Technology and organisation in small firms : an interpretative framework - article ; n°1 ; vol.67, pg 135-155

Alina Rizzoni

Description

Revue d'économie industrielle - Année 1994 - Volume 67 - Numéro 1 - Pages 135-155
Qui innove le plus : la petite ou la grande entreprise ? Selon les débats théoriques et les études empiriques réalisées, il semble qu'il n'existe pas de réponse générale à cette question. Il convient toutefois d'examiner la nature spécifique des firmes et des industries, afin d'évaluer selon le critère de la taille, les incitations et les capacités des firmes en matière d'innovation. Cet article analyse le cas des PME et propose une typologie. Celle-ci montre que les différents contextes organisationnels et les diverses capacités à organiser les relations internes et externes, sont les principaux déterminants de la variété des capacités à innover. Ceci est vrai à la fois des secteurs « high tech », où les innovations supposent des connaissances scientifiques et techniques sophistiquées, comme des secteurs industriels plus mûrs, où les innovations requièrent un savoir faire et une expertise sur les marchés et les process de production.
Who innovates more — the large or the small firm ? Following extensive theorical debate and empirical investigation, there seems to be no general answer to this question. One then has to look into the specific nature of firms and industries to seize differences in incentives and capabilities for innovation according to size. This paper looks into the small firms. It develops a typology of small firm types. The typology distinguishes amongst different categories of small firms. It shows that differences in organisational systems, and in the « ability to organise » both internal and external relationships, are main determinants of differences in abilities to innovate. And this is true both of innovations requiring sophisticated technical and scientific knowledge in high tech sectors, and of more mundane innovations requiring know-hows and expertise about markets and production processes in mature industries.
21 pages
Source : Persée ; Ministère de la jeunesse, de l’éducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l’enseignement supérieur, Sous-direction des bibliothèques et de la documentation.

Informations

• Publié par: REVUE_D-ECONOMIE_INDUSTRIELLE
• Publié le: 01 janvier 1994
• Nombre de lectures: 38
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

Alina Rizzoni
Technology and organisation in small firms : an interpretative
framework
In: Revue d'économie industrielle. Vol. 67. 1er trimestre 1994. PME-PMI et économie industrielle. pp. 135-155.
Résumé
Qui innove le plus : la petite ou la grande entreprise ? Selon les débats théoriques et les études empiriques réalisées, il semble
qu'il n'existe pas de réponse générale à cette question. Il convient toutefois d'examiner la nature spécifique des firmes et des
industries, afin d'évaluer selon le critère de la taille, les incitations et les capacités des firmes en matière d'innovation. Cet article
analyse le cas des PME et propose une typologie. Celle-ci montre que les différents contextes organisationnels et les diverses
capacités à organiser les relations internes et externes, sont les principaux déterminants de la variété des capacités à innover.
Ceci est vrai à la fois des secteurs « high tech », où les innovations supposent des connaissances scientifiques et techniques
sophistiquées, comme des industriels plus mûrs, où les innovations requièrent un savoir faire et une expertise sur les
marchés et les process de production.
Abstract
Who innovates more — the large or the small firm ? Following extensive theorical debate and empirical investigation, there
seems to be no general answer to this question. One then has to look into the specific nature of firms and industries to seize
differences in incentives and capabilities for innovation according to size. This paper looks into the small firms. It develops a
typology of small firm types. The typology distinguishes amongst different categories of small firms. It shows that differences in
organisational systems, and in the « ability to organise » both internal and external relationships, are main determinants of
differences in abilities to innovate. And this is true both of innovations requiring sophisticated technical and scientific knowledge in
high tech sectors, and of more mundane innovations requiring know-hows and expertise about markets and production
processes in mature industries.
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Rizzoni Alina. Technology and organisation in small firms : an interpretative framework . In: Revue d'économie industrielle. Vol.
67. 1er trimestre 1994. PME-PMI et économie industrielle. pp. 135-155.
doi : 10.3406/rei.1994.1513
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rei_0154-3229_1994_num_67_1_1513Alina RIZZONI
University of Urbino, Italy
TECHNOLOGY AND ORGANISATION
IN SMALL FIRMS :
AN INTERPRETATIVE FRAMEWORK
I. _ INNOVATION IN LARGE AND SMALL FIRMS
1. The debate on firm size and technological change
Who innovate more — the large or the small firm ? This question has been the
object of extensive theoretical debate and empirical investigation. The most recent
studies provide the following answer : "It depends on the particular industry. (...).
Both large and small firms play an important role in the innovative process,
although their functions may be somewhat different, and the environments pro
moting innovative activity in large firms differ from that for small firms" (Acs
and Audretsch, 1990, p. 50 et p. 147). But for a long time theoretical and empiric
al evidence has fed two alternative positions, synthesised by the slogans "big is
best" and "small is beautiful" (1). Empirical tests have shown ambiguous and
findings (2), i.e. "the search for a firm size uniquely and unambiguously optimal
for invention and innovation is misguided" (Scherer, 1980, p. 418).
In the mid 1970's, economic research departed from the mere search for the
most innovative firm size. This followed deeper understanding of the economics
of technical change (3), and more articulated focus on the nature of the small firms
(1) These alternative positions arise from Schumpeter's seminal contributions (1912 and 1942), which
emphasised two distinct models of innovation — "entrepreneurial" and "managed". The model
of managed innovation, which emphasises the role of large firms in technological change, has
been developed by some notable economists such as J.K. Galbraith (1957), or the neo-schumpeterian
scholars.
(2) Various reasons account for the ambiguity of empirical results. For a survey see Scherer (1980),
Antonelli (1982), Kamien and Schwartz (1982), Momigliano and Dosi (1983).
(3) The innovation literature, looking inside the "black box" of technology, has deepened the analys
is of interactions among technology and economy, developing two important topics neglected
by the schumpeterian analysis : the relationship between science and technology, and the features
of innovation diffusion. See : Rosenberg, 1976 and 1982 ; Nelson and Winter, 1977 and 1982 ;
Sahal, 1981 ; Freeman, 1982 ; Dosi, 1984.
REVUE D'ÉCONOMIE INDUSTRIELLE — n° 67, 1er trimestre 1994 135 as such (4). The two streams of the literature have given rise to the following
approaches :
a) Industry life cycle (Abernathy and Utterback, 1978). The innovative role of
small and large firms differs in various stages of the industry life cycle : small-
sized firms have some advantages in promoting important product innovations
during the initial stages, but large firms dominate in the downstream stages.
b) Sectoral approach (Pavitt, 1984). It develops the previous approach by poin
ting out the existence of sectoral "technological trajectories" (Nelson and Wint
er, 1982 ; Dosi, 1984), which gives prominence to inter-industry differences as
to the source of technological innovation, technological opportunities, and inno
vation appropriability. This brings about inter-sectoral diversities in the relative
contribution of small and large firms to innovation. Amongst other things, tech
nological opportunities and the external — compared to internal and cumulative
— origin of innovative knowledge enhance the small firms' innovative activity.
c) Neo-schumpeterian models (Nelson and Winter, 1982 ; Dosi, 1988 ; Pavitt,
1990). Large firms are a major source of innovation, and the engine of technical
progress. This thesis emphasises the traditional innovative advantages of large
firms, i.e. their greater capacity of investing in R&D because of their resource
endowment, and the economic incentives to invest in R&D (5). Clearly, learning
processes fostering firm-specific and cumulative knowledge are also underlined (6).
d) Territorial approach (Becattini, 1979 and 1987 ; Lorenzoni, 1979 ; Varaldo,
1979) and Flexible specialisation model (Piore and Sabel, 1984). The territorial
approach underlines the « diffuse » innovative activity that specialised small firms
succeed in carrying out within particular geographic areas or systemic contexts,
i.e. industrial districts and system-areas (7). These are specific forms of industrial
organisation arising from extensive inter-firm relations, and providing an impor
tant organisational support to the small firms 'activity. The flexible specialisation
model highlights the end of the « fordist » large firms, and theorises the innovat
ive and competitive superiority of small firms, enhanced particularly by the adop
tion of new computerised technologies, which enable them to cope more effecti
vely with the variety and variability of market demand.
(4) See : Bolton, 1971 ; Becattini, 1979 and 1987 ; Birch, 1979 ; Lorenzoni, 1979 and 1990 ; Anto-
nelli and Balcet, 1980 ; Storey, 1983 ; AA. VV., 1986 ; Curran et alii, 1986.
(5) R&D has a double role (Rosenberg, 1990) : On the one hand, it generates new knowledge and
innovations ; on the other, it develops the firm's ability to assimilate, and exploit external knowl
edge, that is the firm's "absorptive" capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 1989, 1990). "Firm's absorpt
ive capacity (...) is largely a function of the firm's level of prior related knowledge", and "the
development of absorptive capacity, and, in turn, innovative performance are history — or path
— dependent" (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990, p. 128).
(6) See Malerba (1988, 1992) for discussion on technological learning.
(7) On industrial districts and system-areas see also Gandolfi (1988), Brusco (1989), Lorenzoni (1990),
Pylhe et alii (1990), Camagni (1991), Onida et alii (1992).
136 REVUE D'ÉCONOMIE INDUSTRIELLE — n° 67, 1er trimestre 1994 Dynamic complementarity and division of innovative labour between large e)
and small firms (8). The innovative advantage is unequivocally associated with
neither large nor small firms. In fact, there are complementary and dynamic rela
tions among firms of different sizes in innovation : "small and large firms do not
exist in isolation from one other", and "their relative roles might vary conside
cycle" (Rothwell, 1989, p. 62). Specialisation and division rably over the industry
of innovative labour arise from the progressively changing nature of technologic
al knowledge. Technological knowledge is losing in firm-specific character to
assume universal and abstract content, which makes it more transfera