Recently, there has been increasing interest in the principle of open innovation and its relevance to our understanding of innovation in modern industry. This article relates these ideas to the specific, yet important, case of innovation in high-technology small firms (HTSFs). HTSFs are of interest since they have produced a significant number of the most important innovations in the high-technology sectors over the past 30 years. Certainly as far as HTSFs are concerned, it is argued that the ideas behind greater openness during innovation are not well suited to the way in which this type of firm innovates. Moreover, it is argued more generally that the work of Chesbrough can be criticised for overstating the potential for greater openness in terms of industrial research and development, since a degree of openness has always existed, while simultaneously understating the merits of closed innovation systems.
AlbertPBernasconiMGaynorL (2002) Incubators: The Emergence of new Industry. A Comparison of Players and Their Strategies. Paris: French Ministry of Economy, Finance and Industry.
2.
Bank of England (1996) The Financing of Technology-based Small Firms, October. London: Bank of England.
3.
Bank of England (2001) The Financing of Technology-based Small Firms, February. London: Bank of England
4.
BenneworthPHospersG-JTimmermanP (2009) Who builds science cities and knowledge Parks? In: OakeyRPGroenAVan der SijdeP. (eds) New Technology-based Firms in the New Millennium, Vol. 7. Bingley: Emerald Publishing, pp.147–163.
5.
BerlinL (2010) The Man Behind the Microchip: Robert Noyce and the Invention of Silicon Valley. New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
CardulloMW (1999) Technological Entrepreneurism. Baldock: Research Studies Press Ltd.
7.
ChesbroughHW (2003a) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
8.
ChesbroughHW (2003b) The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review44(3): 35–41.
9.
ChesbroughHW (2006) Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In: ChesbroughHWVanhaverbekeWWestJ (eds) Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.1–12.
10.
ChesbroughHW (2010) Open Service Innovation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.
11.
ChesbroughHW (2011) Open Business Models. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
12.
ChesbroughHWVenhaverbekeWWestJ (2006) Open Innovation: Researching a New paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
ChristensenCM (1997) The Innovator’s Dilemma. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
14.
Confederation of British Industry (CBI) (1997) Tech Stars. London: CBI.
15.
CooperAC (1970) The Palo Alto experience. Industrial Research: 58–84.
16.
DenisonE (1966) The Sources of Economic Growth in the United States and the Alternatives Before Us. London: Allen & Unwin.
17.
Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (DBIS) (1998) Our Competitive Future: Building the Knowledge Driven Economy, Cm 4176. London: HMSO.
18.
Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) (2008) Innovation Nation, Cm 7345. London: HMSO.
19.
EtzkowitzHLeydesdorffL (1997) Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government. London: Pinter.
20.
FaemsD (2012) Transitional governance in external technology sourcing trajectories: Connecting pre-acquisition collaboration to post-acquisition integration. In: GroenAOakeyRPvan der SijdeP. (eds) New Technology-based Firms in the New Millennium. Bingley: Emerald publishing, pp.109–130.
21.
FreemanC (1982) The Economics of Industrial Innovation. London: Frances Pinter.
22.
GanotakisP (2007) Factors affecting the performance and growth of new technology-based firms (NTBF) in the UK. PhD thesis, Aston University.
23.
GoddardJChattertonP (1999) Regional Development Agencies and the knowledge economy: Harnessing the potential of universities. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy17(6): 685–699.
24.
HallPG (1963) The Industries of London. London: Hutchinson.
25.
House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology (HLSCST) (1997) The innovation exploitation barrier, HL Paper 62. London: HMSO.
26.
InauenMShenker-WickiA (2011) The impact of outside-in innovation on innovation performance. European Journal of Innovation Management14(4): 495–520.
27.
Klein-WollhuisRJA (1999) Sleeping with the enemy: Trust, dependence and contracts in inter-organisational relationships. PhD thesis, University of Twente.
28.
Lindholm-DahlstrandAKlofstenM (2002) Growth and innovation support in Swedish science parks and incubators. In: OakeyRPDuringWKauserS (eds) New Technology-based Firms in the New Millennium. Oxford: Elsevier Science, pp.31–46.
29.
MacdonaldSLefangB (1998) Patents and policy in the innovation of small and medium-sized firms: Building on Rothwell. In: OakeyRPDuringW (eds) New technology-based firms in the 1990s. London: Paul Chapman Publishing, pp.185–208.
30.
MansfieldERapaportJRomeoA. (1977) The Production and Application of New Industrial Technology. New York: Jeffrey Norton.
31.
MarshallA (1920) Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan.
32.
MartinJE (1966) Greater London: An Industrial Geography. London: Bell.
33.
MasonD (1979) Factors affecting the successful development and marketing innovative semiconductor devices. PhD thesis, University of Sussex.
34.
MasseyDQuintasPWeildD (1992) High Tech Fantasies: Science Parks in Society. London: Routledge.
35.
OakeyRP (1984) High Technology Small Firms: Innovation and Regional Development in Britain and the United States. London: Frances Pinter.
36.
OakeyRP (1985a) British university science parks and high technology small firms: A comment on the potential for sustained economic growth. International Journal of Small Business4(1): 58–67.
37.
OakeyRP (1985b) Agglomeration economies: Their role in the concentration of high technology industries. In: HallP (ed.) Silicon landscapes. London: Allen and Unwin, pp.94–117.
38.
OakeyRP (1991) Innovation and the management of marketing in high technology small firms. Journal of Marketing Management7(4): 343–356.
39.
OakeyRP (1993) Predatory networking: The role of small firms in the development of the British biotechnology industry. International Small Business Journal11(4): 9–22.
40.
OakeyRP (1995) High Technology New Firms: Variable Barriers to Growth. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
41.
OakeyRP (2003) Technical entrepreneurship in high technology small firms: Some observations on the implications for management. Technovation23(8): 679–688.
42.
OakeyRP (2007a) A commentary on gaps in funding for moderate non-stellar growth small businesses in the United Kingdom. Venture Capital9(3): 223–235.
43.
OakeyRP (2007b) R&D collaboration between high technology small firms (HTSFs) in theory and practice. R&D Management37(3): 237–248.
44.
OakeyRP (2007c) An analysis of the international trade performance of new high technology firms in and near the Daresbury Innovation Centre, unpublished report to the Daresbury Innovation Centre Director.
45.
OakeyRP (2012) High Technology Entrepreneurship. Oxford: Routledge.
46.
OakeyRPRothwellRCooperSY (1988) The Management of Innovation in High Technology Small Firms. London: Frances Pinter.
47.
OakeyRPFaulknerWCooperSY. (1990) New Firms in the Biotechnology Industry: Their Contribution to Innovation and Growth. London: Frances Pinter.
48.
OakeyRPKiplingMWildgustS (2001) Clustering among high technology small firms: The anatomy of the non-broadcast visual communications sector. Regional Studies35(5): 401–414.
49.
PittawayLRobertsonM (2004) Business to business networking and its impact on innovation: Exploring the UK evidence, working paper 2004/032. Lancaster: Lancaster University Management School.
50.
RobertsEB (1991) Entrepreneurs in High Technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51.
RothwellRZegveldW (1982) Innovation in the Small and Medium Sized Firm. London: Frances Pinter.
52.
RothwellRZegveldW (1985) Reindustrialisation and Technology. London: Longman.
53.
Russell Group (2010) The economic impact of research conducted in Russell Group universities, Russell Group Papers, issue 1. London: Russell Group.
54.
SaxenianA (1985) Silicon Valley and Route 128: Regional prototypes or historic exceptions? In: CastellsM (ed.) High Technology, Space and Society. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp.81–105.
55.
SchmooklerJ (1966) Invention and Economic Growth. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
56.
SchumpeterJ (1939) Business Cycles: a Theoretical, Historical and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process (2 vols). New York: McGraw-Hill.
57.
SmithIJ (1979) The effects of external takeovers on manufacturing employment change in the northern region between 1963 and 1973. Regional Studies13(5): 421–437.
58.
SolowR (1957) Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistics39(3): 312–320.
59.
StockportGKakabadseA (1994) New technology-based firms and inter-organisational networks: Developing a conceptual framework. In: OakeyRP (ed.) New Technology-based Firms in the 1990s. London: Paul Chapman, pp.22–35.
60.
TaylorMJ (1971) Spatial linkages in the West Midlands iron foundry industry. PhD thesis, University of London.
61.
ThwaitesAT (1978) Technological change, mobile plants and regional development. Regional Studies12(4): 445–461.
62.
Trinity College (1983) Cambridge Science Park Directory. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
63.
TrottPHartmannD (2009) Why open innovation is old wine in new bottles. International Journal of Innovation Management13(4): 715–736.
64.
von HippelE (1978) A customer active paradigm for industrial product idea generation. Research Policy7(3): 240–266.
65.
WeberA (1929) Alfred Weber’s Theory of the Location of Industry (trans. FriedrichCJ). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
66.
WestheadPCowlingM (1995) Employment change in independent owner-managed high technology firms in Great Britain. Small Business Economics7(2): 111–140.
67.
WestheadPBatstoneSMartinF (2000) Technology-based firms located on science parks: The applicability of Bullock’s soft-hard model. Enterprise and Innovation Management1(2): 107–139.
68.
WilliamsonOE (1975) Markets and Hierarchies. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
69.
WiseMJ (1949) On the evolution of the gun and jewellery quarters in Birmingham. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers15: 57–72.
70.
WolffAWM (2007) China’s drive towards innovation. Issues in Science and Technology, p.1.
71.
WoodP (1969) Industrial location and linkage. Area1(2): 32–39.
