Which types of firm use collaborative innovative spaces?

被引:4
作者
Doloreux, David [1 ,5 ]
Shearmur, Richard [2 ]
Suire, Raphael [3 ]
Berthinier-Poncet, Anne [4 ]
机构
[1] HEC Montreal, Dept Int Business, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[2] McGill Univ, Sch Urban Planning, Montreal, PQ, Canada
[3] Univ Nantes, Dept Business Adm, Nantes, France
[4] CNAM Conservatoire Natl Arts & Metiers, Paris, France
[5] HEC Montreal, Dept Int Business, 3000 Chemin La Cote St Catherine, Montreal, PQ H3T 2A7, Canada
关键词
collaborative spaces; innovation; knowledge; location; Quebec; SMEs; FACE-TO-FACE; COMMUNITIES; PERFORMANCE; INTEGRATION; INDUSTRIES; DESIGN; SECTOR;
D O I
10.1111/caim.12536
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
Collaborative innovation spaces (CIS) can bring together multiple actors to enhance creativity, collaboration and knowledge exchange, sometimes leading to innovation. In this paper, we suggest that CIS can be categorized into three broad types (internal to the firm, external and virtual) and that each type is related to innovation processes, knowledge-sourcing and geographic context in specific ways. Our results, based on an original firm-level survey, reveal that there is heterogeneity with respect to firm attributes and innovation activities associated with different types of CIS. In particular, whilst innovation is associated with the use of CIS in general, radical and technological innovations are more strongly associated with internal CIS, whereas smaller firms tend to use virtual CIS. External CIS, whilst not associated with technological innovation, are associated with high-tech firms. CIS use does not vary across geographic context. These results emphasize the importance of in-person, internal, CIS for radical and technological innovation and the need to distinguish between different types of CIS in order to understand how each is associated with different types of innovation, knowledge-sourcing and firm.
引用
收藏
页码:141 / 157
页数:17
相关论文
共 77 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2018, Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, V4th
  • [2] Bartik A., 2020, ARE SMALL BUSINESSES, DOI [DOI 10.2139/SSRN.3574741, 10.3386/w26989]
  • [3] Lessons from innovation empirical studies in the manufacturing sector: A systematic review of the literature from 1993-2003
    Becheikh, N
    Landry, R
    Amara, N
    [J]. TECHNOVATION, 2006, 26 (5-6) : 644 - 664
  • [4] What Do We Know about Co-Working Spaces? Trends and Challenges Ahead
    Berbegal-Mirabent, Jasmina
    [J]. SUSTAINABILITY, 2021, 13 (03) : 1 - 30
  • [5] Bertran J., 2020, COVID 19 WILL HAVE L
  • [6] Bouncken R B., 2022, Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, V1, DOI [DOI 10.1016/J.STAE.2022.100011, 10.1016/j.stae.2022.100011]
  • [7] Coworking spaces: Empowerment for entrepreneurship and innovation in the digital and sharing economy
    Bouncken, Ricarda
    Ratzmann, Martin
    Barwinski, Roman
    Kraus, Sascha
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH, 2020, 114 : 102 - 110
  • [8] Understanding knowledge exchange processes among diverse users of coworking-spaces
    Bouncken, Ricarda
    Aslam, Muhammad Mahmood
    [J]. JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, 2019, 23 (10) : 2067 - 2085
  • [9] Collaborative Spaces Promoting Creativity and Innovation
    Boutillier, Sophie
    Capdevila, Ignasi
    Dupont, Laurent
    Morel, Laure
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INNOVATION ECONOMICS & MANAGEMENT, 2020, (31): : 1 - 9
  • [10] Open Innovation in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs): External Knowledge Sourcing Strategies and Internal Organizational Facilitators
    Brunswicker, Sabine
    Vanhaverbeke, Wim
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SMALL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, 2015, 53 (04) : 1241 - 1263