Thesis structure

This thesis consists of a central core of chapters that have been published or submitted for publication, and chapters supporting them.

This first introductory chapter provides an orientation to the environment in which the research has been conducted, the opportunities and definition of the research questions.

The literature review (Chapter 2) provides sufficient background on innovation systems and intermediaries orient the reader and to supplement the short reviews of the literature found in the chapters reproducing published research articles.

The method chapter (Chapter 3) provides a detailed justification and exposition of the main methods employed (case study, survey and qualitative comparative analysis), to supplement the necessarily brief methods sections found in the research papers. Additional methods are described in the individual research articles (chapters 4-7.)

The following chapters (Chapters 4-7) reproduce the text of the research papers both published or in press and under review, and present the major research findings and brief discussion.

Chapter 8 presents a detailed review of the sectoral and technological innovation systems literature and the structural and functional failure frameworks arising from those innovation systems and proposes that a combination of these failure frameworks is applicable to the

4

Jenson, I, Leith, P, Doyle, R, West, J & Miles, MP 2016, 'The root cause of innovation system problems: formative measures and causal configurations', Journal of Business Research,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.127.

5

Submitted manuscript: Jenson, I, Doyle, R, & Miles, MP 'The significance of actors in innovation system performance' Technovation

12

analysis of innovation failure at a project level, and is a response to identified weaknesses in the functional failure framework.

In the last chapter (Chapter 9) the results are synthesised to support the claim to contributing to theory, method and practice and the research questions are answered. The limitations of the research and the opportunities for further research are also discussed.

2

Literature review

2.1

Introduction

The research questions in this thesis are concerned with innovation systems and intermediaries, so this chapter provides an overview of this literature. Further narrower focused reviews are provided in each of the research papers (Chapters 4-8). The aim here is to provide background to justify the approach taken to answering the research questions and the choice of methods.

2.2

Innovation Systems

The linear model of innovation, in which ideas are developed from laboratory to prototype to final commercialisation, often by a single inventor/entrepreneur, or within the one firm, has long been discarded, though it still has provides relevant insights (Balconi, Brusoni & Orsenigo 2010; Godin 2006). The systems approach has been defined in general terms as including "all important economic, social, political, organization, institutional, and other factors that influence the development, diffusion, and use of innovations" (Edquist, 1997, p.14). This approach to innovation has been developed through disciplines such as science policy studies, economic geography and sociology in a quest for a deeper understanding of the dynamics of how innovation processes occur (Fagerberg 2005). Models of innovation systems (IS) or systems of innovation (SI), which admit the complexity of innovation, and seek to understand the necessary

environments and interactions for innovation to be successful have proven to be useful tools (Dodgson et al. 2011; Manjón & Merino 2012).

Innovation systems thinking had its genesis in the 1980s as an holistic attempt to "describe, understand, explain - and perhaps influence - processes of innovation" (Edquist 1997, p.2). Innovation systems are conceptual frameworks rather than theory, which seek to maintain conceptual ambiguity in an attempt to encompass all important factors in innovation (Edquist, 1997). Key aspects of innovation systems are the emphasis on institutions, the dynamic nature of actors within the system, and the boundaries that nevertheless allow a system to be defined.

The concept of institution is central to innovation systems, rather than being assumed, as in other approaches to innovation (Edquist 1997). Institutions have been described as identifiable organisations such as universities, financial organisations, and government agencies, formal frameworks such as legal systems, intellectual property protection systems, economic policies, or informal aspects such as common habits and established practices within an industry sector (Coriat & Weinstein 2004; Edquist 1997; Edquist & Johnson 1997). The institutional component of innovation systems has also more commonly been restricted to the intangible aspects of habits, norms, routines, practices, rules and laws, with the tangible aspects of the system, expressed as firms and non-firm organisations (for example, universities, government) being considered the organisational component (Edquist 2005). These are known respectively as soft and hard institutions.

The tangible organisational structures of firms and non-firm organisations may be considered to be ‘players’, ‘agents’ or ‘actors’ (Edquist 2005; Malerba 2005). Firms may be the producers of goods and services and also the users of those goods and services or their suppliers (Malerba 2005), which is why the generic term ‘actor’ is usually used. Actors are most often considered to represent institutions, or firms rather than individuals. Innovation systems are considered to be populated with heterogeneous actors.

The activities occurring within innovation systems are broadly directed at the creation, diffusion and exploitation of innovation, encompassing activities that extend beyond conducting research activities to the building of competence within firms and other organisations, creating and changing organisations and institutions to maximise innovation outcomes, as well as business services (Edquist 2005).

With such vague, conceptual definitions of systems of innovation, it may seem that every aspect of technology and innovation is connected, and to some degree this is true. However, boundaries may be set to define an innovation system, either spatially, sectorally, or in terms of activities (Edquist 2005). Spatial limitation may be to national or regional boundaries, sectoral limitation may be to a particular technological field and limitation by activity is a way of further limiting the other two boundary criteria. Aoki (2007) utilised game theory to explore the way that institutions change, defining a domain as a space in which an actor has motivation to obtain a social outcome and institutions as the expression of the equilibrium outcome of the game. From