interests (Loew et al. 2004; Zook 2004). Ziam et al. (2009) also emphasize the cognitive ability of the broker, that is the capacity to absorb knowledge. The cognitive ability is strongly influenced by the individual’s knowledge base and previous investment (Jones, 2006). The author also stressed the capacity to develop and maintain relationships with individuals, groups, organizations and industries, since new knowledge is created through a constant stream of problems and solutions combined with exchanges between individuals (Hargadon, 2002).

Ward et al. (2009) consider the range of skills, which are required to fulfil the different roles of a knowledge broker as a challenge. They assume that the ability to gather, critically appraise, synthesize and tailor research and other evidence are key skills for information management roles, along with the ability to hear, understand and structure decision making issues (CHSRF, 2003; Robeson et al. 2008). For linkage and exchange roles communication skills, mediation skills, networking skills and the ability to establish credibility are equally important (CHSRF 2003; Lomas 2007). In addition, the literature suggests that good interpersonal skills and personal attributes such as flexibility, curiosity and self-confidence are key to successful knowledge brokering (CHSRF 2003; Thompson et al. 2006; Lomas, 2007; Robeson et al.2008). Literature on knowledge brokers’ competences refers to this role in general, with no specification about the broker typology (gatekeeper, liaison, representative, etc…), affiliation (free lance, entrepreneur, employee), or context in which the broker develops his/her experiences. Based on these concepts, our explorative field study will analyze the challenging role of the knowledge broker in a low-innovative environment such as the one of a moderately innovative country. Since brokering activities can assume different characteristics based on the environmental and productive context; the kind of network the broker is involved in; the width of key activities performed by the broker; the broker’s affiliation; and the role of the partners; we will explore which competences are required to sustain innovative processes.

3. THE FIELD RESEARCH In line with the literature review, this research is aimed at exploring and systematizing the competences that knowledge brokers activated/developed/enhanced in the course of projects they were involved in. The exploratory nature of this study suggests the use of a qualitative methodological approach. Thus case study is a useful tool to understand the complex nature of entrepreneurship, as recommended by Gartner and Birley (2002). In particular, as stated in the literature, backgrounds and affiliations of the broker deeply impact on the innovation outcomes and different models can be used to explain the role of the broker. For this reason, our field study will concern a moderately developed country, namely Southern Italy. A call for participation in our survey was sent to the major innovation support centres (universities liaison offices, technological and scientific parks, incubators, competences centres) located in Southern Italy. As a result of this call, we revealed how the professional figure of the broker is poorly widespread, and for this reason, only few centres decided to participate in this research. The selection of the case studies (listed in table 2) is the result of a wide collection of institutions and professionals’ figures working in Southern Italy, acting as technology broker. Those brokers come from three regions located in the Southern part of Italy (Campania, Apulia and Calabria). The European Community considers such regions as moderately innovative regions. Moreover, those three regions are quite similar according to several factors: the presence of large technical universities and research centers (such as “Federico II of Naples” or “Politecnico di Bari”); a wide number of small enterprises where innovation processes still take a long time to be realized if compared with other regions of Italy and Europe; the presence of several constraints and barriers to firms and research centers engaging in partnerships; the largest part of funded projects is mainly originated by public money.

6

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – UNDER PRESS Case study Position of the Broker Affiliation

Typology (see Fig. 1)

Region

1

Consultant

Large Enterprise

Gatekeeper

Campania

2

Manager

Large Enterprise

Gatekeeper

Campania

3

Entrepreneur

Medium Enterprise

Gatekeeper

Campania

4

Entrepreneur

Medium Enterprise

Gatekeeper

Campania

5

Employees

University Liaison Office – Patent

Liaison

Calabria

6

Employees

University Liaison Office – Spin off

Liaison

Calabria

7

Employees

Italian National agency for new technologies, Energy and Liaison sustainable economic development – Patent office

Campania

8

Employees

Italian National agency for new technologies, Energy and sustainable economic development – SMEs Support

Campania

9

Employees

National Research Council – Patent Office

Liaison

Campania

10

Employees

National Research Council – Spin-off Office

Liaison

Campania

11

Employee

Italian National agency for new technologies, Energy and Liaison sustainable economic development

Apulia

Table 2 - Case Studies summary

The specific characteristics of brokers’ role and of the context in which they operate show that it is not possible to standardize brokers’ activities and competences, since they are strictly linked to brokerage typologies, broker’s affiliation and object. For these reasons, the situationalist approach (Le Boterf, 2000; Levy-Leboyer, 1996; Sandberg, 2000) is more suitable to map brokers’ competences. This is also because the situationalist approach is more concerned with contingent factors characterizing the socially constructed nature of competence (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Giddens, 1979) and the network of social and technical ties (Akrich & Latour, 1992; Latour, 1992), in which the broker is involved. Following the situationalist perspective, in this article we propose the following definition of a competency: an individual ability or characteristic that is activated by an individual together with personal, organizational, or environmental resources to cope successfully with specific work situations or specific projects. Individual abilities and characteristics are personal attributes such as skills, know-how, and traits. Resources are means for action such as tools, facilities, and relationships with other people, archives, and knowledge repositories that are made available by the individual, the organization, or the external environment as a whole. Based on the previous definitions, we refer to the European Credit System for Vocational Educational and Training (ECVET) of the European Commission Education and Culture. This is because the ECVET system is the most commonly used system in Europe to plan and define educational and training programs. Thus, according to ECVET, a competence is “the proven ability to use knowledge, skills and personal, social and/or methodological abilities in work or study situations and in professional and personal development”. Skills are “abilities to apply knowledge and to use know to complete tasks and solve problems”. Knowledge is “the outcome of the assimilation of information through learning. It is the body of facts, principles, theories and practices that is related to a field of work or study”. According to these definitions, each competence can be represented as a whole of specific skills, each of which is supported by a set of specific knowledge.

3.1 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH AND DATA ANALYSIS The main steps of the case studies approach were as follows: -

a face to face interview was conducted with the brokers who decided to participate in this research project.;

7

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – UNDER PRESS -

a cross-validation analysis was realized by triangulating data from the interviews, from the documents received by the brokers and from the website of association and organizations where the brokers were involved in

For each case study, we realized an in depth interview with the brokers. The interview was aimed at revealing the key competences to perform a successful technology transfer project and has been mostly focused on the following points: •

Professional experience and curriculum of broker (how he did develop his early competences?)

•

The project “in object”: aim, history, main phases, critical events, etc. etc.

•

Performance of the project: which kind of performance? How to measure it?

•

Factors affecting the success of the project, above all concerning the territorial context and the actors acting in sustaining SME’s innovation

•

Competences which the broker was able to activate for project success

•

Competences the broker felt he lacked for project success

Each interview was analyzed through the argument-analysis technique (see Fletcher and Huff; 1990 and De Liddo et al., 2011) in order to identify arguments and reasons that the interviewees provided to explain their excellent performance. The argument analysis maps the argument structure in order to identify key claims, facts provided as evidence for claims (grounds), inference rules used by the speaker (warrants) and linguistic expressions limiting the validity of a claim or a rule Data acquired through interviews were coded through descriptions of recurrent definitions of specific competences, according to the key broker activities we adopted and the competence elements we considered. The coding forms were discusses with the brokers in order to obtain shared definitions on competences. The analysis and codification of interviews enabled us to identify brokers’ competences according to ECVET standards through an inductive analysis with a bottom-up approach, and to analyze the role of territorial context in sustaining or hindering the brokering process, activating specific resources and complementary competences. Eleven case studies were used to reach the aim of this research. Based on figure 1, and due to the characteristics of the context in which the analysis has been realized, we have four representatives of the gatekeeper role, and 7 of the liaison one. In the following table, a synthesis of the results is reported. For each line, results of the competences needed by each kind of brokers are related to a certain number of phases of the technology transfer as reported in table 2. As it will be pointed out in the following section, each broker does not cover all the phases. It depends on the specific bridging role they assume in each context. Moreover, we revealed how the background of each broker played a critical role in the way he or she acted as gatekeeper or liaison. In order to show the results, table 3 presents one example from the eleven cases. The table presents the row level where all the phases of the brokering processes are reported, while in the column, the level of competences, skills and knowledge are reported. For space reason, table 4 illustrates the overall results from the 11 case studies. In this table, we only report the level of the competences based on the ECVET, but results and discussions are based on the total ECVET model.

8

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – UNDER PRESS TIPOLOGY OF KEY ACITIVITIES COMPETENCE

SKILLS

KNOWLEDGE

1. Firm’s innovation needs identification

C.1 Capability of identification with accuracy the needs of the customers of the robot (what expectations? What industrial application? What industrial application in different sectors?)

C.1.S.1 Capability of replication of C.1.K.1 Advanced mechanics knowledge acquired in past Knowledge experiences C.1.K.2 Advanced hardware and C.1.S.2 Capability of integrate and software Knowledge apply mechanical and electronics knowledge C.1.K.3 Manufacturing systems and Manufacturing engineering Knowledge

2. Innovation goals identification and selection

C.2 Capability to link specific company’s problems to adequate research center

C.2.S.1 Technology partner C.2.K.1 Knowledge about Research recognition on the basis of their Center capabilities and abilities ability to successfully collaborate with the firm C.2.K.2 Knowledge about the research processed and activities

3. Acquisition and planning

C.3 Capabilities to identify those C.3.S.1 Ability in the partners departments and laboratories able to selection contribute to the evaluation of the technical requirements

4.Networking

C.4.1 Capabilities to involve professors and researchers

C.3.K.1 Knowledge about the industrial research labs

C.4.S.1 Capability to “speak and C.4.K.1 Knowledge about the main understand” a scientific language scientific journal C.4.1.K.2 Knowledge about the technological evolution C.4.1.K.3 Knowledge about the research development of the involved partners

C.4.2 Capabilities to report the C.4.2.S.1 Ability to identify the role C.4.2.K.1 Knowledge about the innovation need with the researchers, of the technological partners in industrial application of the new clearly explaining the needed the industrialization of the robot robot requirements Table 3- Example of results from one case study based on the ECVET model

9

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INNOVATION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – UNDER PRESS Case study

Brokerage process object

Brokerage

Broker’s background

typology

Typologies of key activities and related broker key competences Firms’ innovation needs Innovation goals identification identification and selection

1

Transformation of a robot prototype Gatekeeper into an industrial application, (Consultant) through the selection of appropriate technological partners from the research world

Mechanical Engineer Bachelor, Electronic engineer PhD, Previous experience in academic researches, Work experiences in R&D area and manufacturing, Project Manager

2

Building of a new multi-purpose Gatekeeper plant for sintering of stainless steel (Manager) and processing of sinter-hardened materials, identifying the right suppliers of the machinery.

Chemical engineering bachelor, Capability to use previous employee in the R&D area of a experiences both in the manufacturing company, co-author of firm and in the university several scientific publications, master degree tutor, consultant

3

Research and development process Gatekeeper which, in a few years, led to the (Entrepreneur) launch of a new product

Bachelor, experience in the family firm.

Capability to identify market needs

4

Identification of research center with the right competences for undertaking the project of a new line product

Gatekeeper (Entrepreneur)

Experience in the family firm

Capability to identify market needs

5

Exploitation of innovation, patent protection

Liaison

Technical background, MBA in technology transfer activities

(employee in a Liaison Office)

6

Reinterpretation of scientific knowledge developed by the university researchers, to identify

Liaison (employee in a Liaison Office)

Technical background, MBA in technology transfer activities

Acquisition and planning

Capability of accurately Capability to link a specific Capability to identify those identify the needs of the firm’s problems to the most departments and laboratories robot’s customers adequate research center able to contribute to the evaluation of technical requirements N.A.

Networking

N.A.

Capability to involve professors and researchers

Capability to identify Capability to cooperate Capability to illustrate appropriate partners in the with university partners innovation needs to the world of technology providers, in solving problems research partners though research centers and the clarification of universities that can requirements to be met contribute to the development of the project

Capability to select actors in Capability to identify the best Capability to exploit new the supply chain to be partners from universities and product requirements involved in the project research centers from university partners.

Capability to identify new technologies for the production process

Capability to identify and Capability to help researcher collect technological in finding the patentability of knowledge developed their ideas, in defining the within the university innovation process and in estimating the time-tomarket

N.A.

Exploitation and protection


Capability to identify the best partners from universities and research center

N.A.


N.A.

Capability to assist the researchers in the patent filing

N.A.

Capability to support young Capability to support young Capability to monitor graduates in developing the graduates and researchers in and select technical business idea and business the exploitation of business knowledge and patents plan ideas based on the results of developed in the their research university, to identify opportunities for spinoffs activities

Capability to build a support network to the group of young graduates

10


7

Exploitation of research results through the patent

Liaison (ENEA Portici)

Technical background, bachelor in economics or in another scientific area (such as biology, chemistry, …)

8

Supporting and fostering the Liaison (ENEA technology innovation processes in Portici) SMEs

9

Strengthening the collaboration Liaison (ILO CNR) Scientific background, bachelor and between research and firms and at MBA exploiting the research results through patenting

10

Strengthening the collaboration Liaison (ILO CNR) Scientific background, bachelor and between research and firms and at MBA exploiting the research results through valorisation of research results through spin-off or interaction with SMEs

11

Strengthening the collaboration Liaison (ENEA between research and firms and at Brindisi) exploiting the research results through patenting

N.A.

Capability to help the researchers in finding the patentability of their ideas

N.A.

Capability to assist the researcher in the patent filing and funding

Capability to promote the patents though communication campaigns

Capability to identify the innovation path more appropriate for SMEs

Capability to plan the activities for the implementation of a specific service, ability to write a technology dossiers, ability to extract from a database a technology profile

N.A.

Capability to promote the technology profile of SMEs and research laboratories and to organize events to SMEs on innovation

N.A.

Capability to assist the researcher in the patent filing and Ability to assist the research in the application for obtaining a financial voucher

N.A.

Capability to assist the researcher in doing query of database to match the offer side (research) with the demand side (enterprise)

Capability to monitor and Capability to support young Capability to coordinate the select technical knowledge graduates in developing the development of business plans and patents developed, business idea and business on time and expected costs plan

N.A.

Capability to build a support network to the group of young graduates

N.A.

Capability to promote the patents through communication campaigns

Identification of SMEs’ innovation Capability to make a needs ad development of innovation technology audit, ability to and technology transfer path. make an innovation audit

Scientific background, bachelor and MBA

Capability to help the researcher in finding the patentability of his ideas

Capability to help the researcher in finding the patentability of his ideas

N.A.

Capability to assist the researcher in the patent filing and funding

Table 4 – Results of the case studies

11

4. RESULTS The above considerations will be focused first on the two different analyzed typologies of broker (gatekeeper and liaison). Then, general comments about the broker’s role will be presented. A gatekeeper role can be played both by a consultant (see cases 1 and 2 in table 4) as they act as free lance professional or as an employee of an advisory company) or by an entrepreneur (see cases 3 and 4 in table 4) who seeks outbound of his firm the know-how useful to innovate (know-how unavailable within his firm, but available in research centers and universities he has contact with). A gatekeeper needs skilled knowledge about the research world (main research center in his area, knowledge about research results, etc.) but also advanced knowledge about the productive processes in the field the firm operates. To be successful, a gatekeeper must be a senior with at least ten or more years of experience in entrepreneurship or in consultancy. The background of the broker, his skills and knowledge of the technical aspects of product innovation make him able to recognize the more appropriate typology of research center for the innovation project (innovation goals identification and selection). In innovation goals identification and selection activity, the capability to link specific technological problems to research centers and so the knowledge about research centers’ competences and activities are critical. In the phase of acquisition and planning, the broker’s competence of identification of requirements to be developed through the collaboration with research centers, and the competence of “speaking and understanding” a scientific language are critical. In the phase of exploitation, the broker has to use his or her competence of managing a project and of understanding the role of each partner in the network. Summarizing, our research showed that the main competences activated in the case of the Gatekeeper are the following: -

capability of technical problem identification

-

capability of link technical problem to research

-

capability of partner selection based on technical problem to solve

-

capability of managing the network for exploitation of research in the product innovation

On the another hand, liaison is a role that is mainly played within liaison offices (such as universities’ or scientific and technology parks’ departments). Such department is usually well structured, with services and facilities supporting the broker’s activities. For this reason, the liaison can be a young graduate with specific knowledge in technology transfer, acquired for example through an MBA. This broker, as a junior, has a limited level of responsibilities if compared to the gatekeeper, and is usually supervised by a senior broker. Concerning the Liaison, the competences of broker are related to recognizing and collecting technological knowledge developed by research groups and to understanding what technological knowledge can be useful for industrial sectors. Other important factors are: 

the knowledge of research activities process and technology assessment methods

the competences concerning the ability to support the researchers in patent process 

the skill to manage the patent filing thanks to the knowledge of the research typology and patent process.



the capacity of development, coordination and selection of partners in spin-off creation.

12

In general, concerning the broker competences profile, we found that such profile, generally, joins technical knowledge and scientific knowledge with managerial knowledge. Technical knowledge is used to identify problems and goals. Scientific knowledge is used to translate the technical goals in scientific language and to select scientific partners. Managerial knowledge is necessary for manage the application of the innovation project in production process. Four key elements emerge from the results: 

wide scientific and industrial background to speak the two different languages and to understand technological trajectories;



good technical background to translate the research discovery into production process needs or the production process needs into a research problem



managerial capabilities to manage the innovation project which involves a network of actors;



decision making competences to select and activate the most appropriate exploitation paths for the commercialization of research discovery.

5. CONCLUSION Based on the considerations reported in the analysis of the results, several implications can be drawn both from a scientific and from a practical point of view. From the scientific point of view, due to the lack of research on the competences of the knowledge broker, this paper proposes a new systematic approach to study and evaluate the competences of the knowledge broker. First of all, the proposed approach can be replicated in other contexts, not just the one considered in this study, namely the one of a moderately innovative country. Indeed, the design of the field study revealed how poorly diffused the professional role of the broker is in Southern Italy. From a practical point of view, suggestions for local activities aimed at the diffusion of the figure of the broker and/or the development of his level of professional competences can be discussed. This implication is mostly suggested by the total absence of relevant training and education programs in the Region under analysis. In one of the cases studied, we discovered how some competences were obtained in a Region far from the one where the Liaison Office actually operates. Educational policies are proposed based on the analysis of the competences required by a broker acting in the context of a moderately innovative region. First of all, during the phase of analysis and definition of requirements and educational objectives, and selection of participants, the following aspects should be considered: • the profile of income skills and the adequacy of the profile in relation to the training objectives. The research has highlighted the importance of a scientific and/or technical background as well as a managerial one in some cases; • the specific functions with respect to which the broker should be trained (Gatekeeper, Liaison, etc.). • the level of skills and decision-making autonomy of the figure to be developed (senior or junior) • the characteristics of the local context • the specificity of the organizations in which the broker will be employed. Moreover, given the diversity of brokers’ backgrounds, the organizations they belong to, the professional aspirations of participants, it is necessary to define specific development programs both for individual participants and for groups.

13

As a consequence, training and educational planning should be focused on the specific characteristics and needs of the participants, providing a limited number of common teaching rooms for all participants, and a fairly wide range of specialist training courses. In the initial phase of the training program, it is important that the participant acquires awareness about the territorial development models. This is crucial in order to guarantee that the broker is aware about local policies, particularly in relation to initiatives to increase the level of innovation of the region. Finally, with regard to teaching approaches, action learning should be the preferred way to teach, also through critical analysis of design brokering experiences, illustrated by expert brokers, as well as training on the field. The periodic contact with the business world contexts in which the broker will be working is also crucial, so that the broker can begin to acquire knowledge of the main requirements of innovation in the various territories. These moments of contact could be created through company visits, seminars and workshops. Similar opportunities should be developed by training students to acquire adequate knowledge about the main structures operating in the territorial context in the field of research and the results they produce.

14

REFERENCES Akrich, M. and Latour, B. (1992) “A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies”. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society (pp. 259–264). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Aldrich, H.E. and von Glinow, M.A. (1992) “Business start-ups: the HRM imperative”, in Birley, S. and MacMillan, I.C. (Eds.), International Perspectives on Entrepreneurial Research, North-Holland, New York, pp. 233–253. Batterink, M.H., Wubben, E.F.M., Klerkx, L. and Omta, S.W.F. (2010) “Orchestrating innovation networks: the case of innovation brokers in the agri-food sector”, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Vol.22 No.1, pp. 47-76. Berger, P. L., and Luckmann, T. (1966) The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of st knowledge, 1 ed., New York, Doubleday. Bessant J., and Rush, H. (1995) “Building bridges for innovation: the role of consultants in technology transfer”, Research Policy, Vol. 24, pp.97-114. Bidault, F., and Fischer, W.A. (1994) “Technology transactions: Network over markets”, R&DManagement, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp.373–86. CHSRF (2003) The theory and practice of knowledge brokering in Canada's health system, Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; Ottawa. Cillo, P. (2005) “Fostering market knowledge use in innovation: The role of internal brokers”, European Management Journal, Vol.23, pp. 404-412. Cohen, W. and Levinthal, D. (1990) “Absorptive Capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.35, pp. 128-152. De Liddo, A. , Shum, S.B., Quinto, I., Bachler, M., Cannavacciuolo, L. (2011), “Discourse-centric learning analytics”, in proceedings of ACM International Conference, Banff, AB; Canada Dobbins, M., Robeson, P., Ciliska, D., Hanna, S., Cameron, R., O'Mara, L., De Corby, K. and Mercer, S. (2009) “A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies”, Implementation Science, Vol.4 (23). Gartner, W.B. , Birley S., (2002), “Introduction to the special issue on qualitative methods in entrepreneurship research”, Journal of Business Venturing, 17 (5) (2002), pp. 387–395. Giddens, A. (1979) Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social st analysis, 1 ed., University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Gould, R.V. and Fernandez, R.M. (1989) “Structures of Mediation: A Formal Approach to Brokerage in Transaction Networks”, Sociological Methodology, Vol.19, pp. 89-126. Gregory. M.J. (1995) “Technology management: a process approach”, Proceedings of the institutions of the Mechanical Engineers, n.209, pp.347-356. Grimaldi, M., Quinto I., Rippa, P., (2013), “Enabling Open Innovation in Small and Medium Enterprises: A Dynamic Capabilities Approach”, Knowledge and Process Management, Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages 199-210. Hargadon, A. (1998) “Firms as knowledge brokers: lessons in pursuing continuous innovation”, California Management Review, 40, 209–227. Hargadon, A. (2002) “Brokering knowledge: linking learning and innovation”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol.24, pp. 41-85.

15

Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R.I. (1997) “Technology Brokering and Innovation in a Product Development Firm”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.42, No.4, pp. 716-749 Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R. (2000) ‘Building an innovation factory’, Harvard Business Review, May– June, pp. 157–166. Jackson-Bowers, E., Kalucy, L. and McIntyre, E. (2006) “Focus on knowledge brokering”, Primary Health Care Research and Information Service, Adelaide, AU. Howells, J. (2006) “Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation”, Research Policy, Vol.35, No.5, pp. 715–728. Jones, O. (2006) “Developing Absorptive Capacity in Mature Organizations: The Change Agent’s Role”, Management Learning, Vol.37, No.3, pp. 355-376. Kirkels, Y. and Duysters, G. (2010) “Brokerage in SME networks”, Research Policy Vol.39, No.3, pp. 375–385. Kitson, A., Harvey, G. and McCormack, B. (1998) “Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework”, Quality Health Care, Vol.7, pp.149-158. Klerkx, L. and Leeuwis, C. (2009) “Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector”, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Vol.76, pp.849–860. Kolodny, H., Stymne, B., Shani, R., Figuera, J.R. and Lillrank, P. (2001) “Design and policy choices for technology extension organizations”, Research Policy, Vol.30, No. 2, pp. 201–225. Latour, B. (1992) “Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts”, in Bijker, W. E. et al (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 225–258. Lavie, D. and Rosenkopf, L. (2006) “Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.49, No. 4, pp. 797–818. Lavis, J.N., Robertson, D., Woodside, J., McLeod, C. and Abelson, J. (2003) “How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers?”, The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 81, pp. 221-248. Le Boterf, G. (2000) ngenier a de las comptencias, Gestion 2000, Barcelona. Levy-Leboyer, C. (1996) a ges on des comp tences, Les di ons d’organiza on, Paris. Loew, R., Bleimann, U. and Walsh, P. (2004) “Knowledge broker network based on communication between humans”, Campus-Wide Information Systems, Vol.21, pp.185-190. Lomas, J. (2007) The in-between world of knowledge brokering. BMJ, 334 :129. Lyons, R., Warner, G., Langille, L., Phillips, S.J. (2006) “Piloting knowledge brokers to promote integrated stroke care in Atlantic Canada”, in Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Institute for Population and Public Health, Moving population and public health knowledge into action: A casebook of knowledge translation stories Ottawa, ON. MacGregor, R.C. (2004) “Factors associated with formal networking in regional small business: some findings from a study of Swedish SMEs”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol.11, No.1, pp. 60–74. Narula, R. (2004) “R&D collaboration by SMEs: new opportunities and limitations in the face of globalization”, Technovation, Vol.24, pp 153–161.

16

Neto, J.V., de Farias Filho, J.R., Quelhas, O.L.G. (2014), “Raising financial resources for small and medium enterprises: a multiple case study with Brazilian venture capital funds in the cities of Rio de Janerio and Sao Paulo”, International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Vo. 8 No. 1, pp. 77-91. Oldham, G. and McLean, R. (1997) Approaches to knowledge-brokering. International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, MB. Pansera, M. (2013), “Innovation Systems for sustainability in developing countries: the renewable energy sector in Bolivia”, International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Vo. 7, No. 1, pp. 2745. Powell, W.W., Koput, K.W. and Smith-Doerr, L. (1996) “Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: networks of learning in biotechnology”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp.116– 145. Pratim, D. (2007) "An Agent-Mediated Knowledge-in-Motion Model", Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol.8, No.5. Provan, K.G. and Human, S.E. (1999) “Organizational learning and the role of the network broker in small-firm manufacturing networks”, in Grandori, A. (Ed.) Interfirm Networks: Organization and Industrial Competitiveness, Routledge, London, pp. 185– 207. Pyper, C. (2002) “Knowledge brokers as change agents”, in Lissauer,R. et al. (Eds) New practitioners in the future health service: Exploring roles for practitioners in primary and intermediate care, Institute for Public Policy Research, London, pp. 60-70. Robeson, P., Dobbins, M. and DeCorby, K. (2008) “Life as a knowledge broker in public health”, Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, Vol.29, pp.79–82. Roy, M., Parent, R. and Desmarais, L. (2003) “Knowledge networking: A strategy to improve workplace health and safety knowledge transfer”, Electronic Journal on Knowledge Management, Vol.1, pp. 159-166. Salavisa, I. and Vali, C. (2011) “Knowledge-intensive sectors in moderately innovative countries in Europe: overcoming the missing links, stepping over barriers”, in Salavisa, I. and Fontes, M. (2011), “Social Networks, Innovation and the Knowledge Economy”, Routledge, Oxon Sandberg, J. (2000) “Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol.43, 9–25. Sowe, S., Stamelos I. and Angelis, L. (2006) "Identifying knowledge brokers that yield software engineering knowledge in OSS projects", Information and Software Technology, Vol.48, No.11, pp.1025–1033. Thompson, G.N., Estabrooks, C.A. and Degner, L.F. (2006) “Clarifying the concepts in knowledge transfer: a literature review”, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol.53, No.6, pp.691–701. Van Lente, H., Hekkert, M., Smits, R. and Van Waveren, B (2003) “Roles of systematic intermediaries in transition processes”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol.7, No. 3, pp.1-33. Ward, V., House, A. and Hamer S. (2009) “Knowledge Brokering: The missing link in the evidence to action chain?”, Evidence Policy, Vol.5, No.3, pp. 267–279. Wolpert, J.D. (2002) “Breaking Out of the Innovation Box”, Harvard Business Review, Vol.80, No.2, pp. 77–83. Ziam, S., Landry, R. and Amara, N. (2009) “Knowledge brokers: a winning strategy for improving knowledge transfer and use in the field of health”, International Review of Business Research Papers, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 491, 505. Zook, M.A. (2004) “The knowledge brokers: venture capitalists, tacit knowledge and regional development”, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol.28, pp.621-641.

17