Innovation in R&D service firms: evidence from the UK
Research and Development (R&D) service firms make significant contributions to innovation in other businesses. The extant literature considers these firms a homogenous sub-group of Knowledge Intensive Business Service firms (KIBS). The objective of this study is to investigate how R&D service firms innovate and the variety of innovation practices within these firms. Employing data from semi-structured interviews with senior managers from 32 UK-based R&D service firms, we suggest that there are two different modes of innovation: in the first mode, R&D service firms innovate similarly to KIBS whose innovation is ad-hoc in nature and driven by customers’ requests; another group of R&D service firms innovate like New Technology-based Firms (NTBFs) relying more on structured in-house R&D activities.
The globalization of services plays an important role in the general process of the globalization of science, technology and innovation. Liberalization and advances in information and communication technologies has transformed knowledge-intensive services - not simply improving their trade prospects, but altering how industrial activities are conducted, integrating services and goods and contributing to the unbundling of services activities, their outsourcing and offshoring. These processes allow multiple points of entry for new types of organization, including the expansion of new knowledge-intensive service activities and the development of new international service suppliers. This has implications both for innovations in these activities, and for their role in contributing to innovation systems around the world
Research and development service firms (RDSFs) are a particular type of technology‐based knowledge‐intensive business services (KIBS). RDSFs provide clients with R&D services on a contract basis, and operate as knowledge intermediaries linking research and market. They are innovative in their own right, as well as supporting innovation efforts by their clients; they rely on their own innovation efforts to be competitive and to develop new value propositions for their clients. The present paper explores the innovation process in RDSFs, drawing on semi‐structured interviews with founders and senior managers of 32 companies in the United Kingdom. Our findings suggest that RDSFs vary considerably in terms of their primary innovation drivers (i.e. whether they are mainly driven by market demands or by technological opportunities) and the outcomes they pursue (i.e. whether their outputs are mainly services to clients or a mixture of services and products and/or intellectual property). Four major orientations of RDSFs were identified: (i) technology‐based innovation exploiters; (ii) science‐focused innovation explorers; (iii) client‐driven innovation integrators; and (iv) open innovation translators. This variety among firms normally belonging to the same, small subsector of KIBS, suggests the need for caution in generalising about behaviour in terms of such statistical groupings.
This paper focuses on coproduction of knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) and the impact it causes on their innovation activity. Coproduction refers to the customer engagement in one or more stages of the services production process. Although coproduction and value co-creation are close concepts and very often are used interchangeably, significant differences between these concepts exist as the latter covers a wider range of provider-client interaction during consumption and usage stages. While value co-creation is related to the development of the customer experience, coproduction is devoted to the creation of the service offering itself. According to the service-dominant logic, which is the most common framework in this field, customer is always a co-creator of value, while his involvement in coproduction is optional. This paper aims at studying whether those KIBS that involve their customers in coproduction are more innovative. The research model includes a set of innovation drivers like human capital, advertising expenditures, the existence of multiregional branch network and standardization as well as the coproduction measure. This model was empirically tested using a dataset of 441 KIBS enterprises in Russia. The results show that coproduction have a strong positive effect on the implementation of both technological and non-technological innovations in KIBS. It means that innovation-oriented KIBS may benefit from developing coproduction-based strategies. These findings contribute to both innovation management and KIBS studies and provide opportunities for future research in both fields
The paper examines the structure, governance, and balance sheets of state-controlled banks in Russia, which accounted for over 55 percent of the total assets in the country's banking system in early 2012. The author offers a credible estimate of the size of the country's state banking sector by including banks that are indirectly owned by public organizations. Contrary to some predictions based on the theoretical literature on economic transition, he explains the relatively high profitability and efficiency of Russian state-controlled banks by pointing to their competitive position in such functions as acquisition and disposal of assets on behalf of the government. Also suggested in the paper is a different way of looking at market concentration in Russia (by consolidating the market shares of core state-controlled banks), which produces a picture of a more concentrated market than officially reported. Lastly, one of the author's interesting conclusions is that China provides a better benchmark than the formerly centrally planned economies of Central and Eastern Europe by which to assess the viability of state ownership of banks in Russia and to evaluate the country's banking sector.
The paper examines the principles for the supervision of financial conglomerates proposed by BCBS in the consultative document published in December 2011. Moreover, the article proposes a number of suggestions worked out by the authors within the HSE research team.