Topic
German Mittelstand firms have been widely admired for their ability to establish positions of global market leadership in very narrow market segments. This market leadership is based on innovation, especially regarding product, process, and service innovation. Recent studies have looked at resource use in these firms and argue that there are six key traits which combine to support innovation in these firms (De Massis, Audretsch et al. 2018). These are: niche focus and customer collaboration, globalization strategy, preference for self-financing, long-run mindset, superior employee relations, and community embeddedness. Taken together these strategic traits offset SMEs’ lack of financial and human resources and support long-term innovation Mittelstand ‘hidden champions’ provide stable employment and value creation and play a key role in sustaining and developing competitive supply chains (Simon 1992, Simon 1996).
Applicability to the conference theme and study aims
Like all firms, Mittelstand firms face increasing pressure from digitisation – Industry 4.0 (OECD 2017). This paper explores how Mittelstand firms in the UK and Germany are exploring the ‘new frontiers and entrepreneurial places’ which result from Industry 4.0 and what actions they are taking to embrace the opportunities Industry 4.0 presents. Our aim is to build on resource-based conceptualisations of Mittelstand firms to examine whether the strategic traits of German Mittelstand firms are also evident in similar UK companies and how they are likely to influence competitiveness in an era dominated by digitisation (De Massis, Audretsch et al. 2018). Evidence from the OECD suggests that digital take up in the UK lags that in Germany and our other major competitors.
A recent study of digitisation by SMEs in Germany also stressed the rapidly changing nature of the business environment but also suggested that in the German context (Icks, Schroder et al. 2018):
Methodology
Our paper is based on data from a new survey of comparable SMEs in the UK and German automotive sectors. The survey was collected by telephone during 2019q2 and includes information from 100 UK and 100 German SMEs with 5-249 employees. The survey (conducted in UK and German) was structured by firm sizeband and aims to provide a representative view of digital adoption and ambition in the UK and German sectors. The quantitative survey is supported by a series of more detailed firm case-studies.
Contribution
It is widely recognised that issues around digital diffusion are critical in raising productivity particularly in smaller firms (OECD 2015). This study will provide a comparative view of digital adoption and investment plans across two comparable groups of firms from the UK and a key international competitor which has higher average productivity. The study will identify any ‘gaps’ in digital adoption and attitudes to digital technologies between UK and German firms and contribute to policy development.
Implications for policy and practice
These are unclear at time of writing and specifics depend on future data analysis. Potential implications for practice arise from identified ‘gaps’ in the digital attitudes and investment of UK and German firms. Implications for policy may also arise from this gap analysis, providing a guide to areas in which UK firms (may) lag their international competitors.
References
De Massis, A., et al. (2018). "Innovation with Limited Resources: Management Lessons from the German Mittelstand." Journal of Product Innovation Management 35(1): 125-146.
Icks, A., et al. (2018). Business process digitisatiom of SMEs in the manufacturing sector. IfM Materialien Bonn. 255.
OECD (2015). The Future of Productivity. Paris.
OECD (2017). The Next Production Revolution: Implications for Governments and Business. Paris.
Simon, H. (1992). "Lessons from Germany's midsize giants." Harvard Business Review(March-April): 115-123.
Simon, H. (1996). Hidden champions - lessons from 500 of the world's best unknown companies. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press.
Introduction: The researcher self-identifies as an early career researcher and is employed as a professional managerial accountant with a Canadian manufacturer. The project topic arose when the researcher noticed discrepancies between Open Innovation (OI) theory and practices witnessed in the business community. OI champions promote the theory as a solution to long term competitive challenges (Chesbrough, 2003; Chesbrough, et al, 2006, 2014); however, the researcher remains skeptical because of practical experience. The project’s aim and methodology developed also from experience in the business community.
The project concerns OI practices among small-and-medium sized enterprises in Ontario’s Peel-Halton region. It presents a problem confronting manufacturers, draws on OI theory, and intends to offer results relevant to both practitioners and academics.
The project is distinguished from existing literature in four critical ways. First, there is scant field research exploring OI practices in manufacturing SMEs. Second, this project seeks to compare the practices of smaller businesses with those of medium-sized enterprises: most field research treats SMEs as a homogenous classification. Third, this project seeks to chart conceptual differences in OI theory as it pertains to SMEs. Fourth, there is no published field research detailing OI practices in Canada.
Topic: Open Innovation (OI) practices among manufacturing Small-and-Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs) in the Peel-Halton region of Ontario Canada
Theme applicability: This working paper falls within the scope of conference’s theme (“Space- exploring new frontiers and entrepreneurial places”) and track (“Networks, Innovation, and Policy”) by: a) testing open innovation theory against field research drawn from manufacturing SMEs in a Canadian key economic area.; b) investigating whether differences in the OI practices small and medium sized businesses exist; and c) sharing lessons and findings relevant to both practitioners and academics.
Innovation weakness has been noted as a key issue confronting the Canadian manufacturing SME sector (Industry Canada, 2018; Government of Ontario, 2018). Barriers to successful innovation include scale, technology and processes adoption (Industry Canada, 2016), and increasingly integrated global supply chains (Deloitte, 2014). This project seeks to uncover how Peel-Halton manufacturing SMEs innovate, whether they understand the conceptual notion of OI and whether it is practised to meet competitive challenges. Lessons learned may be transferable to manufacturing SMEs across Canada, North America, and potentially other G7 states such as the United Kingdom and continental Europe.
Aim: This paper’s aim is to test OI theory against current business practices. The intent is threefold. First it seeks to contribute understandings of OI theory specifically as it relates to manufacturing SMEs. Second, it seeks to find solutions to identified problems experienced by Ontario’s manufacturing SMEs. Third, it seeks to provide practical OI recommendations for business practice. The aim therefore seeks to produce applied research relevant for manufacturers.
Methodology: The researcher’s personal post-positivist beliefs and identity as a practitioner guide the purpose, and therefore the methodology, of the study (Cartwright, 1989). The project relies on an abductive approach toward theory development because of the intent to: a) chart conceptual differences between OI theory and practice; and b) offer revisions to theory as it pertains to SMEs where warranted.
The methodological decision was informed by the preliminary literature review: of 38 articles examined, 21 were quantitative studies and seven were qualitative reports. The quantitative articles lacked depth and context, particularly from the perspective of a practitioner while the qualitative reports lacked objective metrics expected to validate business decisions (Cartwright, 1989). None offered a clear picture of the operational practices and benefits of OI practices in SMEs. The project therefore relies on a mixed-methods design, allowing the researcher to provide generalizable knowledge reinforced with contextual understandings of cause-and-effect linkages.
The literature review furthermore guided the selection of specific design methods. Articles relied on either survey or case study research: this project integrates both in an explanatory sequence.
Contribution: The project contributes to OI theory by delivering field research drawn from manufacturing SMEs: this is an area recognized as an emergent area of study (Usman, et. al, 2018; Brunswicker & van de Vrande, 2014). The researcher is aware of one quantitative study on North American manufacturing SMEs (Theyel, 2013). The project therefore contributes to academic knowledge by addressing a critical gap in existing literature.
Implications for practice: The project offers several implications for practice. First, it seeks to chart the understanding and utilization of OI among manufacturing SMEs: this may lead to solutions mitigating innovation barriers noted by Deloitte (2014) and improve the weak manufacturing growth identified by Clarke and Couture (2018). Second, the research may provide insights into how OI practice can be integrated for optimal effectiveness and efficiency. Third, the research may provide new insights leading to theory revisions.
One of the key metrics of success for devolution in Wales has been the performance of the economy compared to the rest of the United Kingdom. In a number of measures, from GVA to earnings, the Welsh economy has been described as a “lagging region” in a UK context (Price, 2016). The Welsh Government has had control of significant economic levers since 1999, which it has attempted to use to improve the business environment in Wales. One policy area which has had a specific focus has been that of entrepreneurship. This paper explores the relationship between the entrepreneurship policy developed by the Welsh Government from 1999 to 2016 and attitudes towards entrepreneurship held by Welsh students; a key demographic identified both by the relevant literature and the Welsh Government itself (Hannon, 2005).
This paper begins with a review of the entrepreneurship policy developed by the Welsh Government, examining the interpretations of entrepreneurship that have underlined policy in this area. An evaluation of the considerable literature on entrepreneurship across different academic fields, including economics, sociology, psychology and public policy, shows that there remains considerable disagreement among scholars, politicians and practitioners on the definition of entrepreneurship and its role in economic and regional development (Kirzner & Sautet, 2006). This study aims to define the policy and interpretations held and developed by the Welsh Government from 1999-2016 through a triangulation of different sources; firstly a documentary analysis of key policy and strategy documents published by the Welsh Government and Welsh political parties during the period and secondly interviews with key political, government and third party figures during the period.
The Welsh Government’s entrepreneurship policy can be analysed and evaluated through the model developed by Huggins & Williams (2009) in their analysis of the entrepreneurship policy developed by the Labour Party in government at the UK level from 1997-2010. A number of questions can be asked of the policies developed by the Welsh Government; what is the importance attributed to entrepreneurship within economic development policy? Who is the target audience of the entrepreneurship policy? What is the perceived role of the government in encouraging or facilitating entrepreneurship? And finally, is there a difference between the Government’s small business and entrepreneurship policy? The aim of this research is not to evaluate the success or failure of Welsh government policy; but to gain an understanding of the definitions and interpretations that have underpinned it. The experience of entrepreneurship policy development in post-devolution Wales is an opportunity to investigate a number of key questions being asked across a range of different disciplines. In the context of public policy, we can examine the effect of newly-created institutions on the development of policy, and assess whether a “dragonization” of policy has occurred – the development of different policies compared to England with a specific focus on the issues and context in Wales (St Denny, 2016).
Following this, the study discusses attitudes and intentions towards entrepreneurship among the general public in Wales. There is evidence to suggest that Wales is “less entrepreneurial” than other parts of the United Kingdom (General Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2014). Specifically, interviews with Welsh students at universities inside and outside of Wales are analysed to gain an understanding of the factors that influence their intentions to engage in entrepreneurship and their attitudes towards it. These interviews take place with students both with and without intentions to engage in entrepreneurship - according to Krueger and Carsrud (1993), “we too often ignore those who do not intend to start a business, despite the oft-cited interest in differentiating entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs”. These semi-unstructured, in-depth interviews give an opportunity to explore some of the issues explored in the existing literature (Henley et al., 2007).
A key issue explored in the in-depth interviews is the impact of “place” on attitudes towards entrepreneurship. In their study of peripheral post-industrial places, Gherehes, Vorley & Williams (2018) identified the impact of institutional hysteresis on entrepreneurship attitudes and local economic resilience through negative perceptions of opportunity and place. A key aspect of this was the impact of the “brain drain” and a loss highly-skilled students and graduates. There is evidence to suggest that this phenomenon is also true in Wales (Clarke, 2017). This research explores the attitudes that Welsh students have towards Wales and their specific towns and regions – and the subsequent impact on attitudes towards entrepreneurialism. The research asks two questions; how does growing up in Wales impact attitudes towards entrepreneurship, and how is Wales perceived as a place to engage in entrepreneurship?
This research hopes to make a positive contribution to the development of effective entrepreneurship policy in Wales, and contribute to the ever-growing academic and political interest in the role of entrepreneurship in regional development and the factors that influence an individual’s decision to engage in it. The impact of devolution on the economic policy and economic performance allows us to investigate entrepreneurship through the lens of a variety of different disciplines, and this research is an exploration of some of the principle themes coming from the study of entrepreneurship and entrepreneurs in economics, sociology, psychology and public policy.
Abstract
Coworking is a broad term for a phenomena that has been rapidly expanding in recent years- that of independent professionals ‘working alone together’ (Spinuzzi, 2012) in shared, collaborative workspaces- partly due to the influence of cost and convenience - but also in which the emphasis is on community, productivity, collaboration and creativity.
Research has predominantly focused on knowledge creation and co-production in coworking spaces in large cities, however, most recent studies have drawn attention to coworking in smaller cities and towns suggesting that coworking is not limited to traditional centres of economic and entrepreneurial activity. Empirical evidence, however, tends to be rather anecdotal.
The majority of existing studies approach coworking through studying particular (commercial) co-working spaces, usually located in cities. As such, it neglects those individuals who have found other ways to ‘work along together’ outside of formalised, fee-based, coworking spaces.
Our research, instead, studies selected groups or networks of coworkers in the South of England within which we can observe coworking as a practice. Moreover, it is argued that communities of practice can serve as a vehicle for learning that is not necessarily based on proximity- this is the lens we use for our analysis. We do find evidence of our observed groups serving as communities of practice but not uniformly so, with others more typical of informal networks. The former exhibit shared identities, with learning interactions around the practice of coworking. Finally we suggest implications for further research; what we present here is a single snapshot – are groups with the qualities of informal networks likely to develop into communities of practice, and what might differentiate this transition from one group to another? We should also more directly compare the offer of informal coworking to that of commercial spaces – are they addressing differing needs, and/or reflecting gaps in provision?
Key words: Coworking; community; practice; self-employment; networks; knowledge