dr. ir. Rob Dekkers (Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow, United Kingdom)
Prof. Laure Morel (Équipe de Recherche sur les Processus Innovatifs, Université de Lorraine,France)
At this website the call for chapters is posted, there is a news section and we intend to organise afew webinars to address questions by authors that want to submit a manuscript for consideration.
Searching for European Perspectives
European practices in organisations are anchored in Anglo-Saxon, East European, Nippon- Rhineland, Nordic and Mediterranean socio-economic perspectives; this unique blend of social- economic perspectives also leads to different views on innovation management, new product and service development, and their challenges. This becomes apparent in writings such as that of Patel and Pavitt (1994, pp. 90–2) when they distinguish between myopic and dynamic national systems of innovation. These differing approaches also harbour diversity, which could be either beneficial or limit the growth of national economies, sectors and firms. Also, this may result in national cultures affecting creativity and innovation management in differing ways. Thus, these perspectives may lead to both subtle delimitations and pronounced differences for innovation policies, institutional settings, approaches to innovation management by firms and innovation performance.In addition to socio-economic perspectives, institutional factors that differ across nations and regions play a role in practices that are adopted for innovation management. This thought is captured by the notion of national innovation systems, for example the writings by Lundvall (1998; 2007). Also, the conceptualisation of triple helix (Leydesdorff and Etkowitz, 1996) instigates that institutional factors determine innovation outcomes, not only for nations, but also for firms. Not only can these institutional factors be found at the level of nations, they are also present in industrial districts, such as those constituting what is called the ‘Third Italy’ (Biggiero, 1998). The result is differing institutional contingencies across regions and nations, further augmenting the socio-economic perspectives.Notwithstanding these fragmented socio-economic perspectives and institutional contingencies, there are specific commonalities. Perhaps the nature of these perspectives, possibly set in Kantianism guiding economic and legal institutional settings rather than utilitarianism and legalism, makes firms and institutions gravitate towards open collaboration rather than transactional approaches (for example, Dekkers et al., 2019); the first is possibly linked with dynamics national innovation systems and the latter most likely associated with myopic national innovation systems. The fragmented, distributed economies also put a strong focus on internationalisation, including innovation management, new product and service development, even within the internally open market of the European community. Therefore, the European institutional settings foster unique approaches to innovation, and new product and service development.Perhaps these unique approaches will also foster a more innovative Europe. This may lead to creating not only ‘unicorns’, but also other high-growth firms, and stimulate other firms to engage more actively with innovation. In this sense, encouraging techno-entrepreneurship and facilitation of growth may also be shaped by the specific diversity of perspectives, institutional contingencies and collaborative modes.