and potential solution providers such as creative individuals, designers, retired employees, scientists, suppliers, or other enterprises for new ways to generate idea,
we relied on the number of employees when selecting our interview partners. Five of our selected companies represent micro firms with less than 10 employees,
while ten of them employ between 10 and 50 employees. The sample of interviewees was selected in a way to provide a broad range of work fields in the area of craftsmen businesses including carpenters, mechanical engineers, metal workers, footwear producers, sports equipment technicians, electrical engineers, bricklayers and manufacturers
of refrigeration. Twelve of the interview partners are also the owners of the respective firms
Also, internal sources such as employees are considered still important sources of innovation: Interviewee 8: You have to consider that the majority of the ideas are generated by our employees,
who are working on the front line and who have gathered a tremendous amount of experience within their specific area of expertise.
our employees are involved actively in the development process of new ideas. I am the one responsible for condensing
Most of the decisions are made in collaboration with our employees, because without their involvement it is difficult to consequently succeed.
but also customers, employees and other corporations are accepted as sources for invention. This study supports theoretical assumptions
The last Community Innovation Survey in Belgium shows that large firms(>250 employees) are collaborating on average with more external partners than small firms.
when the number of collaborative deals is divided by the number of employees thus measuring the open innovation intensity.
or size class (taking into account that small companies should have less than 500 employees). The companies are active in a wide range of industries.
and have 500 employees; other companies are just a few years old and have less than five employees.
The reader should thus not be surprised by the heterogeneity 13 of the cases. The diversity of the themes we will discuss illustrates how open innovation can take different shapes within each specific firm or industry.
Curana is a micro-company (less than 20 employees) that is active in the bicycle accessory market.
Jaga also explored initiatives to spur the creativity of employees and external partners by setting up Jaga Product Days in 2007 (see p 47).
Some of Curana's employees, for instance, did not understand why management was preoccupied with managing the network of partners
Intellectual property rights are owned usually contractually by the innovating firm in the case inventors are companies doing contract research, external designers, or employees.
SMES are companies with less than 250 employees (N=792; lager companies(=250 employees; N=175.
The calculation covers the period 2002-2004. Open innovation can be measured in different ways. Developing a search strategy is one of the most important aspects of open innovation.
The external R&d intensity reflects external R&d per employee. Collaborative innovation indicates whether innovating firms engage in collaborative innovation activities with six potential partners:
and the collaboration intensity measures the collaboration per employee. Variable Small and medium-sized enterprises (N-SME=792) Large firms (N-large=175) Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation Difference Search intensity
Moreover, small contests can be held among employees, suppliers, and local communities of designers, engineers, and so on. 33 These value networks have been described by different authors.
A thirdpracticetobenefitfrominternalknowledgeisto capitalizeontheinitiativesandknowledgeofcurrent employees, includingthosewhoarenotemployedatthe internal R&ddepartment. Severalcasestudiesillustrate that informaltiesofemployeeswithemployeesofother ARTICLEINPRESS V. vandevrandeetal.//Technovation29 (2009) 423 437 424 organizationsarecrucialtounderstandhownewproducts are createdandcommercialized (e g.
ARTICLEINPRESS Table 1 Distributionofrespondentsacrossindustriesandsizeclasses Type ofindustry Size class 10 99 employees 100 499 employees Total Manufacturing Food andbeverages (NACECODES15 16
Employee involvement Leveraging theknowledgeandinitiativesofemployees who arenotinvolvedinr&d, forexamplebytakingup suggestions, exemptingthemtoimplementideas, or creating autonomousteamstorealizeinnovations. Technologyexploration Customer involvement Directly involvingcustomersinyourinnovation processes, forexamplebyactivemarketresearchto check theirneeds, orbydevelopingproductsbasedon customers'specificationsormodificationsofproducts similar likeyours.
951 Employee involvement9342571 Technology exploration Customer involvement9738611 External networking9429674 External participation3216831 Outsourcingr&d5022735 Inward IPLICENSING20 5 932 Table 4 Incidence ofandperceivedtrendsinopeninnovationpracticesbetweenindustries
0. 02 0. 02 0. 1 Employee involvement94 93 0. 7 0. 41 0. 41 0. 2 Technology exploration Customer
/Technovation29 (2009) 423 437 429 Table 5 shows thatmedium-sizedenterprises (100 499 employees) aremorelikelytoengageinopeninnovation. On alltechnologyexploitationandexplorationpractices they aredoingslightlyorsubstantiallybetter.
Weconsideredarange of initialsolutionsfromthehierarchicalanalysiswitheither ARTICLEINPRESS Table 5 Incidence ofandperceivedtrendsinopeninnovationpracticesbetweensizeclasses Incidence Perceived trenda 10 99 employees (n 376)(%100 499 employees (n 229
)(%Mann Whitney Z (U) 10 99 employees (n 376) 100 499 employees (n 229) Mann Whitney Z (U) Technologyexploitation Venturing 27
. 5 Employee involvement 92 96 1. 7 0. 37 0. 48 2. 8*Technologyexploration Customer involvement 97 98 1. 1
Venturing 40 27 15 14.5*Outward IPLICENSING44 1 0 227.3**Employee involvement98 99 38 340.5**Technology exploration Customer involvement98 99 77
Venturing 0. 17 0. 11 0. 05 5. 2 Outward IPLICENSING 0. 11 0. 00 0. 00 26.0**Employee involvement 0
inter-organizationalnetworksandcustomerinvolvementare ARTICLEINPRESS Table 8 Motives toadoptopeninnovationpractices Category Examples Technologyexploitation Technologyexploration Venturing (n 83)(%Employee involvement (n 256)(%Customer involvement (n
Employee involvementistheonlyitemwheremotives are differentthanfortheotheritems. SMESCAPITALIZEON the knowledgeandinitiativesoftheir (non-R&d) employees foroptimaluseofhumancapitalandformarket considerations. However, employeeinvolvementisalsothe outcome ofan‘internalorganizationalpolicy'oritis stimulatedtoimprovemotivationandcommitmentof employees.
Thesetwomotivesarenotnecessarilydictated by innovationobjectives. Table 9 identifies themainmanagerialandorganiza-tional challengesthatsmesperceivewhentheyadoptopen innovationpractices. Weremindthatinterviewersfirst asked ifrespondentshadexperiencedanybarrierstoopen innovation. Ifrespondentsansweredpositively, theinter-viewer exploredthenatureofthesebarriersbyopen-ended questions.
Themainbarrierstoinnovationmentionedby the respondentsarerelatedtoventuring (mentionedby 48%oftherespondents), externalparticipation (48%),and outsourcingofr&d (43%.%Table 9 shows theextenttowhichthebarriersmentioned abovematterforeachofthedifferenttypesofopeninnova-tionactivities.
Governmentalsupportisexperienced ARTICLEINPRESS Table 9 Hampering factorswhenadoptingopeninnovationpractices Category Examples Technology exploitation Technology exploration Venturing (n 40)(%Employee involvement (n 88)(%Customer involvement (n
Customers, employees and other firms are the most common sources of new ideas, but the use of venture capital, outsourcing of R&d and the licensing of other firms'IP are also becoming more common nowadays.
Not only customers but also firms'employees can contribute to a firm's overall innovative performance. Both in closed and open innovation paradigms, individual employees play a crucial but different role.
Thus, a firm should foster a culture in which these knowledge workers are motivated to continuously search for new ideas.
In addition, firms that embark on open innovation should stimulate interorganizational networking between employees of different firms.
Several case studies illustrate that informal ties of employees with employees of other organizations or institutions are crucial to understand how new products are created and commercialized (Chesbrough et al.,
) Morgan (1993) observed in the early nineties already that the role of formal reporting structures and detailed work processes had diminished a role in favor of informal networks of employees.
These networks were in many cases cross-boundary linking employees of (locally bounded) 10 networks of firms.
The strength and dynamics of these connected groups of employees has a significant impact on firms'knowledge creating capability.
However, there has been much less attention paid to how informal networks of employees in networked organizations may facilitate
Chesbrough (2003) provides evidence that small firms (firms with less than 1000 employees) continually increased their share of total industrial R&d spending in the US during the last two decades.
The larger firms with more than 25.000 employees were still responsible for 38%of total industry R&d spending in 2005 compared to 71%in 1981 (National Science Foundation
Although service firms, on the other hand, will be inclined to use networks and customer and employee involvement in the innovation process,
SMES are defined as firms with up to 500 employees. However, there is still great difference in the innovation strategies of small firms (up to 100 employees) and medium sized enterprises (100-499 employees.
The innovation processes of larger firms are structured typically more and professionalized, and larger firms typically have more resources than small firms.
Although the use of interorganizational networks, the involvement of employees and that of customers in the innovation processes seems to be equally feasible for both small and large SMES, the extent to
defined as all firms with no more than 500 employees. Firms with less than 10 employees (i e. micro-firms) were excluded from the sample,
because in general they have no or very limited in-house R&d activities. Besides, the population of micro-firms contains a relatively high share of start-ups.
Table 1. Distribution of respondents across type of industry and size class Size class Type of industry 10-99 employees 100-499 employees total Manufacturing:
To measure the role of employees, respondents had to indicate to which degree employees were stimulated to contribute to innovation processes,
e g. by investing in employees'ideas and initiatives, creating autonomous teams with own budgets to carry out innovations,
or stimulating employees'external work contacts in order to enhance opportunity exploration. The survey data allowed distinguishing between employees that belong to the R&d department
and those that are coming from other organizational parts of the company. Furthermore, the survey also investigated
whether firms collaborated with the different types of partners as described above, including complementors, competitors,
%2%License IP to other firms 10%3%95%1%Technology exploitation Customer involvement 97%38%61%1%Employee involvement 93
customers and employees in innovation processes is fairly 21 common among Dutch SMES. Licensing IP,
This is the case for all indicators in Table 2. Especially employee involvement, customer involvement, the use of network partners and (to a lesser extent) outsourcing of R&d have experienced a substantial increase in popularity in the last three years. 5. 1 Type of industry Table 3 shows the share of manufacturing
Customer involvement, employee involvement, and the usage of networks in the innovation process appear to be the main types of open innovation practices used by both manufacturing and services firms.
2, 2 Employee involvement 94%93%0, 4 0. 41 0. 41 0, 1 Network usage in innovation processes 95%94%0, 3 0. 24 0. 26 0
Table 4 shows that larger SMES (100-499 employees) are on average much stronger involved in outsourcing R&d
as compared to the small SMES(<100 employees). Both size categories show no significant differences with respect to customer
and employee involvement, networking with partners because these are practices that have no discriminating power
and perceived change across size classes Use Perceived change (1) Open innovation indicator 10-99 employees (n=376) 100-499 employees (n=229
) F-value 10-99 employees (n=376) 100-499 employees (n=229) F-value Technology exploitation Venturing 27%32%1,
Technology exploration Customer involvement 97%98%1, 2 0. 30 0. 50 22,8**Employee involvement 92%96%3, 0 0
**Technology exploration Customer involvement 98%99%77%66,5**Employee involvement 98%99%38%388,9**Network usage in innovation processes 99%100
The firms in this cluster rely mainly on the involvement of network partners, customers and employees in their innovation processes.
This is a relatively small group of companies that mainly rely on customer involvement and to a minor extent on employee involvement and network partners.
13,0**Technology exploration Customer involvement 0. 52 0. 38 0. 05 19,5**Employee involvement 0. 53 0. 43 0. 07
Share of manufacturing firms (versus service firms) 58%45%43%3, 7 Share of firms with 100-499 employees (vs. 10-99 empl.
-R&d employees in the innovation process. The different answers of the respondents to the question what drives them to get involved in open innovation practices were coded,
and ideas of current employees Policy*Organization principles, management conviction that involvement of employees is desirable Motivation*Involvement of employees in the innovation process increases their motivation
and commitment*Only used for coding motives related to employee-involvement Table 8 below shows that for almost all open innovation practices pursued by SMES,
The only exception is improving the involvement of non-R&d employees in the innovation process:
(n=94) Network usage (n=175) Customer involvement (n=232) Employee involvement (n=256) Control%1 1 3 1 1
Policy%--15 Motivation%--22 Other%8 19 14 11 10 11 Total%100 100 100 100 100 100 Employee involvement
Almost 30%of the respondents that involve non-R&d employees in their innovation process do
so because they feel that the skills of their employees can be utilized in a more efficient way,
In addition, many companies involve employees for motivational reasons. Up to 15%of the respondents is convinced of the added value 32 of employee involvement for innovation;
often this is part of the firm's policy in this case. Another 22%sees the involvement of employees mainly as a way to motivate them.
The direct impact on the bottom-line in that case is less important as employees are engaged primarily in the innovation process to increase their overall performance on the job.
Finally, market considerations are also important: after all, employees may be closely related to the market and therefore have a better idea than managers or engineers about the potential success of products and the problems they experience with customers.
In this case, employee involvement is a valuable source of knowledge in the innovation process. Finally, there are also motives that are primarily related to specific types of open innovation.
For instance, 8%of the respondents list the corporate brand reputation as a reason to engage in venturing activities.
innovation appears not to fit the market Competent employees Employees lack knowledge/competences, not enough labor flexibility Commitment Lack of employee commitment, resistance to change Idea management Employees have too many ideas,
no management support Table 10 shows the extent to which the barriers mentioned above matter for each of the different types of open innovation activities.
employees who leave the organization. These inter-organizational relationships frequently lead to problems concerning the division of tasks and responsibility, the balance between innovation and day-to-day management tasks,
) Customer involvement (n=68) Employee involvement (n=88) Administration%28 13 10--Finance%10 0 5--Knowledge%5 5---Marketing
--User acceptance%--13-Customer demand%--28-Competent employees%--24 Commitment%--51 Idea management%--8 Other%8 3-8-Total%100 100
When involving employees, it often turns out that they do not have required the 35 capabilities
management decides not to take up any of the ideas provided by employees or that the number of ideas coming from individual employees just gets too large to handle in an efficient way.
This, in turn, poses new challenges to managers when they want to get the most out the creativity of large numbers of individuals.
Conceptualizing entrepreneurial employee behaviour H200801 12-11-2008 Investigating Blue Ocean v. Competitive Strategy: A Statistical analysis of the Retail Industry H200723 21-12-2007 Overoptimism Among Entrepreneurs in New Ventures:
A thirdpracticetobenefitfrominternalknowledgeisto capitalizeontheinitiativesandknowledgeofcurrent employees, includingthosewhoarenotemployedatthe internal R&ddepartment. Severalcasestudiesillustrate that informaltiesofemployeeswithemployeesofother ARTICLEINPRESS V. vandevrandeetal.//Technovation29 (2009) 423 437 424 organizationsarecrucialtounderstandhownewproducts are createdandcommercialized (e g.
ARTICLEINPRESS Table 1 Distributionofrespondentsacrossindustriesandsizeclasses Type ofindustry Size class 10 99 employees 100 499 employees Total Manufacturing Food andbeverages (NACECODES15 16
Employee involvement Leveraging theknowledgeandinitiativesofemployees who arenotinvolvedinr&d, forexamplebytakingup suggestions, exemptingthemtoimplementideas, or creating autonomousteamstorealizeinnovations. Technologyexploration Customer involvement Directly involvingcustomersinyourinnovation processes, forexamplebyactivemarketresearchto check theirneeds, orbydevelopingproductsbasedon customers'specificationsormodificationsofproducts similar likeyours.
951 Employee involvement9342571 Technology exploration Customer involvement9738611 External networking9429674 External participation3216831 Outsourcingr&d5022735 Inward IPLICENSING20 5 932 Table 4 Incidence ofandperceivedtrendsinopeninnovationpracticesbetweenindustries
0. 02 0. 02 0. 1 Employee involvement94 93 0. 7 0. 41 0. 41 0. 2 Technology exploration Customer
/Technovation29 (2009) 423 437 429 Table 5 shows thatmedium-sizedenterprises (100 499 employees) aremorelikelytoengageinopeninnovation. On alltechnologyexploitationandexplorationpractices they aredoingslightlyorsubstantiallybetter.
Weconsideredarange of initialsolutionsfromthehierarchicalanalysiswitheither ARTICLEINPRESS Table 5 Incidence ofandperceivedtrendsinopeninnovationpracticesbetweensizeclasses Incidence Perceived trenda 10 99 employees (n 376)(%100 499 employees (n 229
)(%Mann Whitney Z (U) 10 99 employees (n 376) 100 499 employees (n 229) Mann Whitney Z (U) Technologyexploitation Venturing 27
. 5 Employee involvement 92 96 1. 7 0. 37 0. 48 2. 8*Technologyexploration Customer involvement 97 98 1. 1
Venturing 40 27 15 14.5*Outward IPLICENSING44 1 0 227.3**Employee involvement98 99 38 340.5**Technology exploration Customer involvement98 99 77
Venturing 0. 17 0. 11 0. 05 5. 2 Outward IPLICENSING 0. 11 0. 00 0. 00 26.0**Employee involvement 0
inter-organizationalnetworksandcustomerinvolvementare ARTICLEINPRESS Table 8 Motives toadoptopeninnovationpractices Category Examples Technologyexploitation Technologyexploration Venturing (n 83)(%Employee involvement (n 256)(%Customer involvement (n
Employee involvementistheonlyitemwheremotives are differentthanfortheotheritems. SMESCAPITALIZEON the knowledgeandinitiativesoftheir (non-R&d) employees foroptimaluseofhumancapitalandformarket considerations. However, employeeinvolvementisalsothe outcome ofan‘internalorganizationalpolicy'oritis stimulatedtoimprovemotivationandcommitmentof employees.
Thesetwomotivesarenotnecessarilydictated by innovationobjectives. Table 9 identifies themainmanagerialandorganiza-tional challengesthatsmesperceivewhentheyadoptopen innovationpractices. Weremindthatinterviewersfirst asked ifrespondentshadexperiencedanybarrierstoopen innovation. Ifrespondentsansweredpositively, theinter-viewer exploredthenatureofthesebarriersbyopen-ended questions.
Themainbarrierstoinnovationmentionedby the respondentsarerelatedtoventuring (mentionedby 48%oftherespondents), externalparticipation (48%),and outsourcingofr&d (43%.%Table 9 shows theextenttowhichthebarriersmentioned abovematterforeachofthedifferenttypesofopeninnova-tionactivities.
Governmentalsupportisexperienced ARTICLEINPRESS Table 9 Hampering factorswhenadoptingopeninnovationpractices Category Examples Technology exploitation Technology exploration Venturing (n 40)(%Employee involvement (n 88)(%Customer involvement (n
The last Community Innovation Survey in Belgium shows that large firms(>250 employees) are collaborating on average with more external partners than small firms.
when the number of collaborative deals is divided by the number of employees thus measuring the open innovation intensity.
or size class (taking into account that small companies should have less than 500 employees). The companies are active in a wide range of industries.
and have 500 employees; other companies are just a few years old and have less than five employees.
The reader should thus not be surprised by the heterogeneity 13 of the cases. The diversity of the themes we will discuss illustrates how open innovation can take different shapes within each specific firm or industry.
Curana is a micro-company (less than 20 employees) that is active in the bicycle accessory market.
Jaga also explored initiatives to spur the creativity of employees and external partners by setting up Jaga Product Days in 2007 (see p 47).
Some of Curana's employees, for instance, did not understand why management was preoccupied with managing the network of partners
Intellectual property rights are owned usually contractually by the innovating firm in the case inventors are companies doing contract research, external designers, or employees.
SMES are companies with less than 250 employees (N=792; lager companies(=250 employees; N=175.
The calculation covers the period 2002-2004. Open innovation can be measured in different ways. Developing a search strategy is one of the most important aspects of open innovation.
The external R&d intensity reflects external R&d per employee. Collaborative innovation indicates whether innovating firms engage in collaborative innovation activities with six potential partners:
and the collaboration intensity measures the collaboration per employee. Variable Small and medium-sized enterprises (N-SME=792) Large firms (N-large=175) Mean Standard deviation Mean Standard deviation Difference Search intensity
Moreover, small contests can be held among employees, suppliers, and local communities of designers, engineers, and so on. 33 These value networks have been described by different authors.
14,000 employees in France, ten factories, and a global turnover of 201 million French francs, which had multiplied by 10 over the past 10 years.
Key definitions The OECD defines high-growth enterprises as firms with average annualised growth in employees or in turnover greater than 20%a year, over a three-year period,
and with ten or more employees at the beginning of the observation period. Gazelles are born newly high-growth enterprises not older than five years.
An annual performance scoreboard of the EU is to include an item 3. 1. 3 High-growth enterprises (with more than 10 employees) as%of all enterprises,
(or by turnover), are enterprises with average annualised growth in employees (or in turnover) greater than 20%a year, over a three-year period,
and with ten or more employees at the beginning of the observation period. 4 A size threshold of ten employees is suggested to avoid the growth of micro enterprises distorting the picture.
but nevertheless have more than 250 employees. Animal metaphors have some popularity in literature about high-growth enterprises there is also the notion of gorillas for companies that grow quickly from small start-ups to large international players in high-technology markets. 7 In fact the notion of large
since the definition of gazelles includes for example new companies that grow from ten to 18 employees within three years reaching a size that does still not make much difference from a regional or national economy point of view.
defined as companies with less than 250 employees. Nota bene, the obvious consequence of high growth of SMES is that they soon turn into large companies.
including issues such as taxation, bankruptcy regulation, rewards for innovative employees, possible income limits, and regulations of sideline income (including equity shares in new companies) of entrepreneurial researchers.
including issues such as recognition for entrepreneurs and innovators, social acceptance of entrepreneurial failure, recognition of innovative and entrepreneurial activities of employees in large companies,
Share of high-growth enterprises (employment definition) in%of enterprises with ten or more employees 0123456789 10 Manufacturing*(2006) Services**(2006)* Mining and quarrying;
***Employer enterprises with fewer than 250 employees. Source: OECD (2009), p. 29. The picture is similar for gazelles.
It is so costly to dismiss employees in Europe that entrepreneurs and company managers are extremely cautious about hiring. 34 However,
These 691 companies made up 4. 9%of new companies with more than 10 employees in 2006.
Acs and Mueller found that only start-ups with greater than twenty employees have persistent employment effects over time
and industry experts as well as support to find the necessary resources, above all funding and employees. Key elements of support include four workshops:
Each time the Accelerace team, made up of twelve employees, selects 10-15 companies to be supported.
It also tracks baseline data for its performance, such as employees, revenue growth and number of customers.
hiring employees and financing abroad as well as to cooperation in R&d, production and innovation activities with international partners.
shifting SME policies towards competitiveness and growth In Korea the SME sector, accounting for 99%of enterprises and 88%of employees, is considered as ensuring sustainable growth for the future.
Furthermore, a new category of mid-sized enterprises with 300 to 1, 000 employees is to be introduced for policy purposes.
is an enterprise with less than 300 employees and with sales less than 8 billion won (approximately 6. 6 million US dollar).
Whereas the government supports SMES with up to 300 employees with numerous measures, enterprises with more than 300 employees are regarded as large firms under strict government regulation
and cannot receive any support. As a result, many enterprises do not grow. Although the weakness concept is still dominant,
improved support to spin-offs by executives and employees of large enterprises; enabling start-ups at home and expanding the infrastructure for one-person creative enterprises;
000 employees, responding to global competition and developing initiatives to foster hidden global champions. The introduction of policy schemes for supporting this group of enterprises will probably impact the Korean economy dramatically in the coming years.
or the number of employees in order to sustain the status of an SME and be applicable for government support.
Gazelles are defined as high growth firms which within a five-year period double in size to a minimum of 20 employees or to 10 million Canadian dollars (CAD) in sales or both.
but by the mid 1970s it switched to high tech SMES with up to 500 employees (mostly under 25 employees).
Another study by the SBA Office of Advocacy found that SBIR firms produced 13 to 14 times more patents per employee than did larger firms.
when compared with a matched set of non-recipient firms. 159 The SBIR is focused on SMES namely over 41%of respondents had 15 or fewer employees,
while about 15%had more than 100, for a mean of only ten employees. As expected very small firms had increased lower sales and employment with the best results for firms in the range of 15 to 25 employees.
Even though they had the data, the review did not assess the presence of high growth firms
Fostering employment of high-tech employees in SMES: the SME Agency introduced for the first time in 2010 a subsidy programme for SMES employing next-generation high-tech human resources.
Funding recipients should have less than 300 employees or capital below JPY 300 million. The majority of schemes target venture companies and SMES.
%or more in each of the previous three years and a size of more than nine employees at the beginning of the period, classifying them as high-growth enterprises as defined by the OECD (see section 2. 1). For 1,
equalling the Eurobarometer findings (see section 3. 2). 28 of these 59 companies had more than ten employees
when excluding micro companies with fewer than ten employees and large companies with more than 250 employees.
niche market (mentioned twice), word of mouth recommendation, employees, controlling, successful innovation marketing, extended distribution opportunities after being acquired by a trust (mentioned twice), withdrawal of competitors, severe winters. 167 Exhibit 6-1:
Policies for high-growth innovative SMES v1. 6 84 The findings for high-growth enterprises in total are similar to the findings for high-growth enterprises with 10-250 employees,
Key definitions The OECD defines high-growth enterprises as firms with average annualised growth in employees or in turnover greater than 20%a year, over a three-year period,
and with ten or more employees at the beginning of the observation period. Gazelles are born newly high-growth enterprises not older than five years.
An annual performance scoreboard of the EU is to include an item 3. 1. 3 High-growth enterprises (with more than 10 employees) as%of all enterprises,
(or by turnover), are enterprises with average annualised growth in employees (or in turnover) greater than 20%a year, over a three-year period,
and with ten or more employees at the beginning of the observation period. 4 A size threshold of ten employees is suggested to avoid the growth of micro enterprises distorting the picture.
but nevertheless have more than 250 employees. Animal metaphors have some popularity in literature about high-growth enterprises there is also the notion of gorillas for companies that grow quickly from small start-ups to large international players in high-technology markets. 7 In fact the notion of large
since the definition of gazelles includes for example new companies that grow from ten to 18 employees within three years reaching a size that does still not make much difference from a regional or national economy point of view.
defined as companies with less than 250 employees. Nota bene, the obvious consequence of high growth of SMES is that they soon turn into large companies.
including issues such as taxation, bankruptcy regulation, rewards for innovative employees, possible income limits, and regulations of sideline income (including equity shares in new companies) of entrepreneurial researchers.
including issues such as recognition for entrepreneurs and innovators, social acceptance of entrepreneurial failure, recognition of innovative and entrepreneurial activities of employees in large companies,
Share of high-growth enterprises (employment definition) in%of enterprises with ten or more employees 0123456789 10 Manufacturing*(2006) Services**(2006)* Mining and quarrying;
***Employer enterprises with fewer than 250 employees. Source: OECD (2009), p. 29. The picture is similar for gazelles.
It is so costly to dismiss employees in Europe that entrepreneurs and company managers are extremely cautious about hiring. 34 However,
These 691 companies made up 4. 9%of new companies with more than 10 employees in 2006.
Acs and Mueller found that only start-ups with greater than twenty employees have persistent employment effects over time
and industry experts as well as support to find the necessary resources, above all funding and employees. Key elements of support include four workshops:
Each time the Accelerace team, made up of twelve employees, selects 10-15 companies to be supported.
It also tracks baseline data for its performance, such as employees, revenue growth and number of customers.
hiring employees and financing abroad as well as to cooperation in R&d, production and innovation activities with international partners.
shifting SME policies towards competitiveness and growth In Korea the SME sector, accounting for 99%of enterprises and 88%of employees, is considered as ensuring sustainable growth for the future.
Furthermore, a new category of mid-sized enterprises with 300 to 1, 000 employees is to be introduced for policy purposes.
is an enterprise with less than 300 employees and with sales less than 8 billion won (approximately 6. 6 million US dollar).
Whereas the government supports SMES with up to 300 employees with numerous measures, enterprises with more than 300 employees are regarded as large firms under strict government regulation
and cannot receive any support. As a result, many enterprises do not grow. Although the weakness concept is still dominant,
improved support to spin-offs by executives and employees of large enterprises; enabling start-ups at home and expanding the infrastructure for one-person creative enterprises;
000 employees, responding to global competition and developing initiatives to foster hidden global champions. The introduction of policy schemes for supporting this group of enterprises will probably impact the Korean economy dramatically in the coming years.
or the number of employees in order to sustain the status of an SME and be applicable for government support.
Gazelles are defined as high growth firms which within a five-year period double in size to a minimum of 20 employees or to 10 million Canadian dollars (CAD) in sales or both.
but by the mid 1970s it switched to high tech SMES with up to 500 employees (mostly under 25 employees).
Another study by the SBA Office of Advocacy found that SBIR firms produced 13 to 14 times more patents per employee than did larger firms.
when compared with a matched set of non-recipient firms. 159 The SBIR is focused on SMES namely over 41%of respondents had 15 or fewer employees,
while about 15%had more than 100, for a mean of only ten employees. As expected very small firms had increased lower sales and employment with the best results for firms in the range of 15 to 25 employees.
Even though they had the data, the review did not assess the presence of high growth firms
Fostering employment of high-tech employees in SMES: the SME Agency introduced for the first time in 2010 a subsidy programme for SMES employing next-generation high-tech human resources.
Funding recipients should have less than 300 employees or capital below JPY 300 million. The majority of schemes target venture companies and SMES.
%or more in each of the previous three years and a size of more than nine employees at the beginning of the period, classifying them as high-growth enterprises as defined by the OECD (see section 2. 1). For 1,
equalling the Eurobarometer findings (see section 3. 2). 28 of these 59 companies had more than ten employees
when excluding micro companies with fewer than ten employees and large companies with more than 250 employees.
niche market (mentioned twice), word of mouth recommendation, employees, controlling, successful innovation marketing, extended distribution opportunities after being acquired by a trust (mentioned twice), withdrawal of competitors, severe winters. 167 Exhibit 6-1:
Policies for high-growth innovative SMES v1. 6 84 The findings for high-growth enterprises in total are similar to the findings for high-growth enterprises with 10-250 employees,
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011