Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 29

Paper to be presented at the DRUID Summer Conference on "Industrial Dynamics of the New and Old Economy - who is embracing whom?" Copenhagen/Elsinore 6-8 June 2002

Theme A : Technical Change, Corporate Dynamics and Innovation Session 3-2 : Technological Trajectories

COMPLEMENTARITIES BETWEEN OBSTACLES TO INNOVATION :

EMPIRICAL STUDY ON A FRENCH DATA SET

Fabrice Galia and Diègo Legros

ERMES - UMR 7017 CNRS Université Panthéon-Assas Paris II - 12, place du Panthéon 75231 PARIS Cedex 05

Tel.: 01 44 41 89 90 - Fax.: 01 40 51 81 30

E-mail : galia@u-paris2.fr and dlegros@u-paris2.fr

May 7 th 2002

Abstract : The economics of innovation traditionally focuses on the determinants of research- development (R&D) and innovation. Other approaches studying obstacles to innovation seem to have been marginalized. We concentrate on this alternative approach. First, we describe and detail the obstacles of the 1997 French Technological Innovation survey (CIS2). We study econometrically what types of firms experience what kinds of obstacles. Second, we identify complementarities between obstacles, namely three groups characterized respectively by (1) lack of information and rigidities, (2) risks and costs, and (3) problems of outlets on markets. Complementarities found between them confirm that internal human capital and its management are key for any systemic innovation policy.

Keywords : Innovation, Complementarity, Factor analysis, Generalized residuals.

JEL - code(s). C25, D21, O32.

Complementarities between Obstacles to Innovation : Empirical Study on a French Data Set ¤

Fabrice Galia and Diègo Legros y ERMES - Université Panthéon-Assas Paris II

May 2002

Abstract : The economics of innovation traditionally focuses on the determinants of research- development (R&D) and innovation. Other approaches studying obstacles to innovation seem to have been marginalized. We concentrate on this alternative approach. First, we describe and detail the obstacles of the 1997 French Technological Innovation survey (CIS2). We study econometrically what types of …rms experience what kinds of obstacles. Second, we identify complementarities between obstacles, namely three groups characterized respectively by (1) lack of information and rigidities, (2) risks and costs, and (3) problems of outlets on markets. Complementarities found between them con…rm that internal human capital and its management are key for any systemic innovation policy.

Keywords : Innovation, Complementarity, Factor analysis, Generalized residuals.

JEL Classi…cation : C25, D21, O32.

¤ We would like to thanks D. Encaoua, G. Eliasson, S. Lhuillery, P. Mohnen, the participants of the Onzièmes Journées du SESAME, September 2001, Lille, the participants of Seminar ERMES, January 2002, Paris, and the participants of Workshop Innovation, Paris I, May 2002 for their comments. All remaining errors or omissions are ours. y ERMES - CNRS UMR 7017 - Université Panthéon-Assas Paris II - 12, place du Panthéon - 75270 PARIS Cedex 05 - Tél. : +33 (0)1 44 41 89 90 - Fax. : +33 (0)1 40 51 81 30 - E-mail : galia@u-paris2.fr and dlegros@u-paris2.fr

1. Introduction

Innovation is the key factor of competitiveness in …rms and nations. Much works has been devoted to explain the determinants of innovation and research and development (R&D). The size, the type of the …rm, the technological opportunities, the degree of competition and the capacity of appropriation of the bene…t of the innovation are the most examined factors (see Cohen et al. (1989), Cohen (1995), Encaoua et al. (2000), Kleinknecht and Mohnen 1 (2001), Crampes and Encaoua (2001) and Crépon et al. (2000) for France). Other approaches to the study of obstacles to R&D and to innovation seem to have been marginalized. To our knowledge, only one study on the subject (Mohnen and Rosa (2000)) was carried out on data of Canadian service …rms.

R&D is an investment activity subject to consistently uncertainty, of the beyond calculation. Will success be here? How much will have to be invested in order to develop a new product or process? Moreover, the costs of research are (sunk costs), irreversible 2 (Tirole (1993)) and its output, i.e. the knowledge is not easily transferable 3 being speci…c in the majority of cases. Finally, innovation involves a signi…cant …xed cost. The risk does not disappear once the new product or process is ready. Indeed, the consumers will make a good reception with the “newborn”? If so, up to what point? Will the request be such su¢cient to cover the expenditure of R&D. Will commercial success be experience? In other words, a successful innovation is an innovation only if commercial success in the market is realized (Barlet et al. (1998)).

The importance of the costs of innovation is reinforced by the lack of …nancing private as well as external. Because of the imperfections of the capital markets, an insu¢cient amount of own capital stocks can cause a degradation -damaging, erosion- of the conditions of …nancing. These phenomena moreover are pronounced in the case of investment in R&D (see Belin (2001), Duguet (2001) and Lhomme (2001)). The importance of budgets and the randomness of R&D explain why it is generally self-…nancing or …nanced by equity (three-quarters of the …rm). Moreover, the …nancial problems do appear during the process of innovation, which we can break up into …ve phases : exploratory research, R&D strictly de…ned, preparation and commercial launching, industrialization and manufacturing and …nally marketing.

However, when the …rm judges that the incurred risks and costs are to large, it can short them with partners. Partnerships take various forms (i.e. R&D states or public organization subsidies (Guillaume (1998), CGP (1999), Belin (2001), Duguet (2001), Lhomme (2001)) and cooperation agreements (Aghion and Tirole (1995)). However, an excessive perceived economic risk involves di¢culties of …nding the …nancing and partners necessary to the various projects of innovation. The information collected by the future …rm and its partners on the outlets (in term of sales), but also on the technique and technology to be set up, makes it possible to evaluate the success and the feasibility of the project (Monjon and Waelbroeck (2000)). The success of a project of R&D thus depends largely on the reactions of the market and the technological capacities of the …rm.

The innovation requires not only general knowledge but also particular and speci…c aptitudes in each industry or the receiven competence (Eliasson (1990)) to commercialize a technicalinnovation.

1 They identify clearly (p. 17) : factor conditions (human resources, basic research infrastructure, information infrastructure, and the supply of risk capital), supporting environment (competition, innovation incentives, presence of clusters, and local suppliers), and demand conditions (sophisticated customers, anticipated needs). 2 Indeed, when a …rm invests wrongly in a machine tool, it always has the possibility of recovering part of the cost by the resale of the machine what is not the case of the expenditure of R&D. 3 The diversity of the activities of the …rm plays an important role on this level. According to the literature, a greater diversity of the …rm’s activities would make it possible to use knowledge more easily resulting from the phase of R&D.

2

The process of innovation also presupposes increased capabilities to solve problems which do not fail to intervene. These various capacities are developing not only by learning by using or learning by doing but also by the acquisition of skilled workers. For these reasons, the …rm tends to increase their human capital stock either by a sta¤ training (general or speci…c), or by an increase in the number of skilled workers (particularly the senior executive, the technicians, and the engineers). This strategy remains valid during the adoption and the adaptation of new technologies resulting from other …rm (Gassmann and VonZedwitz (1998), Galia (2000))

Engineers may be essential to innovation, but are not the only actor of importance. Then is a world of di¤erence between a technological innovation or a new technology and an industrial scale production (see competence bloc theory, Eliasson (2000, pp. 12-17). The …rm eager to conclude its project will have also to engage specialists in marketing and sales engineers. The structuring, organizing of research and the managing of engineers to achieve commercial objectives in order to avoid dissipated e¤orts (Tarondeau (1994), Vinck (1991), Gaillard (1997), Gassmann and VonZed- witz (1998), Galia (2000)); the marketing and commercial services will be charged to promote and sell the new product(s) or process(es).

For these reasons, the lack of skilled workers within the …rm, the low availability on the labour market of highly quali…ed workers constitute not only an obstacle to innovation but also to the use of new advanced technologies. Baldwin and Johnson (1995) showed, in a Canadian empirical study, that the innovating …rm employs a higher proportion of “professional personnel and technical sta¤ of production” than the average …rm (see also Baldwin and Da Pont (1996), Baldwin and Peters

(2001)).

In order to develop the capacity of innovation, the management of the …rm must be su¢ciently ‡exible. Indeed, regarding research and development, the hierarchical formalism, the excessive reg- ulation (Guillaume (1998)), the lack or the absence of communication between the research and production units, the system of the repetitive tasks, fragmented, the deresponsabilisation of the employees can degrade innovation capacities. In other words, division of the labour constitutes a barrier to innovating activity and to individual creativity.

The …rm can develop through varying its ‡exibility in two ways : quantitatively or qualitatively. The …rst way is the number of employees, the number of worked hours or the remuneration. The second one, relates to competences of the workers related to the skills level, the experience, the polyvalency/versatility, the motivation, the autonomy level in organization. They are also to make it possible for each member of the …rm to express his new ideas in order to facilitate the appearance of innovation such as the process innovations, which are generally the fact of production personnel.

Firm strategy also includes the imitation of competitor innovations, the absorption of new technologies implies that organizational ‡exibility is also necessary. Imitation also requires high quali…cations to carry out reverse-engineering (at least the study of the new product), the use and the maintenance of new machines, quality control (via quality circles), etc.

Greenan (1996) shows that there is a strong interdependence between innovation, organization of the production and competences of the employees. According to it, the quali…cations within the …rm in‡uence its technological and organizational choices (see also Greenan and Mairesse (1999), and Caroli et al. (2001)). A reorganization of the productive system thus passes through quali…ed workers 4 .

Lastly, public authorities, consumers associations and industrial lobbying groups can establish standards or legislate and regulate the economic activity of production. A standard is a measure

4 The quali…cation of the managers of the …rm also intervenes in organisational rigidities.

3

making it possible to evaluate the viability and the quality of a particular product. Standards might bene…t the consumer, but can have negative e¤ects on competition (creation of barriers preventing the arrival of new …rms or new products on the market).

Thus, to carry a project of innovation, the …rm faces many obstacles of …nancing, feasibility, problems of information, lack of quali…ed or skilled personnel, resistance to innovation, rigidities. In this article, we study these various obstacles and their possible interrelationships and com- plementarities using the French Community Innovation Survey 1997 “L’Innovation Technologique dans l’Industrie” (CIS2) over the period 1994 to 1996. Initially, we carry out a detailed descriptive analysis of the obstacles to innovation. 68% of the …rm with projects of innovation delayed their projects, and four out of ten gave up due to encountered di¢culties. The withdrawal of projects comes primarily from the economic risks incurred by the …rm, from the innovation costs too high and the absence of appropriate source of …nancing. The causes of delay are identical to those of the withdrawal except the lack of quali…ed personnel plays a more signi…cant role. A Data Analy- sis then makes it possible to set up three groups of obstacles characterized respectively by a lack of information and rigidities, by purely economic aspects and …nally by the problems of outlets on the markets. Second, we study the possible complementarities between the obstacles using an econometric approach in two stages. This procedure brings us in the …rst stage, to regress each obstacle to innovation using a probit model. In a second stage, we carry out an analysis of the cor- relations of the generalized residuals resulting from the …rst stage in order to establish the possible complementarities.

2. Data

The data used for our study come from two French data sets. The …rst one is the French Community Innovation Survey 1997, “L’Innovation Technologique dans l’Industrie” (CIS2) over the period 1994 to 1996 carried out by SESSI 5 , results from a questionnaire sent to a representative sample of more than5000 industrial…rms above 20employees. This investigationbelongs to the new Community Survey 6 , on technological innovation (for a detailed description, see François and Favre (1998a)). The …rms answer primarily on the nature of the technological innovations, the supervision of these innovations (interms of projects of innovation),the internal and external sources (of R&D), the objectives of the technological innovation, the principal sources of information to innovate, the cooperation to innovate and …nally the obstacles to the projects of innovation. This last part of the questionnaire being the objective of this paper, it will be examined in details in the following section. The response rate is close to 85%, for more than 95% in sales turnover. The second one is the Annual Survey on Firms 1993 7 (in French, “Enquête Annuelle d’Entreprises” (EAE)), informs us about the general characteristics of the …rm like the average number of employee in order to constitute classes of size and the line of business.

We use the answers on the nature of innovations 8 (products or process technologically new or improved) of the …rm. We know also the …rm’s implication in projects of innovation (of products or processes technologically new or improved) which are still under development or marketing. The …rm also informs us on the failures in terms of projects of innovation. Firms having answered by

5 The SESSI is the industrial statistics department of the French Ministry of Economics, Finances and Industry. 6 Survey CIS2 is based on the Oslo Manual drawn up by the O.C.D.E., and revised in 1996. 7 The year 1993 makes it possible to avoid problems of simultaneity with the endogenous variable. 8 See François and Favre (1998a, p. 159).

4

the a¢rmative at least one of four preceding questions 9 are quali…ed innovating by the SESSI. However, only the …rms that had projects of innovations in the past are likely to answer questions relating to the obstacles to innovation. The last question is put in the following way : <Between 1994 and 1996, which obstacles with the projects of innovation your …rm met?>. The merger of these data sets provides a sample of 1773 …rms having had projects of innovations during the period 1994-1996 10 .

The distribution of …rms according to the type of innovations appears in the table of sample descriptive statistics in appendix. Among the industrial …rms that had projects of innovation in the past, meadows of nine out of ten innovated technologically according to the SESSI over the three years period (1994 to 1996). The introduction on the market of new technological products relates to 81.4% of the …rms, while 69.8% state to innovate in processes. The majority of them (61.7%) combined at the same time product and process innovations. Competitiveness is re‡ected by the prevalence of the product innovation. The apparent goal is to directly take market shares to the competitor. The …rms seek to attract customers sensitive to the characteristics and the new performances of the products, and not by focusing their e¤orts on an innovation aiming at reducing the production costs and the prices. Engagement in the process of innovation seems constant since 95.9% of the …rm continue, after 1996, of the projects that yet did not lead or did not know dedication on the market. The …rm remains in a dynamics of creation of innovations that will probably lead in the future years. However, one quarter of …rms underwent failures with the projects of innovations and only a little hundred knew only failures.

The statistics of activities related to innovation are in the appendix table. The fact of carrying out internal R&D within the …rm relates to eight …rm out of ten. The formalization of the projects of innovation is thus carried out generally in-house and using speci…cs structures gathered within the department of R&D. However, a …rm on three sub-contracts R&D, is included with another …rm of the group. We can distinguish two behaviours. The …rst relates to the …rms estimating having a too weak “capacity” of R&D them thus preferring sub-contracting the totality of their projects at specialized laboratories. Second is characteristic of the …rm having research laboratories operating like true autonomous entities and not marking clearly part of the …rm (see Tarondeau (1994)). The signature of cooperation agreements by half of the …rm established the argument in favour of the personnel and method, know-how, knowledge, exchange of information between partners (undertaken or organization of research) for innovation. The sta¤ training related directly to the technological innovation represents an important share of the strategy of R&D since 30% of the …rm use it.

The distribution of …rms by size takes again the standard classi…cation used by the SESSI in seven classes of size. Moreover, we use three categories of size : with the small …rm (SF) from 20 to 99 employees, the medium-sized …rm (MF) from 100 to 499 employees and the large …rm (LF) of 500 employees and more. This classi…cation thus widens the traditional contrast between small and large …rms. Among the …rm with projects of innovations (see table in appendix), one on three are large …rm. We observe the same proportion for the medium-sized …rm. The small …rms with projects account for 38.7% of our sample.

9 <Between 1994 and 1996, 1) Introduction on the market of new (or improved) technological products for the …rm; 2) Introduction on the market of new (or improved) technological processes for the …rm; 3) Firm having had projects of new or improved products or processes which are still under development or marketing; 4) Firm having had projects of new or improved products or processes which were failures>. 10 Projects of innovations still under development or marketing, or which were failures. Let us note that the 1773 …rms having had projects of innovations between 1994 and 1996 belong obligatorily to the category of the innovating …rms according to the SESSI.

5

The sectorial e¤ects (line of business) are taken into account in terms of technological intensity. The technological intensity of …rms used by the SESSI is a typology carried out by OECD in 1994. It is about a gathering of the industrial sectors according to intensity 11 (direct andindirect) of R&D in the production after weighting on the 10 principal Member States. Four groups are thus formed (see table in appendix) : sectors of high technological intensity (HT), of medium high technology (MHT), of medium low technology (MLT) and of low technology (LT). A quarter of the …rms belongs to the group of low technology (LT), the same proportion remains for the group of medium high technology (MHT). The group of medium low technology (MLT) accounts for 38.2% of the population with projects of innovation. Lastly, high technology (HT) represents one …rm out of ten. Competition being regarded as sharper in the growth industries such as pharmaceutical industry, aeronautic industry and space engineering, data processing and electronic components, innovation seems to be a condition of “survival” and competitiveness for the …rm on the market.

3. Obstacles to innovation : descriptive analysis

The ten obstacles used by our study are included in table 1. We have a distinction between the delayed and given up projects. Various di¢culties appear at the time of project of innovation since 68% of the …rm were brought to delay certain projects and four out of ten gave up some projects. Firms prove to be more subjected to the economic constraints than technological and organizational. ones The withdrawal of project is mainly due to excessive economic risk (OBS1) incurred by the …rm (such as the disappearance or the loss of control) and to innovation costs too high (OBS2), lack of appropriate source of …nance (OBS3) which canbe attached to these obstacles. The lack of customer responsiveness to new products and processes (OBS9) is also a reason with the withdrawal of project. By comparison, the other obstacles are all of low importance. However, let us note the important place of the failure of cooperation (OBS10) involving the withdrawal and a fortiori the end of the research project in collaboration with other …rm. The impact of these obstacles is taken into account by the fact that 26.3% of the …rm state to have had failures between 1994 and 1996.

For the delayed projects, having vocation to emerge in …ne on an innovation (of product or process), the frequency of the obstacles appears more signi…cant. We …nd the two principal ob- stacles : the economic risk (OBS1) and the costs of innovation (OBS2), but the lack of skilled personnel (OBS5) also seem a signi…cant brake. The lack of customer responsiveness (OBS9), the lack of information systems on markets and technologies (OBS6 and OBS7) are shown abruptly like determining obstacles. For the innovation, the whole of dimensions of the process (markets, …nancing, human resources, organization) must then be taken into account and managed by the …rm.

11 After measurement of the intensities by sectors, 4 groups are made up : High Technology (intensity>8,5%), Medium High Technology (2,6%<intensity<4,5%), Medium Low Technology (1%<intensity<2,6%) and Low Tech- nology (intensity<1%). To obtain the connection between the groups of technological intensity and NAF level 114 French nomenclature, refer to François (1998, pp. 154-155).

6

Table 1 : Descriptive statistics : Obstacles to innovation (1773 …rms between 1994-1996)

Obstacles

Description

 

Delayed

Given up

project

project

OBS1

Excessive perceived economic risk Innovation costs too high Lack of appropriate source of …nance

21.26%

18.73%

OBS2

19.85%

14.66%

OBS3

13.76%

5.75%

OBS4

Resistance of change in the enterprise (organizationnal rigidities)

16.58%

3.27%

OBS5

Lack

of skilled personnel

21.15%

3.38%

OBS6

Lack

of information

on technologies

17.03%

5.58%

OBS7

Lack

of information

on markets

16.19%

4.34%

OBS8

Legislation, regulations, norms, standards Lack of customer responsiveness to new products and processes Failure of cooperation

14.21%

3.72%

OBS9

18.84%

9.19%

OBS10

5.25%

6.66%

Met at least one obstacle

 

67:96%

40:78%

 

(1205)

(723)

Source : SESSI (1997)

By taking account the size of the …rm (table 2),the obstacles most met are appreciably the same ones as previously. Being with delayed projects, the small …rm primarily face with the obstacles of innovation costs (OBS2), economic risk (OBS1) and lack of skilled personnel (OBS5) to a lesser extent the lack of customer responsiveness (OBS9). The medium-size …rms meet more frequently obstacles relating to thelack of skilledpersonnel (OBS5),economic risk and customer responsiveness (OBS1 and OBS9). However, the excessive costs of innovation as well as the lack of information on markets (OBS2 and OBS7) remain prevalent obstacles. Lastly, for the large …rm, economic risk (OBS1), lack of information on technologies and customer responsiveness (OBS6 and OBS9) set up the principal group of obstacles. Come to be added the lack of skilled personnel and the innovation costs (OBS5 and OBS2).

The frequencies of answers to the obstacles according to the size of the …rm are not signi…cantly di¤erent with critical value at the 5% level 12 . The size thus does not seem discriminating factor. However, the small …rm are more sensitive to the high costs of innovation (OBS2) and to the lack of appropriate source of …nance (OBS3). The failure of cooperation (OBS10) and lack of information on technologies (OBS6) are brakes more frequently met by the …rm of large size compared to small.

Obstacles with the projects given up for the small …rm remain the same ones, but to a lesser extent. The small …rm most frequently react to the excessive costs of the innovation (OBS2) and to the economic risk (OBS1). The lack of customer responsiveness (OBS9), but especially the lack of appropriate source of …nance (OBS3) and the failure of cooperation (OBS10) come to supplement the preceding obstacles. The problems of …nancing and co-operation seem signi…cant here, which is not the case for the delayed projects. The …rm of average size as for them face the same concerns : economic risk (OBS1), excessive costs of innovation (OBS2), lack of customer responsiveness (OBS9), lack of information on technologies (OBS6) and failure of cooperation (OBS10). Lastly, the large …rm meet the same obstacles as the preceding …rm except for the obstacle relating to …nancing (OBS3).

12 The test carried out is a Student test of frequencies’ comparison to the threshold of 5%. The law of Student is approximated by a Normal distribution.

7

Table 2 : Obstacles distribution by size (%)

Obstacles

Delayed

Given up

project

project

 

SF

MF

LF

SF

MF

LF

OBS1

20.96

20.50

22.48

13.83

19.43

24.38

OBS2

22.42

17.65

18.86

14.41

13.37

16.38

OBS3

16.16

10.70

13.90

6.55

4.99

5.52

OBS4

14.99

16.58

18.67

3.06

2.67

4.19

OBS5

20.82

23.17

19.43

3.64

3.21

3.24

OBS6

15.14

16.58

20.00

4.37

7.31

5.33

OBS7

14.41

17.65

16.95

5.09

3.21

4.57

OBS8

15.57

14.08

12.57

4.22

3.92

2.86

OBS9

16.59

20.50

20.00

7.86

8.38

11.81

OBS10

3.78

5.35

7.05

6.40

6.60

7.05

62.74%

70.05%

72.57%

34.64%

42.07%

47.43%

Met at least one obstacle

(431)

(393)

(381)

(238)

(236)

(249)

N

687

561

525

687

561

525

Source : SESSI (1997)

The distribution of obstacles according to the activities related to the innovation are in tables 3 and 4. Those are as follows : to carry out internal R&D, to acquire external R&D (including with another …rm of the group), to use training related directly to innovation and …nally to have coop- eration agreements with other …rm or organizations for activities of innovation. The three-quarters of the …rm using these activities state to have had at least an obstacle delaying the project(s) of innovation (table 3). The …rm doing internal R&D (72%) are prone mainly to the economic risk (OBS1 relating to 22% of the …rm), with the lack of skilled workers (OBS5), with the high costs of innovation (OBS2) and with the lack of customer responsiveness (OBS9). The …rm not doing internal R&D generally meet the following obstacles : lack of skilled workers (OBS5 for 19% of them), high costs of innovation (OBS2), economic risk (OBS1) and lack of customer responsive- ness (OBS9). Being the external R&D, the major obstacles are the lack of customer responsiveness (OBS9), the lack of skilled workers (OBS5), information on the technologies (OBS6) and …nally “economic” variables (costs (OBS2) and risks (OBS1)). Training to innovation can provide a re- sponse to the lack of skilled workers (OBS5), because 25% of …rms engaged in this process state to meet this obstacle. The lack of skilled workers (OBS5) constitutes the principal obstacle, with the economic risk (OBS1), for the …rm’ signatories of cooperation agreements (characterising 22% of the sample).

8

Table 3 : Obstacles to innovation in delayed projects (%)

 

Internal

No internal

External

No external

Obstacles

R&D

R&D

R&D

R&D

OBS1

22.26

17.55

19.38

22.11

OBS2

20.33

18.09

19.57

19.98

OBS3

14.10

12.50

11.96

15.58

OBS4

17.68

12.50

17.21

16.30

OBS5

21.76

18.88

21.92

20.80

OBS6

18.04

13.30

21.92

14.82

OBS7

17.04

13.03

17.21

15.72

OBS8

15.18

10.64

15.40

13.68

OBS9

19.69

15.69

22.64

17.12

OBS10

5.23

5.32

6.16

4.83

Met at least

72.08%

52.66%

73.37%

65.52%

one

obstacle

 

N

1397

376

552

1221

 

Cooperation

No cooperation

 

Training

No training

agreements

agreements

OBS1

25.05

19.61

22.10

20.45

OBS2

21.71

19.04

21.75

17.99

OBS3

15.58

12.97

13.90

13.63

OBS4

18.00

15.96

17.31

15.87

OBS5

25.42

19.29

22.10

20.22

OBS6

18.74

16.29

20.05

14.08

OBS7

16.14

16.21

17.20

15.20

OBS8

13.91

14.34

14.24

14.19

OBS9

20.22

18.23

21.41

16.31

OBS10

4.64

5.51

6.95

3.58

Met at least

72.91%

65.80%

75.40%

60.67%

one

obstacle

N

539

1234

878

895

Figures in bold are the case where frequency equality is rejected at 5%. Source : SESSI (1997)

9

Table 4 : Obstacles to innovation in given up projects (%)

 

Internal

No internal

External

No external

Obstacles

R&D

R&D

R&D

R&D

OBS1

20.11

13.56

21.74

17.36

OBS2

15.75

10.64

15.58

14.25

OBS3

5.65

6.12

6.16

5.57

OBS4

3.22

3.46

3.26

3.28

OBS5

3.15

4.26

4.53

2.87

OBS6

5.80

4.79

6.88

5.00

OBS7

4.22

4.79

4.35

4.34

OBS8

3.44

4.79

3.44

3.85

OBS9

9.09

9.57

9.60

9.01

OBS10

7.37

3.99

6.88

6.55

Met at least

43.81%

29.52%

47.28%

37.84%

one

obstacle

N

1397

376

552

1221

 

Cooperation

No cooperation

 

Training

No training

agreements

agreements

OBS1

19.29

18.48

22.21

15.31

OBS2

16.33

13.94

14.92

14.41

OBS3

5.38

5.92

5.92

5.59

OBS4

2.78

3.48

3.53

3.02

OBS5

3.34

3.40

2.96

3.80

OBS6

5.38

5.67

6.72

4.47

OBS7

4.08

4.46

4.56

4.13

OBS8

3.71

3.73

4.33

3.13

OBS9

10.20

8.75

10.02

8.38

OBS10

7.42

6.32

8.88

4.47

Met at least

43.04%

39.79%

47.61%

34.08%

one

obstacle

N

539

1234

878

895

Figures in bold are the case where frequency equality is rejected at 5%. Source : SESSI (1997)

The withdrawal of innovation project for the …rms engaged in internal R&D seems to be mainly due to the economic risk (OBS1),the costs of innovation (OBS2) and to a lesser extent with the lack of customer responsiveness (OBS9) (see table 4). Others obstacles being slightly met. These three principals obstacles are the same ones for the …rm doing external R&D and for the …rm’ signatories of cooperation agreements. The obstacles mainly met by the …rm using the training to innovate

10

are the lack of skilled workers (OBS5), risk (OBS1), costs (OBS2) and customer responsiveness

(OBS9).

4. Complementarities between obstacles to innovation

The statistical analysis carried out previously revealed that obstacles to innovation seem to be related to the …rm’ size, the technological intensity and the activities in favour of innovation. This analysis made it possible to highlight the obstacles most often met. In this section, we study possible interrelationships and complementarities between the various obstacles. We seek to know which obstacles go hand in hand, and which are the possible clustering. In order to answer this question, we initially examine the binary correlations between the answers to obstacles. Then, we carry out a Factor Analysis in order to determine clusters of obstacles to innovation.

4.1. Binary correlations analysis

Answers to obstacles are binary qualitative variables (1 if the …rm considers to have met the obstacle between 1994-1996, 0 if not), we carry out a Chi-2 test (Â 2 ) of the obstacles independence. The Chi-2 statistic do not provide a measurement of the intensity of the statistical link between the obstacles, nor an indication on the direction even of the relation between two obstacles. For this reason, we use the coe¢cient of contingency or association C 13 . The correlations between obstacles appear in table 5 and 6.

Concerning the delayed projects (table 5), the …rm seem to answer positively and jointly the obstacles related to economic risk, too high costs of innovation and lack of appropriate source of …nance (OBS1 with OBS3). The two obstacles related to the internal management of the …rm, organizational rigidities and lack of quali…ed workers (OBS4 and OBS5) seem to go hand-in-hand. The brakes due to the lack of information on technologies, markets (OBS6 and OBS7) and to the legislation, regulation, norms and standards (OBS8) are correlated. The external environment is taken into account with the signi…cant relation between the lack of information on the markets and the lack of customer responsiveness to new products and processes (OBS7 and OBS9). The others obstacles comparatively slightly appear to be correlated, in particular, the excessive perceived economic risk and the lack of skilled workers (OBS1 and OBS5). The obstacle relating to the source of …nance does not seem to be related to the lack of customer responsiveness (OBS3 and OBS9). The four prevalent correlations invites us to perform the following gathering : the lack of skilled workers and lack of information on technologies (OBS5 and OBS6) ; the lack of information on markets and the lack of customer responsiveness to new products and processes (OBS7 and OBS9); organizational rigidities and the lack of skilled personnel (OBS4 and OBS5) and …nally those related to costs of innovation and source of …nance (OBS2 and OBS3).

It is not surprising to …nd strong correlations between obstacles being followed in the order of the questions in the survey (what corresponds to the diagonal of table 6). This can re‡ect an implicit will of classi…cation of the obstacles that can introduce a bias into the answers. A possible consequence of this is that in general the correlations decrease while moving away from the diagonal. In spite of that, certain correlations seem signi…cant apart from the diagonal such as

13 The coe¢cient of contingency C; is between 0 and 1; comes from  2 . More precisely, C = p  2 2 +N, where N is the number of observations (see Kendall and Stuart (1973) and Miravete and Pernias (2000)). Henceforth, we will speak about correlation between obstacles.

11

excessive perceived economic risk and lack of customer responsiveness (OBS1 and OBS9), costs of innovation and failure of cooperation (OBS2 and OBS10) and …nally lack of appropriate source of …nance and failure of cooperation (OBS3 and OBS10).

Table 5 : Correlation between obstacles to innovation in delayed projects

 

OBS1

OBS2

OBS3

OBS4

OBS5

OBS6

OBS7

OBS8

OBS9

OBS1

1

OBS2

0:21

1

OBS3

0:15

0:24

1

OBS4

0:06

0:04

0:18

1

(0:0157)

(0:0888)

OBS5

0:06

0:08

0:17

0:26

1

(0:0094)

(0:0010)

OBS6

0:0008

0:08

0:10

0:22

0:27

1

(0:9735)

(0:0009)

OBS7

0:09

0:05

0:12

0:22

0:19

0:22

1

 

(0:0520)

OBS8

0:10

0:09

0:13

0:22

0:14

0:19

0:26

1

OBS9

0:13

0:08

0:08

0:15

0:11

0:16

0:27

0:19

1

 

(0:0006)

(0:0008)

OBS10

0:09

0:12

0:21

0:16

0:13

0:15

0:16

0:18

0:16

Chi-2 statistic is 0.0001 for all pairs, except mention in brackets Source : SESSI (1997)

For the given up projects, the correlations between obstacles are given in table 6. However, the Chi-2 test is not valid for all considered pairs 14 . A solution is to gather the modalities of responses to obstacles in order to obtain a su¢cient number of theoretical observations. However, this method does not have possible interpretation in the case of two dichotomic variables. In term of correlation, the economic risk remains associated with the costs of innovation and the lack of appropriate source of …nance (OBS1 to OBS3). Apart from the diagonal, the correlated couples are the following : excessive perceived economic risk and lack of customer responsiveness (OBS1 and OBS9), the excessive costs of innovation and the failure of cooperation (OBS2 and OBS10) and …nally …nancing and the failure of cooperation (OBS3 and OBS10). The signature of cooperation agreements (OBS10) appears to be indirect relationship withthe lack of information ontechnologies (OBS6), which con…rms the idea according to which an alliance seems favourable in the case of insu¢ciency or technological incapacity.

Caution is required in the interpretation of the binary correlations between obstacles, the cor- relation between two obstacles does not inform us about the link of causality between them. A third variable can strongly in‡uence the binary relation. In order to know the gathering between obstacles, we carry out in the next section a Factor Analysis (FA).

14 Number of theoretical observations for one of the four possibles responses combinaisons ((0,0), (0,1), (1,0) and (1,1)) is lower than 5.

12

Table 6 : Correlation between obstacles to innovation in given up projects

 

OBS1

OBS2

OBS3

OBS4

OBS5

OBS6

OBS7

OBS8

OBS9

OBS1

1

OBS2

0:26

1

OBS3

0:13

0:23

1

OBS4

0:11

0:11

0:27 ¤

1

OBS5

0:06

0:16

0:14 ¤

0:21 ¤

1

OBS6

0:07

0:11

0:15

0:17 ¤

0:22 ¤

1

(0:0024)

OBS7

0:12

0:11

0:14 ¤

0:16 ¤

0:16 ¤

0:15 ¤

1

OBS8

0:13

0:16

0:14 ¤

0:19 ¤

0:14 ¤

0:17 ¤

0:17 ¤

1

OBS9

0:18

0:14

0:11

0:11

0:08

0:09

0:15

0:21

1

 

(0:0007)

OBS10

0:17

0:17

0:19

0:14 ¤

0:08 ¤

0:16

0:15

0:18

0:17

Chi-2 statistic is 0.0001 for all pairs, except mention in brackets ¤ Chi-2 test non valid : number of theoretical observations for one of the four possible responses combinations ((0,0), (0,1), (1,0) et (1,1)) is lower than 5. Source : SESSI (1997)

4.2. Factor Analysis

Followingthe paper of MohnenandRosa(2000),we seek toformgroups (or clusters) of obstacles to innovation. These groups are formed using the following criterion : their linear combination must explain as much as possible the variance of the responses to the obstacles to innovation.

The variables resulting from the survey are of qualitative nature (especially binary qualitative variables). Thus, we carry out a Factor Analysis (FA). The FA is a descriptive method, which makes it possible to study the connections between qualitative variables. The algorithm of the FA was applied to the complete disjunctive table resulting from the table of condensed coding. We gave the statute of active element to the set of the ten obstacles. Since the active questions have both methods, no obstacle has a priori more importance than another.

The eigenvalues resulting from the FA applied to the complete disjunctive data set are “very pessimistic measurements of extracted information” 15 . For this reason, we choose the square of the eigenvalues that are the eigenvalues of the FA applied to the Burt’s table associated with our data. The rates of inertia for the obstacles with the delayed project are the following :

15 Lebart et al. (1997).

13

Table 7 : Factor Analysis in obstacles to innovation in delayed projects

Eigenvalues

Variance (%)

Cumulative Variance (%)

0:0575

46:26

46:26

0:0158

12:71

58:97

0:0107

8:61

67:58

0:0079

6:36

73:93

0:0068

5:47

79:40

0:0064

5:15

84:55

0:0056

4:51

89:06

0:0049

3:94

93:00

0:0044

3:54

96:54

0:0043

3:46

100:00

Source : SESSI (1997)

In the framework of the FA, the quality of the adjustment provided by the …rst factorial plan is satisfactory (see graphic 7.1 in appendix) since this …rst two dimensional factor space restores approximately 59% of total inertia. The criterion of Catell 16 (called sometimes algorithm of the elbow) invites us to retain the …rst three factorial axes.

The Factor Analysis, on obstacles in delayed projects, con…rms the results obtained by the binary correlations. In table 8, the …rst factorial axis gathers the problems of rigidities as well internal (organizational rigidities (OBS4) and lack of quali…ed personnel (OBS5)) that external (legislation, regulation, standards, standards (OBS8)) and lack on information on technologies (OBS6) and markets (OBS7). With regard to the second axis, the economic variables : economic risk (OBS1), the costs of innovation (OBS2) and the lack of appropriate source of …nance (OBS3) which take part in the formation of this factor. For the third axis, we record the importance of the lack of customer responsiveness (OBS9) and the contribution of the lack of skilled personnel (OBS5). The lack of appropriate source of …nance (OBS3) also intervenes in the determination of this axis.

16 The procedure seeks to detect an elbow on the histogram of the eigenvalues to facilitate the choice of the number of factorial axes to use. In di¤erences second, the elbow ± i is : ± i =(¸ i+1 ¡¸ i )¡(¸ i ¡¸ i¡1 ) with ¸ i the eigenvalue of the axis i. In di¤erences third, the elbow is : ° i =(¸ i+2 ¡¸ i¡1 )¡3(¸ i+1 ¡¸ i ).

14

Table 8 : Contribution (%) to axis i’s variance - Delayed projects

 

Axis 1

Axis 2 Risks, Costs and Source of Finance

Axis 3

Obstacles

Rigidities and

Customer

Information

Responsiveness

OBS1

3.7

26.1

8.4

OBS2

4.6

33.7

1.1

OBS3

9.3

15.6

11.7

OBS4

13.2

4.3

5.5

OBS5

11.6

3.2

19.3

OBS6

11.6

8.8

4.8

OBS7

13.9

5.1

11.6

OBS8

12.5

1.2

6.2

OBS9

9.7

0.5

31.4

OBS10

9.9

1.5

0.1

Source : SESSI (1997)

In conclusion, we can release three groups of obstacles in delayed projects of innovation. A …rst which gathers rigidities and the lack of information, a second made up of purely said eco- nomic variables (risk, costs and …nance) and …nally a third one dominated by the lack of customer responsiveness.

We apply the same methodology as previously in order to establish groups of obstacles for the given up projects of innovation. The eigenvalues obtained are as follows :

Table 9 : Factor Analysis in obstacles to innovation in given up projects

Eigenvalues

Variance (%)

Cumulative Variance (%)

0:0576

46:60

46:60

0:0128

10:37

56:96

0:0098

7:96

64:92

0:0081

6:58

71:50

0:0073

5:94

77:44

0:0070

5:67

83:11

0:0059

4:73

87:85

0:0057

4:65

92:49

0:0053

4:32

96:82

0:0039

3:18

100:00

Source : SESSI (1997)

Once again by helping us on the criterion of Catell, we retain three factorial axes (table 10 below and graph 7.2 in appendix).

15

Table 10 : Contribution (%) to axis i’s variance - Given up projects

Axis 1 Costs, Source of Finance

Axis 2

Axis 3 Source of Finance and Customer

Obstacles

Risks and

 

and Rigidities

Skilled Personnel

OBS1

8.5

26.1

3.1

OBS2

11.1

9.5

18.1

OBS3

12.0

0.5

22.8

OBS4

11.5

10.8

3.3

OBS5

8.4

20.8

0.6

OBS6

9.0

14.9

1.4

OBS7

9.0

1.4

14.2

OBS8

11.7

0.0

14.2

OBS9

8.3

11.8

21.4

OBS10

10.5

4.2

0.9

Source : SESSI (1997)

For the given up projects, the …rst axis is characterized at the same time by obstacles related to the source of …nance of the innovation projects, problems of organizational rigidities and failures of cooperation. More precisely, obstacles of …nancial nature gather the too high costs of innovation (OBS2) and the absence of suitable source of …nancing (OBS3). Rigidities are composed of organi- zational rigidities (OBS4), legislation, regulation, norms and standards (OBS8). Lastly, the failures of cooperation (OBS10) also take part in the formation of this factor. We notice that the obstacles of …nancial nature (OBS 2 and OBS3) also intervene in the formation of the third axis, where their contributions are higher. The second axis gathers the following obstacles : the excessive perceived economic risk (OBS1),whichmost strongly contributes to its formation,the lack of skilledpersonnel (OBS5) and lack of information on technologies (OBS6). The third axis concentrates the obstacles of …nancial nature (OBS2 and OBS3), the lack of customer responsiveness to new products and processes (OBS9) and lack of information on markets (OBS7).

The implementation of a typology makes it possible to con…rm these gathering (see Galia and Legros (2002)). Moreover, our results are in line with those of Mohnen and Rosa (2000) obtained on a sample of Canadian service …rms. The authors retain three groups characterized respectively by : high risks and costs; risks and lack of …nance; and …nally by risks and internal resistance.

5. Complementarities analysis between obstacles to innovation : an econometric approach

The empirical literature studying the complementarities between various strategies 17 proposes two types of approaches 18 (see Athey and Stern (1998)). The …rst studies the …rm’s productivity and consists in modelling (using several techniques) a measurement of …rm’s productivity with a

17 i.e. if doing more of any subset of them increases the returns from doing more of any subset of the remaining strategies, we thus have mutual reinforcement between these strategies. It provides a way to capture the intuitive ideas of synergies and systems e¤ects, i.e. that “the whole is more than the sum of the parts”. 18 A third one, using the theorical concept of lattices and supermodularity, introducing in economics by Milgrom and Roberts (1990), see also Vives (1999) and Topkis (1998), and Mohnen and Röller (2000) for an empirical application. Specially, a lattice is a partially ordered set where each pair of elements fx;yg has a least upper bound, noted x^y;

16

set of regressors, including the interactions e¤ects between several practices or strategies, inter- preted like parameters of complementarities. The most convincing example of the application of this methodology is the article of Ichniowski, Shaw and Prennushi (1997) (see also Becker and Huselid (1998), Lhuillery (1999), Laursen and Foss (2000) and Leiponen (2000a at 2000b)).

The second approach tests the positive correlation between the various practices or strategies. Arora and Gambardella (1990, 1996) show that certain strategies of external linkages, of large chemical and pharmaceutical …rm, are indeed complementary. The study focused on four types of linkages : agreements with other …rms, agreements of research with the universities, investment in the stock of capital of new biotechnological …rms (NBF) and acquisitions of NBF. By also applying this methodology, Colombo and Mosconi (1995) highlights complementarities between the application of new technological processes on the one hand and the organizational innovations and managerial on the other hand. Laursen and Mahnke (2001) study, with the same method, the complementarities between the human-resources practices in Denmark. Another study concerning the ‡exibility of the production and the innovation is Jung (2001).

The approach of Arora andGambardella (1990) proves tobe advantageous when the value of the complementarities does not appear directly testable, because the intensity even of the strategies remains not easily measurable. In this case, we are constrained to test a signi…cant number of possible combinations between the various strategies. If, to take again the example of the authors, an increase in the internal competence of the …rm, due to an acquisition of NBF, increases the marginalvalue of the links with the universities (equivalent to saying that they are complementary), it seems intuitive to expect to observe the fact that the …rm which makes more acquisitions also tends to have a greater number of interactions with universities. In other words, if two strategies are complementary, we must expect a positive correlation between them. Our preceding discussion on the obstacles to innovation is in agreement with this.

However, we must also take into account the e¤ects of the indirect reactions by the intermediary of the other strategies. Let us suppose, for example, that x 1 and x 2 are complements, but that x 3 is a substitute of x 1 and a complement of x 2 . It is then possible that x 1 and x 2 move in opposite direction if both are more strongly connected to x 3 than one the other. The relation between these strategies and a set of …rm-speci…c characteristics, the environment or the institutional framework, thus do not have to be ignored. This implies that we have to account this kind of factors. This methodology is developed inorder toshow that if the external strategies of links are complementary, then covariance between any strategies,conditionally with a set of characteristics of the …rm, proves to be positive. This model primarily seems a formalized way to take into account the two problems discussed above and provides us a set of conditions accordingto whichthe complementary strategies will positively be correlated.

The application to our study of this procedure in two stages, leads us initially to regress the ten obstacles with the innovation by a set of common exogenous variables (variables in table 11 below). We estimate a probit model explaining each obstacles (tables 11 and 13). In the second time, we carry out a correlation analysis of the generalized residuals resulting from the …rst stage in order to reach some conclusions concerning whether or not our ten obstacles can be seen to be complementary, i.e. depends one on the other or is reinforced mutually (tables 12 and 14).

and a greatest lower bound, noted x_y: Two objects x and y are then called complementary if the corresponding payo¤ function f :R n !R n is supermodular if for all x;y2R n ;f(x)¡f(x^y)·f(x_y)¡f(y):

17

Table 11 : Probit model explaining obstacles to innovation in delayed projects

OBS1

OBS2

OBS3

OBS4

OBS5

OBS6

OBS7

OBS8

OBS9

OBS10

Intercept

[50;99] empl.

[100;249] empl.

[250;499] empl.

[500;999] empl.

[1000;1999] empl.

2000 empl.

and more

Medium Low

Tech

Medium High

Tech

High Tech

Internal R&D

External R&D

Training

Coop. Agreements

?0.7852 ?0.8197

Ý0.0993Þ

Ý0.1000Þ

?0.2168 ?0.2830

Ý0.1117Þ

?0.1018

Ý0.1086Þ

Ý0.1104Þ

?0.3430

Ý0.1112Þ

?0.2124 ?0.3639

Ý0.1192Þ

?0.1567

Ý0.1163Þ

?0.0330

Ý0.1427Þ

0.0225

Ý0.1641Þ

?0.1821

Ý0.0872Þ

?0.0964

Ý0.0953Þ

?0.1855

Ý0.1330Þ

0.2043

Ý0.0921Þ

?0.1722

Ý0.0806Þ

0.1837

Ý0.0752Þ

0.0720

Ý0.0747Þ

Ý0.1198Þ

?0.3987

Ý0.1183Þ

?0.2979

Ý0.1457Þ

?0.3515

Ý0.1703Þ

0.0187

Ý0.0900Þ

0.1168

Ý0.0979Þ

0.0326

Ý0.1353Þ

0.0949

Ý0.0921Þ

?0.0641

Ý0.0811Þ

0.1153

Ý0.0770Þ

0.1930

Ý0.0759Þ

?1.0259 ?1.1784

Ý0.1088Þ

?0.2051

Ý0.1187Þ

?0.3609

Ý0.1235Þ

?0.3841

Ý0.1340Þ

?0.3245

Ý0.1291Þ

?0.2099

Ý0.1590Þ

?0.0389

Ý0.1760Þ

?0.0239

Ý0.0989Þ

0.1162

Ý0.1066Þ

0.0417

Ý0.1472Þ

0.1204

Ý0.1011Þ

?0.1578

Ý0.0906Þ

0.1400

Ý0.0841Þ

0.0528

Ý0.0833Þ

Ý0.1103Þ

0.0523

Ý0.1187Þ

0.0380

Ý0.1182Þ

0.0675

Ý0.1261Þ

0.0886

Ý0.1241Þ

0.1937

Ý0.1507Þ

0.1743

Ý0.1764Þ

?0.0487

Ý0.0931Þ

0.0685

Ý0.1004Þ

?0.3091

Ý0.1505Þ

0.1995

Ý0.0990Þ

?0.0370

Ý0.0838Þ

0.0412

Ý0.0799Þ

0.0103

Ý0.0790Þ

?0.9451

Ý

0.1010Þ

?0.0413

Ý

0.1103Þ

?0.0166

Ý

0.1092Þ

0.0434

Ý0.1164Þ

?0.1712

Ý

0.1187Þ

?0.1883

Ý

0.1493Þ

?0.00947

Ý0.1675Þ

0.0962

Ý0.0878Þ

0.0738

Ý0.0967Þ

?0.2401

Ý

0.1414Þ

0.0646

Ý0.0907Þ

?0.0129

Ý

0.0794Þ

0.2160

Ý0.0751Þ

0.0697

Ý0.0746Þ

?1.2260

Ý0.1106Þ

0.0750

Ý0.1184Þ

?0.0892

Ý0.1213Þ

0.1095

Ý0.1243Þ

0.1418

Ý0.1219Þ

0.1078

Ý0.1501Þ

?0.1815

Ý0.1856Þ

?0.00355

Ý0.0940Þ

0.0794

Ý0.1015Þ

?0.0781

Ý0.1418Þ

0.0904

Ý0.0981Þ

0.1870

Ý0.0816Þ

0.0195

Ý0.0797Þ

0.1525

Ý0.0788Þ

?1.1962

Ý0.1108Þ

?0.0498

Ý0.1206Þ

0.2405

Ý0.1140Þ

?0.1398

Ý0.1317Þ

0.0155

Ý0.1250Þ

?0.0517

Ý0.1586Þ

0.1939

Ý0.1736Þ

0.0365

Ý0.0956Þ

0.2266

Ý0.1023Þ

?0.0563

Ý0.1470Þ

0.1207

Ý0.0986Þ

?0.00420

Ý0.0842Þ

?0.0526

Ý0.0816Þ

0.0532

Ý0.0796Þ

?1.3446

Ý0.1181Þ

?0.0527

Ý0.1191Þ

?0.0709

Ý0.1195Þ

?0.2658

Ý0.1339Þ

?0.2832

Ý0.1302Þ

?0.4998

Ý0.1788Þ

?0.1335

Ý0.1809Þ

0.1738

Ý0.1050Þ

0.4700

Ý0.1102Þ

0.5838

Ý0.1424Þ

0.2040

Ý0.1041Þ

0.0787

Ý0.0876Þ

?0.0635

Ý0.0855Þ

?0.0389

Ý0.0832Þ

?1.0644

Ý0.1053Þ

?0.0656

Ý0.1166Þ

0.1318

Ý0.1116Þ

?0.0431

Ý0.1232Þ

?0.0531

Ý0.1218Þ

?0.0632

Ý0.1510Þ

0.2131

Ý0.1672Þ

?0.00933

Ý0.0905Þ

0.1005

Ý0.0980Þ

?0.3950

Ý0.1506Þ

0.0725

Ý0.0945Þ

0.1263

Ý0.0803Þ

0.0132

Ý0.0782Þ

0.1488

Ý0.0770Þ

?1.7419

Ý0.1543Þ

?0.0113

Ý0.1811Þ

0.1240

Ý0.1739Þ

0.1733

Ý0.1802Þ

0.0820

Ý0.1840Þ

0.5945

Ý0.1917Þ

0.0512

Ý0.2587Þ

?0.0970

Ý0.1352Þ

0.0749

Ý0.1417Þ

0.0785

Ý0.1888Þ

?0.1545

Ý0.1341Þ

0.00899

Ý0.1163Þ

?0.1631

Ý0.1175Þ

0.2847

Ý0.1136Þ

Likelihood

26.10

24.76

23.44

15.83

21.50

28.59

23.47

44.87

30.36

26.96

Ratio

%correct

56.5

57.7

58.8

56.3

56.5

58.6

57.8

62.0

58.8

64.6

predictions

N 1773

1773

1773

1773

1773

1773

1773

1773

1773

1773

Between brackets are standard deviation. In bold, signi…cant value at the 10% level.

Source : SESSI (1997)

18

Table 12 : Correlation among generalized residuals - Obstacles to innovation in delayed projects

 

OBS1

OBS2

OBS3

OBS4

OBS5

OBS6

OBS7

OBS8

OBS9

OBS1

1

OBS2

0:21

1

OBS3

0:14

0:24

1

OBS4

0:06

0:04

0:19

1

(0:0174)

(0:0683)

OBS5

0:06

0:07

0:17

0:27

1

(0:0174)

(0:0018)

OBS6

0:003

0:08

0:11

0:23

0:29

1

(0:8859)

(0:0006)

OBS7

0:09

0:05

0:12

0:23

0:19

0:23

1

(0:0002)

(0:0523)

OBS8

0:10

0:09

0:13

0:23

0:15

0:20

0:27

1

 

(0:0002)

OBS9

0:13

0:08

0:08

0:15

0:11

0:16

0:28

0:20

1

 

(0:0011)

(0:0007)

OBS10

0:10

0:13

0:22

0:17

0:14

0:15

0:17

0:20

0:16

Chi-2 statistic is 0.0001 for all pairs, except mention in brackets. Source : SESSI (1997)

Table 11 shows the results of the ten probit models explaining obstacles to innovation in delayed projects. The principal results are as follows : compared to the size class of reference (20 to 49 employees), the other classes of size in‡uence signi…cantly and negatively the …rst three obstacles (excessive perceived economic risk, innovation costs too high and lack of appropriate source of …nance) and to a lesser extent variable OBS8 (legislation, regulation, norms and standards). The small …rm thus meet in a more intense way the three …rsts obstacles. The …rm with 100 to 249 employees have a probability more raised to meet a lack of information on markets (OBS7). The large …rm (1000 to 1999 employees) encounter signi…cantly and positively the failure of cooperation (OBS10).The …rm engaged in an activity of internal R&D are more sensitive to obstacles related to the economic risk (OBS1), organizationalrigidities (OBS4) and…nally to the legislation, regulation, norms and standards (OBS8). The external R&D makes it possible signi…cantly to reduce the economic risk related to the innovation (OBS1) and the lack of appropriate source of …nance (OBS3). However, the externalisation of research increases the lack of information on technologies

(OBS8).

From these estimates, we calculated the correlations between the generalized residuals of each equation. In table 12, all the paire-wise complementarities are signi…cant (with an exception). Most marked are located on the diagonal. In particular, the complementarities arise between the obstacles related to the excessive perceived economic risk (OBS1) and the innovation costs too high (OBS2); organizational rigidities (OBS4) and lack in skilled personnel (OBS5) as well as the lack of information on technologies (OBS6). Let us note also the strong complementarity between the lack of information on the markets (OBS7) and what we can describe as administrative or institutional obstacles (OBS8). Concerning the element out of the diagonal, the lack of appropriate source of …nance (OBS3) are complementary with the failure of cooperation (OBS10).

19

Table 13 : Probit model explaining obstacles to innovation in given up projects

OBS1

OBS2

OBS3

OBS4

OBS5

OBS6

OBS7

OBS8

OBS9

OBS10

Intercept

[50;99] empl.

[100;249] empl.

[250;499] empl.

[500;999] empl.

[1000;1999] empl.

2000 empl.

and more

Medium Low

Tech

Medium High

Tech

High Tech

Internal R&D

External R&D

Training

Coop. Agreements

?1.1793

Ý0.1099Þ

0.1188

Ý0.1208Þ

0.0760

Ý0.1210Þ

0.3902

Ý0.1223Þ

0.3002

Ý0.1227Þ

0.4208

Ý0.1471Þ

0.5143

Ý0.1671Þ

?0.1937

Ý0.0914Þ

?0.0937

Ý0.0986Þ

?0.1047

Ý0.1336Þ

0.1649

Ý0.0974Þ

0.0237

Ý0.0809Þ

?0.0826

Ý0.0788Þ

0.1322

?1.1769 ?1.4466

Ý0.1128Þ

Ý0.1356Þ

?0.0538

Ý0.1514Þ

?0.1334 ?0.0478

0.0142

Ý0.1204Þ

Ý0.1236Þ

?0.0322

Ý0.1294Þ

Ý0.1507Þ