Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The European research landscape under the Horizon 2020 Lenses: the interaction between science centers, public institutions, and industry

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research analyses the European landscape of innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). To achieve this objective, data collected from the Horizon 2020 strategy is extracted, which includes 1055 research projects that focus on innovation in SMEs. A complex network analysis is carried out at three levels: (1) at aggregated level by participating European countries, (2) at aggregated level according to the actors of the Triple Helix model, and (3) at disaggregated level according to the individual entities participating in the program. The results allow us to understand the European environment that drives innovation in SMEs. First, this study provides a descriptive overview of the relationships between European countries that favor innovation, and it also describes the positioning of each of them in the joint network. Second, this analysis is able to identify the most relevant agents in the network, the Big Science Centers, and their relationships with industry and public institutions. This study can be used as an analytical tool to improve knowledge transfer in complex ecosystems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Data has been extracted from: https://cordis.europa.eu/projects/es.

References

  • Albors-Garrigós, J., Rincon-Diaz, C. A., & Igartua-Lopez, J. I. (2014). Research technology organisations as leaders of R&D collaboration with SMEs: Role, barriers and facilitators. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(1), 37–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., Beckman, S. L., & Epple, D. (1990). The persistence and transfer of learning in industrial settings. Management Science, 36(2), 140–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baglieri, D., Baldi, F., & Tucci, C. L. (2018). University technology transfer office business models: One size does not fit all. Technovation, 76–77, 51–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barge-Gil, A. (2010). Cooperation-based innovators and peripheral cooperators: An empirical analysis of their characteristics and behavior. Technovation, 30(3), 195–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barge-Gil, A., Jesus Nieto, M., & Santamaria, L. (2011). Hidden innovators: The role of non-R&D activities. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23(4), 415–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrie, J., Zawdie, G., & João, E. (2019). Assessing the role of triple helix system intermediaries in nurturing an industrial biotechnology innovation network. Journal of Cleaner Production, 214, 209–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. A., & Ingram, P. (2002). Interorganizational learning and network organization: Toward a behavioral theory of the interfirm. The economics of choice, change, and organization: Essays in memory of Richard M. Cyert, 191–218.

  • Beauchamp, M. A. (1965). An improved index of centrality. Behavioral Science, 10(2), 161–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogers, M., Zobel, A. K., Afuah, A., Almirall, E., Brunswicker, S., Dahlander, L., & Hagedoorn, J. (2017). The open innovation research landscape: Established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis. Industry and Innovation, 24(1), 8–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92(5), 1170–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunswicker, S., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2015). Open innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs): External knowledge sourcing strategies and internal organizational facilitators. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(4), 1241–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cano-Kollmann, M., Cantwell, J., Hannigan, T. J., Mudambi, R., & Song, J. (2016). Knowledge connectivity: An agenda for innovation research in international business. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(3), 255–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2019). Why do nations produce science advances and new technology? Technology in Society, 59, 101124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M., & Wang, L. (2016). Evolution and convergence of the patterns of international scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(8), 2057–2061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crick, D., & Spence, M. (2005). The internationalisation of ‘high performing’ UK high-tech SMEs: a study of planned and unplanned strategies. International Business Review, 14(2), 167–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, J. A., & O’Reilly, P. (2018). Macro, meso and micro perspectives of technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(3), 545–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darroch, J. (2005). Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 101–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Jong, J. P. J., & Vermeulen, P. A. M. (2006). Determinants of product innovation in small firms: A comparison across industries. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 24(6), 587–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy Management Review, 31(3), 659–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M. A., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2008). Inter-organizational knowledge transfer: Current themes and future prospects. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 677–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix—University-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST Review, 14(1), 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farinha, L., Ferreira, J., & Gouveia, B. (2016). Networks of innovation and competitiveness: A Triple Helix case study. Journal of Knowledge Economy, 7(1), 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Sastre, J., & Montalvo-Quizhpi, F. (2019). The effect of developing countries’ innovation policies on firms’ decisions to invest in R&D. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 143, 214–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. C. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Fayolle, A., Klofsten, M., & Mian, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities: emerging models in the new social and economic landscape. Small Business Economics, 47(3), 551–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunasekara, C. (2006). Reframing the role of universities in the development of regional innovation systems. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 101–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2000). Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 21(4), 473–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hervas-Oliver, J. L., Garrigos, J. A., & Gil-Pechuan, I. (2011). Making sense of innovation by R&D and non-R&D innovators in low technology contexts: A forgotten lesson for policymakers. Technovation, 31(9), 427–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, C., Arundel, A. V., & Hollanders, H. J. G. M. (2010). How firms innovate: R&D, non-R&D, and technology adoption. Working Papers 027, United Nations University—Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).

  • Huenteler, J., Schmidt, T. S., Ossenbrink, J., & Hoffmann, V. H. (2016). Technology life-cycles in the energy sector—Technological characteristics and the role of deployment for innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 104, 102–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huggins, R., Johnston, A., & Stride, C. (2012). Knowledge networks and universities: Locational and organisational aspects of knowledge transfer interactions. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development. An International Journal, 24, 475–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huggins, R., Prokop, D., & Thompson, P. (2019). Universities and open innovation: The determinants of network centrality. The Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09720-5.

  • Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy Management Review, 30(1), 146–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotabe, M., Martin, X., & Domoto, H. (2003). Gaining from vertical partnerships: knowledge transfer, relationship duration, and supplier performance improvement in the U.S. and Japanese automotive industries. Strategic Management Journal, 24(4), 293–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamine, W., Mian, S., Fayolle, A., Wright, M., Klofsten, M., & Etzkowitz, H. (2018). Technology business incubation mechanisms and sustainable regional development. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(5), 1121–1141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latorre, M. P., Hermoso, R., & Rubio, M. A. (2017). A novel network-based analysis to measure efficiency in science and technology parks: The ISA framework approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(6), 1255–1275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., Arora, S., Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2018). Using web mining to explore Triple Helix influences on growth in small and mid-size firms. Technovation, 76–77, 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Sarala, R. M. (2019). Advancing conceptualisation of university entrepreneurial ecosystems: The role of knowledge-intensive entrepreneurial firms. International Small Business Journal, 37(3), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nepelski, D., & Piroli, G. (2018). Organizational diversity and innovation potential of EU-funded research projects. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(3), 615–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordman, E. R., & Melén, S. (2008). The impact of different kinds of knowledge for the internationalization process of Born Globals in the biotech business. Journal of World Business, 43(2), 171–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordman, E. R., & Tolstoy, D. (2016). The impact of opportunity connectedness on innovation in SMEs’ foreign-market relationships. Technovation, 57–58, 47–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-Nordtvedt, L., Kedia, B. L., Datta, D. K., & Rasheed, A. A. (2008). Effectiveness and efficiency of cross-border knowledge transfer: An empirical examination. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 714–744.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rammer, C., Czarnitzki, D., & Spielkamp, A. (2009). Innovation success of non-R&D-performers: Substituting technology by management in SMEs. Small Business Economics, 33(1), 35–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rammer, C., Kinne, J., & Blind, K. (2020). Knowledge proximity and firm innovation: A microgeographic analysis for Berlin. Urban Studies, forthcoming.. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018820241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranga, L. M., Debackere, K., & Von Tunzelmann, N. (2003). Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs applied research in Belgium. Scientometrics, 58(2), 301–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranga, L. M., Miedema, J., & Jorna, R. (2008). Enhancing the innovative capacity of small firms through triple helix interactions: challenges and opportunities. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(6), 697–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonin, B. L. (1999). Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7), 595–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swan, J., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Hislop, D. (1999). Knowledge management and innovation: Networks and networking. Journal of Knowledge Management, 3(4), 262–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 27–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 172–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tether, B. S., & Tajar, A. (2008). Beyond industry–university links: Sourcing knowledge for innovation from consultants, private research organisations and the public science-base. Research Policy, 37(6–7), 1079–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, L., Li, J., & Zhou, X. (2019). Exploring new knowledge through research collaboration: The moderation of the global and local cohesion of knowledge networks. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(3), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., & Tam, C. M. (2010). Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation, 30(3), 181–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge financial support from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and FEDER (project ECO2017-85451-R) the Regional Government of Aragón and European Social Fund (project S64_20R and projects S42_17R) and pre-doctoral grant BOAIIU/1408/2018.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Management, Facultad de Economía y Empresa, University of Zaragoza, Gran Vía 2, 50005, Zaragoza, Spain

    Marta Ferrer-Serrano & Lucio Fuentelsaz

  2. Department of Business Management, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales y del Trabajo, University of Zaragoza, Violante de Hungría, 23, 50009, Zaragoza, Spain

    M. Pilar Latorre-Martínez

Authors
  1. Marta Ferrer-Serrano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Pilar Latorre-Martínez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lucio Fuentelsaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marta Ferrer-Serrano.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ferrer-Serrano, M., Latorre-Martínez, M.P. & Fuentelsaz, L. The European research landscape under the Horizon 2020 Lenses: the interaction between science centers, public institutions, and industry. J Technol Transf 46, 828–853 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09816-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09816-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation