This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]

On: 04 March 2015, At: 16:57

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Innovation and Development

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riad20

The emergence and functioning of

innovation intermediaries in maturing
innovation systems: the case of Chile
a b c
Laurens Klerkx , Roberto Álvarez & Rolando Campusano
a
Knowledge, Technology and Innovation Group, Wageningen
University, PO Box 8130, Wageningen 6700 EW, The Netherlands
b
Facultad de Economía, Universidad de Chile, Av. Diagonal
Paraguay 257, Santiago, Chile
c
Banco Central, Agustinas 1180, Santiago, Chile
Published online: 27 Jun 2014.
Click for updates

To cite this article: Laurens Klerkx, Roberto Álvarez & Rolando Campusano (2015) The emergence
and functioning of innovation intermediaries in maturing innovation systems: the case of Chile,
Innovation and Development, 5:1, 73-91, DOI: 10.1080/2157930X.2014.921268

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2014.921268

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 16:57 04 March 2015
 Innovation and Development, 2015
Vol. 5, No. 1, 73–91, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2014.921268

The emergence and functioning of innovation intermediaries in maturing

innovation systems: the case of Chile
Laurens Klerkxa*, Roberto Álvarezb and Rolando Campusanoc
a
Knowledge, Technology and Innovation Group, Wageningen University, PO Box 8130, Wageningen
6700 EW, The Netherlands; bFacultad de Economía, Universidad de Chile, Av. Diagonal Paraguay 257,
Santiago, Chile; cBanco Central, Agustinas 1180, Santiago, Chile
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 16:57 04 March 2015

Innovation intermediaries that build linkages in innovation systems are reportedly needed in
many Latin American countries and other developing and emerging countries around the
world that are said to have an immature innovation system. This study analyses the types of
innovation intermediaries that have emerged in Chile, and how these have contributed to the
development of a more mature innovation system. The findings indicate that a great
diversity of innovation intermediaries has emerged and that this has helped induce a shift
towards more networked or open innovation processes. They have not, however, completely
altered the relationships in the Chilean innovation system, but rather helped actors to better
navigate the current system. They have been able to obtain a legitimate position but
experience tensions in relation to how clients understand their role. These intermediaries
have emerged in the context of a policy discourse emphasizing networked or open
innovation, but clearer support policies and coordination of the innovation intermediary field
could enhance their functioning and contribution. The broader implication relevant for
developing and emerging countries is that building more mature innovation systems and
making them function coherently calls for fostering an innovation intermediary subsystem in
the national innovation system covering all the different integration levels in the system
(national, regional, sectoral).
Keywords: Chile; innovation policy; innovation intermediaries; catching-up; national
innovation systems

1. Introduction
Similar to the situation in many emerging Latin America countries designated as having immature
innovation systems (such as Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Colombia - see Rapini et al. 2009; Vil-
lasana 2011; Theodorakopoulos, Sánchez Preciado, and Bennett 2012), Chile has been diagnosed
as having underdeveloped linkages between actors in the innovation system and a lack of social
capital for collaborative innovation (Bitrán 2004; Benavente 2005; OECD 2007; Bas and Kunc
2009). Such linkages concern, for example, linkages between universities and firms for research
collaboration, knowledge exchange and technology transfer, as well as connection between firms
and different government innovation support instruments (such as R&D funding) (Sutz 2000; Bas
and Kunc 2009; Salles-Filho, Beatriz, and Bonacelli 2010). Deficiencies in the formation of lin-
kages and underperformance of existing linkages in innovation systems is generally seen as
network failure and is one of several innovation system imperfections which reduce the

*Corresponding author. Email: laurens.klerkx@wur.nl

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

 74 L. Klerkx et al.

innovation capacity of a national, regional or technology-specific innovation system (Wieczorek

and Hekkert 2012). Differences may, however, exist in the importance and intensity of, for
example, university – industry linkages, depending on the nature of innovation processes in differ-
ent sectors (i.e. science-based, supplier-dominated or production-intensive; see Pavitt, 1984).
It is recognized that innovation is a systemic affair involving many different actors. Organiz-
ations that act as so-called innovation intermediaries (Howells 2006) who build bridges between
these actors have been found to play important roles in optimizing linkage formation in inno-
vation systems and in helping to build social capital for innovation. Consequently, they are
seen as a key innovation policy instrument (Smits and Kuhlmann 2004; Visser and Atzema
2008; Klerkx and Leeuwis 2009; Foster and Heeks 2013). Hence, given suboptimal linkage for-
mation and linkage underperformance, several studies have recommended strengthening the role
of innovation intermediaries in Chile (Bitrán 2004; Benavente 2005), but also more broadly in
Latin America (Arza 2010; Ekboir and Vera-Cruz 2012) as well as in Africa (Kilelu et al.
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 16:57 04 March 2015

2011; Szogs, Cummings, and Chaminade 2011) and Asia (Intarakumnerd and Chaoroenporn
2013; Shou and Intarakumnerd 2013). Our study examines the development of innovation inter-
mediaries in the Chilean innovation system, thereby adding to the literature on innovation inter-
mediaries in innovation systems by responding to the call to take stock of the diversity and scope
of intermediaries in innovation systems (Smits and Kuhlmann 2004), especially those in devel-
oping and emerging countries which have been studied only to a limited extent, as Dutrénit,
Rocha-Lackiz, and Vera-Cruz (2012) and Klerkx, Hall, and Leeuwis (2009) state. Chile is an
interesting case in this respect because it has been recently admitted as a member of the
OECD. Hence, strong prompting to strengthen its innovation system to bring it up to OECD stan-
dards (OECD 2007) has led to the county paying increased policy attention to this matter (OECD
2010). As innovation intermediaries aim to contribute to overall innovation system functioning,
the case could provide interesting insights for ‘catching-up’ countries following a similar trajec-
tory to mature their innovation system (Jacobsson and Bergek 2006).
The paper continues by briefly reviewing the literature on innovation intermediaries in order
to develop an analytical framework for assessing them in the Chilean innovation system. It also
gives some background on innovation support in the Chilean innovation system. This is followed
by an analysis of innovation intermediaries in Chile, and the paper concludes with some impli-
cations for theory and innovation policy.

2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Innovation intermediaries: functions and positioning in the innovation system
The role of innovation intermediaries in supporting innovation, for example, by means of
enabling technology transfer from research to firms or providing different kinds of knowledge
intensive services through consulting, has long been recognized (Den Hertog 2000). Much of
such earlier work is synthesized in Howells’ (2006) seminal article in which innovation interme-
diaries are defined as

An organization or body that acts as an agent or broker in any aspect of the innovation process
between two or more parties. Such intermediary activities include: helping to provide information
about potential collaborators; brokering a transaction between two or more parties; acting as a
mediator, or go-between, bodies or organizations that are already collaborating; and helping find
advice, funding and support for the innovation outcomes of such collaborations. (Howells 2006, 720)

Innovation intermediation can be done by persons, but also through virtual environments, for
example, the many internet-based innovation intermediaries using the open innovation concept
 Innovation and Development 75

aiming to match ‘seekers’ of knowledge and technology and ‘solvers’ who can offer knowledge
and technology (Marjanovic, Fry, and Chataway 2012). As opposed to being an innovation inter-
mediary in a triadic one-to-one-to-one relationship, some authors argue that innovation interme-
diaries have an increasingly systemic scope (many-to-many-to-many relationships) in view of the
emergence and implementation of systemic perspectives such as innovation systems and open
innovation (Smits and Kuhlmann 2004).
In performing their brokering functions, innovation intermediaries have been observed to take
a more enabling and facilitating function (acting as an innovation facilitator by, e.g. assisting in
vision formation, helping to articulate demands for knowledge and technology, matchmaking for
different actors, facilitating interaction in multi-actor networks). They may also actively engage
with resources that are exchanged between the parties with whom they work (acting as a ‘source’
or ‘carrier’ of innovation through, e.g. knowledge brokering by means of processing and translat-
ing research findings into more applicable forms – hence focusing on the exchange of codified or
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 16:57 04 March 2015

explicit knowledge [Yusuf 2008] – trading patents, or providing funding) (Den Hertog 2000;
Benassi and Di Minin 2009). Some authors regard the enabling and facilitating mode as the
purest form of brokering (Winch and Courtney 2007; Klerkx and Leeuwis 2009) – the closest
form to Howells’ definition of an innovation intermediary. This enabling and facilitating mode
enables the interaction between different actors in the innovation system to be used to exchange
tacit knowledge (Yusuf 2008).
Innovation intermediaries may be completely dedicated to brokering and facilitating multilat-
eral networks in innovation systems, or may do so as a side activity of their core activity (Howells
2006), e.g. research organizations who also act as innovation intermediaries given their central
position in the innovation system. Regardless of intermediaries’ more or less independent
status, some authors argue that innovation intermediaries need to actively work on obtaining a
status of relatively neutral ‘honest broker’, as they need to have a legitimate position with
many actors who may have different views and interests (Kolodny et al. 2001; Klerkx and
Leeuwis 2009). Others argue that such neutrality can never be absolute (Meyer 2010), and that
intermediaries sometimes need to take a strategic position (Katzy et al. 2013). There is,
however, a risk that normative orientations or profit motives may cause intermediaries to
control the relationships they mediate to such a degree that their activities are not in the interest
of the other parties but rather in their own self-interest (Obstfeld 2005; Klerkx and Leeuwis 2009;
Kimble, Grenier, and Goglio-Primard 2010).
Several authors indicate that innovation intermediaries should always look for complementar-
ity with existing actors and weaknesses in the innovation system (Kolodny et al. 2001; Visser and
Atzema 2008; Klerkx and Leeuwis 2009). This means that innovation intermediaries’ ideal set-up
and ways of working may vary from country to country and sector to sector. It is not easy to make
this complementarity manifest. Many authors report that innovation intermediaries have difficul-
ties in showing their value and impact, as much of what they do is ‘missionary work’ which takes
place behind the scenes, and innovation success is not easily attributable to the innovation inter-
mediaries’ work (Bessant and Rush 1995; Klerkx and Leeuwis 2009). This also connects to the
‘tacitness’ of much intermediary work (Yusuf 2008), which can have implications for clients’
willingness to pay (in the case of private innovation intermediaries) or continuity of public
funding (for both public and private innovation intermediaries).
Following this review of the literature on innovation intermediaries in terms of gaps in the
literature relating to the emergence of innovation intermediaries in innovation systems, a
number of key issues emerge which have been studied only to a limited extent so far. Following
Klerkx and Leeuwis (2009) and Intarakumnerd and Chaoroenporn (2013), these are: (1) the
relationship between, and compatibility of, different innovation intermediation tasks (i.e. the
facilitator of innovation role vs. the carrier and source of innovation role); (2) whether this role
 76 L. Klerkx et al.

is best taken up by public or private organizations in relation to issues such as the tacitness of the
role and users’ willingness to pay for it; and (3) whether an innovation intermediary should pos-
ition itself explicitly as an honest broker.

2.2. Innovation policy and innovation intermediaries in Chile

Chile has gone through exceptional technological development in several (mainly natural-
resource-based) industries, in which networking with foreign technology sources and investors
was instrumental (Negoita and Block 2012). Innovation funding through instruments such as
the Chilean National Fund for Technological and Productive Development (henceforth
FONTEC by its Spanish acronym) (Benavente and Price 2009), and some early dedicated inno-
vation intermediary organizations, such as the Chilean Economic Development Agency (hence-
forth CORFO, its Spanish acronym) and Fundación Chile, have made a key contribution to this
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 16:57 04 March 2015

process (Bell and Juma 2007; Nelson 2007). In recent years, it is acknowledged that Chile needs
to invest heavily in its capacities to innovate in order to remain competitive as a natural-resource-
based economy (OECD 2007). In terms of systemic synergy, there is much to be gained by means
of cooperation between different kinds of actors, as several authors argue. In this regard, some
concerns have been raised about whether the Chilean development model – which relies on
foreign technology imports – has sufficiently strengthened the internal linkages within the
national Chilean innovation system (Katz 2004; OECD 2007), and whether more efforts
should be made to enhance networking in other than natural-resource-based sectors (Negoita
and Block 2012).
Thus, there are innovation support instruments in the form of cluster formation support,
business incubators at universities, venture and risk capital funds, and applied science funding
aimed at supporting business innovation (through public funds managed by the National
Commission for Scientific and Technological Research [CONICYT, by its Spanish acronym]
and its innovation funding instrument, CORFO-INNOVA) (Nelson 2007; Benavente and Price
2009). They have not, however, yet led to optimal interaction between firms and between
science organizations and firms (OECD 2007; Benavente et al. 2010). Despite some evidence
that these innovation and technology funds have increased the performance of participating
firms, these efforts are still isolated, and there have not been significant changes in the aggregate
innovative performances of the Chilean economy. The main problems include the fragmented
nature of the support instrument landscape, the lack of coherence of different innovation
support instruments and many instruments’ short-term focus. Furthermore, although efforts
have been made by these instruments to stimulate cluster formation and cooperation, and industry
– academia linkages, several authors note that there is a general tendency towards disincentives,
distrust and reluctance to cooperate for innovation between firms and science organizations
(Rojas 2007) and among firms (Cruz 2008; Bas and Kunc 2009), i.e. a lack of social capital
makes it difficult for these innovation intermediaries to become effective (Benavente et al. 2010).
As a result of the observed need to improve linkages between public and private actors, in
relation both to the formation of linkages and to these becoming productive, policy recommen-
dations were made, highlighting the importance of streamlining the different support instruments
and coming to a clearer overall vision of a long-term governance strategy for the innovation
system (Cruz 2008; OECD 2009; World Bank 2009). Consequently, the National Innovation
Council for Competitiveness (henceforth CNIC, its Spanish acronym) was established and
induced a more coherent approach to innovation policy formulation (OECD 2009). Much impor-
tance was therefore placed on the development of the innovation intermediary structure, by sti-
mulating technology transfer organizations to translate research into business applications, or
by accessing foreign technology sources and trusted or honest brokers to facilitate the formation
 Innovation and Development 77

and functioning of effective innovation networks or research consortia (CNIC 2007, 2009; World
Bank 2009). Recent Chilean innovation policy reviews and prospective studies thus call for the
field of especially systemic innovation intermediaries in the innovation system to be strengthened
(OECD 2007; Babish et al. 2009; World Bank 2009).

2.3. Research questions and analytical focus points

The literature review in Sections 2.1 and 2.2 raises two specific questions that this paper aims to
answer: (1) what kind of innovation intermediaries have emerged in recent years in Chile; (2) how
have the Chilean intermediaries established themselves in the Chilean innovation system?
Specific analytical focus points derived from the literature are given in Table 1.
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 16:57 04 March 2015

3. Research methods
Given the exploratory character of this research, we used a qualitative approach to get in-depth
information on the variety of innovation intermediaries. The information used in this exploratory
research comes from 22 semi-structured interviews with innovation intermediaries in the Chilean
case. Snowball sampling was used by means of a search from web pages, public information,
related literature and personal contacts from which we identified a potential sample of 68 inno-
vation intermediaries. When scrutinizing this potential sample, we found that more than 38%
of the candidates had permanently or temporarily suspended their activities or were in fact not
acting as intermediaries. This left us with a potential sample of 42 intermediaries. On approaching
these, we could not establish effective contact (by phone, email or social networks) with 33% of
them (14), we could not coordinate the interview with 10% (4) and 5% of them (2) were not

Table 1. Analytical focus points for studying innovation intermediaries as derived from the literature.
Item
Services provided
Type of innovation intermediation role
Innovation paradigm/philosophy used
Types of parties between which the
innovation intermediary intermediates
Sector or industry
Scope of activities
Way of funding/business model
New/existing organization
Independence
Type of intermediation relationship
Key achievements
Key tensions
Effect on innovation system performance
Institutional and governance support for role Funding, policy, etc.
as innovation intermediary
Example
Technology transfer, patent advice, funding procurement
support, etc.
Facilitator/carrier/source of innovation
Open innovation, innovation systems, etc.
Academia–industry, amongst firms or firms and users
(seekers–solvers), etc.
Mining, agriculture, etc.
National, regional, international, etc.
For-profit/non-profit, private firm/public organization/
foundation, lump-sum funding/fee for service, no-cure-no
pay, etc.
Long history or emerged in recent years
Attached to other organization or part of broader
organization, e.g. university technology transfer office,
part of incubator, etc.
Bilateral, trilateral, multilateral
Reported effects on networking, mindset change,
institutional frameworks
Reported tensions in terms of legitimacy, funding, visibility,
effectiveness
Reported effect on changes in innovation governance,
institutional setting
 78 L. Klerkx et al.

interested in being interviewed. This left us with a final sample of 22 innovation intermediary
organizations.
Given Chile’s centralization, most of the potential organizations (95%) were located in San-
tiago de Chile (capital city of the country). The interviews were conducted mainly with either the
managing director of the organization or a senior consultant involved in innovation intermedia-
tion. The interviews lasted between half an hour and two hours and were tape recorded and tran-
scribed. Based on our literature review of innovation intermediaries, this interview was structured
along the following main issues: (i) basic information on location, type of organization and profit
or non-profit activities, (ii) objectives and scope of the institution, (iii) performance and impact,
and (iv) positioning in the innovation system and innovation networks. Complementarily, policy
documents on innovation intermediaries were analysed. The interviews were coded using the
theoretical framework as an analytical lens.
In terms of possible biases, as regards internal validity, it should be noted that the findings
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 16:57 04 March 2015

are based on self-reporting of the innovation intermediaries studied and could be narrowly
focused. However, as we interviewed people in high positions (usually CEO or senior consult-
ants), we believe that these were in a position to give a broad view of the functioning and posi-
tioning of the innovation intermediary organization for which they work. In terms of external
validity, the geographical concentration of interviewees was in Santiago, which might have a
slightly different context than other parts of Chile. However, many innovation intermediaries
worked in other parts of Chile also, and the policy context is largely the same throughout
Chile, which has quite centralized innovation policy instrument formulation and implemen-
tation. Also, from the organizational webpage information of all the innovation intermediaries
initially approached after the first selection (42 innovation intermediaries), there seems to be no
noteworthy difference between the non-interviewed group and the interviewed group. A second
external validity risk concerns generalization of the findings. Given the exploratory character of
the research and the limited number of respondents, external validity cannot be derived from
statistical generalization. However, in exploratory research analytical generalization can be
applied in which ‘previously developed theory is used as a template with which to compare
the empirical results of the case study’ (Yin 2003, 32–33) and hence contributes to cumulative
evidence building.
We now describe the findings. We first characterize the innovation intermediary organizations
studied and then look at their positioning in the Chilean innovation system. To illustrate patterns
and salient findings, quotes from the interviews are used.

4. Findings
4.1. Characterization of innovation intermediaries: origin, organizational form and roles
In this section, we describe some characteristics of the innovation intermediaries studied (see
Table 2). Most of these are private organizations, with a for-profit orientation, and a few are
non-profit foundations. The majority are of relatively small size, with more than 90% of them
having fewer than 20 workers. Many have become operational only recently: the median foun-
dation year is 2006. They work in different sectors, and it is noticeable that sectors such as agri-
culture, the food industry and mining are well represented, as these are strong export sectors in
Chile. Most respondents indicated that they founded their organization because of a perceived
need for increased connectivity in the innovation system, both within the Chilean innovation
system and to connect Chilean organizations (e.g. firms, universities) with organizations from
abroad. Such foreign connections were and are forged in order to be able to bring technologies
to the country and adapt these to local circumstances, with the objective of upgrading sectors
 Table 2. Overview of studied innovation intermediaries.
Number of
employees Type of innovation
working on Type of intermediation role
Year intermediation/ Innovation paradigm/ intermediation (facilitator, source, Organizational Scope (national
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 16:57 04 March 2015

Organization founded over total philosophy Sectors relationship carrier) Service form /international)

Inspiral Moves 1989 15/30 Open innovation All sectors Trilateral, Facilitator Innovation project Ltd, for-profit National
multilateral management
Seeker–solver matching
New product development
support
Innovation culture
building/coaching
Innolab 2011 2/4 Structured innovation Mining, Information Trilateral, Facilitator, Technology transfer and Ltd, for-profit National
management and Communication multilateral carrier commercialization
creating innovation Technology (ICT), Innovation network
culture biotechnology building
Seeker–solver matching
Fund procurement support
Innovation agenda
articulation
Stein Business 1999 2/2 Networked innovation Services, tourism, Trilateral Facilitator, Provide access to new Ltd, for-profit National,
Center education carrier markets (market search, international
feasibility studies)
Reduce information gaps –
knowledge search
Matchmaking with, e.g.

Innovation and Development

chambers of commerce
Marketing advice
Assistance in fund
procurement
Gesta Mayor 2005 6/6 Open innovation Agriculture, Trilateral, Carrier, Incubator for spin-offs Foundation, National
biotechnology multilateral facilitator for-profit
Seeker–solver matching
Articulation innovation
agendas
Fund procurement support
Academia–industry link
builder
Emprendo Verde 2008 3/4 No particular All sectors Trilateral, Facilitator Web-based platform for Ltd, for-profit National
philosophy multilateral exchanges green
innovative firms

(Continued )

79
 Table 2. Continued.

80
Number of
employees Type of innovation
working on Type of intermediation role

L. Klerkx et al.
Year intermediation/ Innovation paradigm/ intermediation (facilitator, source, Organizational Scope (national
Organization founded over total philosophy Sectors relationship carrier) Service form /international)
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 16:57 04 March 2015

Plataforma Aurea 2008 1/8 No particular Construction, chemical Trilateral, Facilitator Human resources building Ltd, for-profit National
philosophy industry multilateral
Innovation culture
building/coaching
Entrepreneurial network
building
Innpulso 2009 3/4 No particular Mining, biotechnology Trilateral, Facilitator Articulation innovation Ltd, for-profit National
philosophy multilateral agendas
Assistance in fund
procurement
Spin-off creation
Createch 2005 4/8 Networked All sectors Trilateral, Carrier, Technology Foundation, National,
(follow innovation, open multilateral facilitator implementation advice for-profit international
up of UC innovation, Research network building
TT innovation (partner search)
office) ecosystems Market studies
intellectual property (IP)
advice
Fund procurement support
Fundación Chile 1976 266/380 Networked Mining, retail, Trilateral, Facilitator, Research (market research, Foundation, National
innovation, agriculture, food multilateral source, carrier new product non-profit
open innovation, industry, renewable development)
innovation energy, Life Technology transfer
ecosystems sciences Innovation network
building
Certification
Technology intelligence
Innovation agenda
articulation
Innovation process
management
Fund procurement support
Movistar Innova 2009 8/9 Innovation Services, ICT Trilateral, Facilitator Incubator for spin-offs Foundation, National
ecosystems multilateral IP advice not for-profit
Innovation culture
building/coaching

DSF Consultora 2011 1/2 Networked innovation Biotechnology Trilateral Facilitator, Technology transfer/ Ltd, for-profit National
carrier commercialization
IP advice
Articulation innovation
agendas
 Centro de 2003 14/14 Structured innovation Services, retail Trilateral Carrier, facilitator Capacity-building for Belongs to a National
Innovación e management innovation university
emprendimiento Innovation culture builder
UAI
Morales y Besa 2000 4/50 Networked innovation Agriculture, food Trilateral Facilitator IP advice Ltd, for-profit National,
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 16:57 04 March 2015

industry, Fund procurement support international

biotechnology Strategic intelligence
Technology screening
(aptitude for
commercialization)
EuroChile 1992 6/25 Networked innovation Food industry, tourism Trilateral, Facilitator Technology search Seeker– Foundation, not National
multilateral solver matchmaking for-profit
Fund procurement support
Research/innovation
network building
Intangible 2011 4/4 Innovation Mining, renewable Trilateral, Facilitator, carrier Technology transfer Ltd, for-profit National
ecosystems energy, multilateral IP support
biotechnology
Ematris 2006 3/5 Open innovation Biotechnology, ICT, Trilateral Facilitator Technology transfer/ Ltd, for-profit National
creative sector, commercialization
robotics, food Market studies
industry, renewable Technical advice
energy, Fund procurement support
manufacturing
Plataforma 360 2006 5/15 Open innovation Food industry, Multilateral Facilitator Technology transfer Ltd, for-profit National
biotechnology Entrepreneurial and
innovation network
building

Innovation and Development

Technical advice
Innovation agenda
articulation
Fund procurement support
FDF 1992 7/30 Networked Agriculture Trilateral, Facilitator, carrier Technology transfer Foundation, not National
innovation, multilateral for-profit
innovation Innovation network
ecosystems building
Solver–seeker matching
Technical advice
Innovation agenda
articulation
Fund procurement support

(Continued )

81
 82
L. Klerkx et al.
Table 2. Continued.
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 16:57 04 March 2015

Number of
employees Type of innovation
working on Type of intermediation role
Year intermediation/ Innovation paradigm/ intermediation (facilitator, source, Organizational Scope (national
Organization founded over total philosophy Sectors relationship carrier) Service form /international)

Santiago Innova 1998 9/20 Networked innovation Services, ICT, Trilateral, Facilitator, carrier Technology transfer/ Foundation, not Regional
biotechnology multilateral commercialization for-profit
Innovation network
building
Innovation agenda
articulation
Fund procurement support
Innovation culture
building/coaching
Seeker–solver matching

Puente Tecnológico 2011 6/6 Structured innovation Food industry, tourism Trilateral, Carrier, facilitator Technology transfer Ltd, for-profit National
management, multilateral
creating innovation Seeker–solver matching
culture Innovation agenda
articulation
Fund procurement support
Management and 2010 11/11 Innovation Agriculture Trilateral, Facilitator Research/innovation Ltd, for-profit National
Research ecosystems, multilateral network builder
Triple Helix Seeker–solver matching
Fund procurement support
Un Techo Para 2009 11/17 Creating innovation Services Trilateral, Facilitator, carrier Technology transfer Foundation, not National,
Chile culture multilateral for-profit international
Fund procurement support
Articulation innovation
agendas
Marketing advice
Innovation network
building
 Innovation and Development 83

like the fruit sector to meet international standards. For some of the organizations (e.g. Fundación
Chile, EuroChile, FDF), this has been a principal focus.
This need for connectivity is often recognized in relation to certain perspectives on innovation
such as networked or open innovation (i.e. firms use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and
boundaries between a firm and its environment have become more permeable; see Huizingh,
2011), innovation ecosystems (i.e. the configuration of organizations with which firms engage
to organize open innovation; see Ritala et al. 2013) and innovation systems (i.e. the set of distinct
institutions which jointly and individually contribute to the development and diffusion of new
technologies and which provide the framework within which governments form and implement
policies to influence the innovation process; see Metcalfe 1995). These have become more known
through the work of OECD and CNIC (see also Section 2.2). In addition to enabling network for-
mation, many respondents indicated that they wanted to install a culture of entrepreneurship and
innovation in Chilean firms and universities, which they see as insufficiently developed. This is
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 16:57 04 March 2015

illustrated by the following quote from one of the innovation intermediaries:

Essentially, our vision is that there is a growing gap in the sense that the Chilean government has made
important investments in science and technology, and has invested a lot in technology development by
universities on condition that these should not languish on university library shelves [...]. But the com-
munication between university and industry remains a ‘dialogue of the deaf’, because they have their
own codes and rhythm, they have different types of incentives, and that is why this gap continues to
grow, despite 20 years of investment. This offers an opportunity to those agents that permit a dialogue
between these different actors, between industry folk and knowledge generators.

Often, innovation intermediaries’ staff have worked in universities or businesses themselves, have
noted the deficiencies in terms of low connectivity and lack of collaboration, and see an oppor-
tunity to link the different ambits of the innovation systems. Many respondents aim to have comp-
lementary competences within their organization, with people from diverse educational and
professional backgrounds. Most staff have university-level education and belong to both engin-
eering and social science disciplines.
Table 2 summarizes the activities undertaken by the studied innovation intermediaries. As can
be seen in the table, many organizations do not focus on pure brokering in the sense of facilitating
interactions. Many Chilean innovation intermediaries provide both classical intermediation – and
in that sense can be considered carriers of innovation such as technology transfer from university
to firms and also technological and legal (e.g. IP rights) consultancy – and more systemic inno-
vation intermediation, such as the formation and facilitation of research consortia and innovation
networks and facilitation of the articulation of sectoral or regional innovation agendas. The latter
role can be considered as facilitating innovation. Many respondents indicated that the classical
intermediation services are provided through bilateral relationships with clients (one-on-one
advice), but they all also said that they had a systemic outlook and also mediate in multilateral
many-to-many relationships. Their systemic outlook is reflected in the type of innovation para-
digms they employ in their business models (i.e. open innovation, innovation systems and inno-
vation ecosystems).
As regards their systemic roles, several respondents indicated that they played important roles
in bringing together networks of actors to collaborate for innovation. Such networks may be rela-
tively small, for example, when they connect seekers of a particular technology, body of knowl-
edge or funding source (if they assist in funds procurement) with solvers who can offer these
resources. They can, however, also be large, involving several actors within a region or sector,
e.g. in the case of research consortia or innovation agenda-setting processes. Once networks
have been formed, respondents indicated that they also played a role in ‘translating’ between
firms and the universities, in order to enable effective technology transfer or collaboration in
 84 L. Klerkx et al.

research consortia. The following quote illustrates that, by doing so, they correct an innovation
system failure in the form of network failure:

We are translators, we are in the business of stimulating, we are in the logic of interpretation. We work
on businesses in development, and we link them with what the public and the private domain have to
offer. If there is anything where you need to add value, and in which the Chilean culture is lacking, it is
networks. We have this role, connecting and using these networks, and we look for funds and need to
translate so that they function, and we seek to educate and train the entrepreneur.

From this quote, it also emerges that this organization wants to play a role in optimizing the inno-
vation culture in general, i.e. stimulate entrepreneurial behaviour, networking and knowledge
sharing, follow a joint vision and create an environment of trust and open communication –
this is also a focus of many of the other innovation intermediaries studied.
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 16:57 04 March 2015

4.2. Positioning of the innovation intermediaries in the Chilean innovation system

As can be derived from the theoretical framework, important issues in relation to positioning
concern legitimacy to act as innovation intermediary and getting recognition for the role
played by innovation intermediaries (which often takes place in the background and involves
much tacit knowledge exchange, especially when acting taking the role coined ‘facilitator of inno-
vation’ – Den Hertog, 2000), and securing funding for this role.
In terms of obtaining and maintaining a legitimate position, remarkably, only one respondent
explicitly mentioned the importance of maintaining a neutral role in the formation of innovation
networks and research consortia. The majority of respondents stated that they have been able to
obtain a legitimate position. However, this does not mean that tensions have not been experienced
in this process – tensions that relate mainly to the tacit character of some of the services they
provide. A first tension concerns managing clients’ expectations in terms of what the service is
about, especially the vaguer services typically relating to systemic intermediation, such as the for-
mation and facilitation of research consortia and innovation networks. It also relates to defining
the precise tasks of the innovation intermediary and what clients should do themselves, especially
when innovation intermediaries adopt a co-creation philosophy. In the case of more concrete and
discrete services like IP advice or technology transfer, this appears to be less of a problem. A
related tension reported is that clients have unrealistic expectations about the duration of inno-
vation projects and demand results in too short a timeframe. Referring to Chilean idiosyncrasies,
many respondents pointed to the risk-averseness and short-sightedness of actors in the Chilean
innovation system as a clear contributor to this tension. The following quote illustrates this
idiosyncrasy:

As Chileans we still have this thing of ‘hiding the ball’ and don’t tell anyone what we are doing.
Making errors is punished, if you want to set up a business and you fail, most probably you will
be sanctioned or fired, and such things inhibit innovation.

As a solution to tensions relating to unrealistic expectations, the majority of respondents stated

that they clearly stipulated the conditions of the service delivery in contracts, to manage expec-
tations. Some respondents also reported that a better understanding has grown as regards their
role, as the following quote illustrates:

We have seen change. This change is the product of an understanding, the idea is, as our company
name says, appreciating what nobody sees, the ‘intangible’. [...] The changes are that it requires
much less effort to explain what we do, firms are starting to understand the type of service we
 Innovation and Development 85

provide, and this means that there is a better connect between what they demand and the service we
offer.

Many of the respondents provide innovation intermediation services as a core business, but this
does not necessarily imply that they are organizationally independent. Some of them are also
organizationally affiliated to an existing organization such as a university or an industry associ-
ation. This is seen rather as an advantage than a disadvantage because of the recognition and/or
prestige of the organization to which the innovation intermediaries are affiliated.
A core tension for innovation intermediaries mentioned in the literature, especially for tacit
functions such as network formation and facilitation, is low recognition of the value of services
and hence clients’ low willingness to pay. The studied organizations have mixed experiences with
recognition of the value of their service and willingness to pay. This is an important issue, as on
average 55% of the studied organizations’ income derives from private funding, with 22% deriv-
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 16:57 04 March 2015

ing from public funds and 13% from other sources (such as universities, municipalities, inter-
national organizations and the organization’s own resources). A majority indicated that it was
still a challenge to explain to clients why the service has a certain value and price, especially
when results have not yet materialized. Again, referring to Chilean idiosyncrasies, the respon-
dents stated that clients generally demand more than they pay for. In terms of the form of
payment, most of the innovation intermediaries work on the basis of a fee per time unit of deliv-
ered service, and make arrangements with individual clients as to the payment modality (part in
advance, part afterwards, monthly payments and so forth).
In terms of public funds, innovation intermediaries facilitate access to, but also directly or
indirectly derive their funding from research and innovation funding instruments such as
CONICYT and CORFO (see also Section 2.2). This is quite important, especially in early
stages of the innovation process, as these quotes illustrate:

We are still working a lot with public funds, because, when the private sector is piloting this, they
aren’t 100% willing to pay. So, in the early stages, we test whether the idea is generating value, so
that later on the firms are interested in bringing it to scale.

There are changes, and this is very much influenced by CORFO, because when you are a service firm
and you are trying to sell a service which is technology transfer, intermediation, etc., but you don’t
have someone who funds it, it does not work. Now with the funds from CORFO, universities and tech-
nology centres, possibly one does not agree with how these lines of financing were created, but they
were important in generating the interaction.

Although they derive benefits from these government instruments, respondents complained about
things such as fragmentation of funding instruments and lack of flexibility of these instruments.
Also, there were complaints as regards a lack of coherence in innovation policy and a lack of
explicit policy on intermediation. The following quote illustrates this:

I think that a fundamental problem is that the funding instruments, and this happens not only in Chile
but also elsewhere, don’t give a dedicated role to these institutions and want everything to be done for
free. Amongst the funding organizations, there has not been an analysis of what it is to be an inter-
mediary and how important it is to have qualified human resources for this, normally no single
funding instrument wants to pay for it.

This evidence has important policy implications in the case of Chile and other developing
countries. It suggests that, even when there are several public instruments to enhance innovation
in these economies, they are not always specifically tailored to support the role of innovation
intermediaries.
 86 L. Klerkx et al.

4.3. Reported contributions of innovation intermediaries to optimizing the Chilean

innovation system
As is clear from Section 4.1, the accelerated emergence of innovation intermediaries in recent
years was induced by a changing policy discourse focused on stimulating interactive models of
innovation and also highlighting the role of trusted intermediaries in this (CNIC 2007, 2009;
Babish et al. 2009; World Bank 2009). Hence, this emergence can be linked to changing insti-
tutional frameworks. Although the respondents indicated a lack of specific support as stated in
Section 4.2, some explicit policies have been installed to stimulate the emergence of innovation
intermediaries. At the national level, this role has been taken up by CNIC, and at the regional
level, the Productive Development Regional Agencies (ARDP by its Spanish acronym) (2008–
2010) (Benavente et al. 2010; OECD 2010) and CORFO’s technological nodes have fulfilled
this role. Also, in 2012 a funding programme was launched to stimulate the establishment of tech-
nology transfer offices at universities.
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 16:57 04 March 2015

In terms of innovation intermediaries’ influence on optimizing interactions in the Chilean

innovation system, their main reported contributions are in the field of changing Chile’s inno-
vation culture, in which respondents saw fear of failure – and, related to this, risk-averseness,
short-sightedness and distrust in collaborative processes – as a major barrier. Hence, to
improve the innovation culture, respondents highlighted their work on stimulating entrepreneurial
behaviour, developing a long-term vision for innovation, and networking and knowledge sharing.
In terms of networking, the respondents observed that the connectivity between actors has
increased, in that diverse organizations in the innovation system such as universities and firms
now link up with one another more easily. Also, they reported greater willingness to engage in
collaborative research and innovation and to enhance trust in innovation networks and research
consortia, as the following quotes illustrate:

I think that three years ago the entrepreneurship ecosystem was 30% of what it is now, both in com-
munication between actors and in support initiatives. These changes are the result of a cultural change,
opportunities, change of interests and a more advanced society.

The role of intermediation has passed from the foundation [i.e. the intermediary] being in constant
dialogue with ASOEX [Chilean organization of fruit exporters] or the individual producers which
it unites, to being a bridge between the industry, firms or sectoral committees and state organizations
and research institutes, to seeing the appropriate lines of action to solve problems, from something
bilateral to something multilateral.

However, some respondents also reported that change has been slow and that differences existed
between sectors, actor groups, and also within actor groups (e.g. small vs. large firms). Further-
more, different roles of different actors in the innovation systems were said to be in flux, and it
was not yet clear which role should be taken by which actor. The following quotes illustrate this:

The ecosystem is not prepared and has to mature; there is a still a need for more associativity, there are
intentions but it is hard. The problem is that generally there is a lack of incentives; companies are still
reluctant to innovate.

The role of intermediary is still a role that needs to be consolidated in Chile, I do not see it consoli-
dated. For example, the universities think they are the intermediaries, because, as the role has not yet
been consolidated, all think they can perform it.

Some respondents stated that the changing attitude was influenced by a new generation of pro-
fessionals becoming active in firms, government and academia. However, in line with earlier
 Innovation and Development 87

comments, it appears that this has not yet fully induced a transformation towards a more mature
innovation system with clear roles for different actors and well-functioning linkages. The follow-
ing quote illustrates this point:

There are changes but they are generational and not structural, there is turnover of people, people with
other education, both researchers and entrepreneurs. There are many people coming from elsewhere,
and these have very clear concepts, but the change is coming about because people work around the
structures and not because the structures are changed.

Despite some respondents being sceptical about structural change, others indicated that changes
in the innovation support instruments landscape have occurred, with a greater emphasis on the
innovation intermediary role. Hence, they also need to adapt, as new programmes are launched
which fund activities that overlap with their own. The recent nationwide installation of technology
transfer offices in universities is thought to have affected the current work of established interme-
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 16:57 04 March 2015

diaries, as the following quote illustrates:

We have had changes in our relationships with clients; these are now changing with the university
professors, because CORFO is financing the launching of technology transfer offices in the univer-
sities [...]. This changes the structure; there will be a central entity which guides university professors
in basic issues relating to technology transfer. What does this mean, that what they did with us in terms
of technology transfer, they will have that [...] and how we will act in this new scenario, that is a
challenge.

Hence, whereas on the one hand the work of existing innovation intermediaries may become more
institutionalized as public support programmes emerge which foster the innovation intermediary
role (which could be seen as a sign of optimization and maturation of the Chilean innovation
system), on the other hand this may be a threat to them as others start operating in the same
field and provide competition enabled by public funding (i.e. a process of crowding-out estab-
lished players).

5. Discussion and conclusion

As our study has shown, a wide variety of innovation intermediaries has emerged in the Chilean
innovation system in recent years. In view of the policy objectives set by the Chilean government
(with support from organizations like the OECD, the World Bank, and the Inter-American Devel-
opment Bank), it appears that progress has been made with regard to improving linkage building
and translation between different actors in the innovation system and that this has helped build
social capital for innovation, counteracting concerns voiced by several authors (Bitrán 2004;
Benavente 2005; OECD 2007; Bas and Kunc 2009). The Chilean innovation intermediaries
help innovation system actors (such as firms and universities) to operate the innovation system
by establishing both inward and outward linkages to cooperation partners (who can provide
knowledge, technology, business models and markets, and funding). These activities are highly
important for well-functioning and mature innovation systems (cf. Visser and Atzema 2008;
Herstad et al. 2010). The intermediaries thus appear to have contributed both to resolving
certain innovation system imperfections in the Chilean context – such as network issues (lack
of connectivity and collaboration) and institutional issues (lack of entrepreneurial spirit, distrust
of collaboration, short-sightedness) – and to its maturation.
In relation to the gaps in the literature identified in Section 2, this study has some relevant
findings on functions, funding and positioning of innovation intermediaries. In terms of inno-
vation intermediary functions, the modality of pure brokering (acting only as a facilitator and
 88 L. Klerkx et al.

not as a source or carrier of innovation), described elsewhere (Van Lente et al. 2003; Klerkx and
Leeuwis 2009; Katzy et al. 2013), seems to be almost absent. In terms of funding, our findings
corroborate earlier findings in the literature (Klerkx and Leeuwis 2009) that, because of their
often tacit nature, the role and effect of innovation intermediation (especially the facilitation
role) are not always easy to capture, and that it is hence not always easy to explain to clients
what innovation intermediation is about and what value can be expected. In terms of positioning,
in contrast to previous findings (Kolodny et al. 2001; Klerkx and Leeuwis 2009), issues such as
explicit neutrality and explicit positioning as a trusted broker are not perceived as a major concern
by innovation intermediaries in the Chilean innovation system. Many of the respondents do not
position themselves as independent actors and are affiliated to other organizations in the inno-
vation system, such as research organizations. This indicates that, although such explicit position-
ing may be a key issue in one innovation system setting, it may be less important (or has not yet
been recognized as such) in another setting, or not opportune (Goldberger 2008; Kilelu et al.
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 16:57 04 March 2015

2011). In the case of Chile, this can be explained by the fact that only a small percentage of
firms are really innovative and, therefore, the intermediaries face a low scale of activity on
which to become more specialized, independent and systemic.
Following Visser and Atzema (2008) and Klerkx, Hall, and Leeuwis (2009), our findings
suggest that innovation systems in different countries may have different organizational and func-
tional set-ups for their innovation intermediaries’ subsystem, and they reinforce earlier statements
about considering the context specificity of innovation policy (cf. Tödtling and Trippl 2005). In
the Chilean innovation system, the innovation intermediaries seem to have emerged in the context
of a changing discourse, rather than reflecting the execution of explicit government objectives
with regard to innovation intermediaries. The emergence of the innovation intermediary field
in the Chilean innovation system appears to be, at least partly, the result of a self-organizing
movement following the popularity of paradigms such as open innovation and innovation ecosys-
tems, and not just of targeted policy. In this context, Chilean public policies oriented towards
strengthening links between firms, and between firms and universities, may have helped to
develop innovation intermediaries, but these are not the fruit of specific policies on this. What
can be witnessed here is that, although there have been changes in institutional frameworks
and proposals for more explicit support policies for innovation intermediaries, explicit govern-
ance arrangements to foster the innovation intermediary field lag behind. In terms of policy,
self-organization by an important set of players in the innovation systems may indicate a maturing
innovation system. Given the perceived lack of explicit support however, a key lesson for inno-
vation policies is that they should stay in tune with such self-organizing fields within the inno-
vation system and support them more explicitly where necessary. This corroborates earlier
suggestions by Visser and Atzema (2008) and Katzy et al. (2013) that the role of public policy
(and, related to that, public funding) is to assist in recruiting, providing start-up funding for
and monitoring innovation intermediaries. Here, following several authors (Klerkx and
Leeuwis 2009; Intarakumnerd and Chaoroenporn 2013), careful consideration is needed of
what roles should be public, and what roles should be private, and the development of innovation
intermediaries should be monitored to see how far public support should reach (to avoid crowd-
ing-out and market disturbance).
This would imply, in line with Smits and Kuhlmann’s (2004) ideas, that some of the high-level
think-tank committees on how to improve immature innovation systems – such as CNIC in the
Chilean case – could more actively engage as systemic innovation intermediaries at the overall
national innovation system-level (across sectoral and technology boundaries) in terms of connect-
ing experience from the growing field of innovation intermediaries at field-level and of promoting
learning amongst these, as these field-level innovation intermediaries are the hands-on shapers of
greater innovation system interaction at the level of innovation projects. The former could be
 Innovation and Development 89

public, whereas the latter could be of a private nature, although the latter would require clients to
have greater awareness and willingness to pay, especially for innovation intermediaries’ facilitator
role. When necessary, such high-level innovation intermediaries can engage in more explicit
capacity-building and design of support instruments to enhance the functioning of field-level
innovation intermediaries.
Building more mature innovation systems and making them function coherently would hence
also imply building a coherent innovation intermediary subsystem in the national innovation
system covering all the different integration levels in the system (national, regional, sectoral).
This recommendation may be relevant not only for the Chilean situation, but also for other
countries, especially those which have indicated the need for innovation intermediaries (Arza
2010; Ekboir and Vera-Cruz 2012), or have a developing field of innovation intermediaries
(Szogs, Cummings, and Chaminade 2011; Ekboir and Vera-Cruz 2012; Theodorakopoulos,
Sánchez Preciado, and Bennett 2012; Shou and Intarakumnerd, 2013). However, further
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 16:57 04 March 2015

studies would be needed to assess the current state of development of subsystems of innovation
intermediaries within the national innovation system in order to assess the applicability of lessons
from the Chilean case.

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support from the Chilean Millennium Science Initiative which funded this
study (Project NS 100017 ‘Centro Intelis’). We also thank the innovation intermediaries for their cooperation
and the two reviewers of this journal for their helpful comments.

References
Arza, V. 2010. “Channels, Benefits and Risks of Public–Private Interactions for Knowledge Transfer:
Conceptual Framework Inspired by Latin America.” Science and Public Policy 37 (7): 473–484.
Babish, J. G., R. L. Garcia, C. J. Pearce, and A. S. Paau. 2009. Establishment of Centers for Innovation
Technology Transfer and Entrepreneurship (CITE) in Chile. Princeton, NJ: InterLink
Biotechnologies, LLC.
Bas, T. G., and M. H. Kunc. 2009. “National Systems of Innovations and Natural Resources Clusters:
Evidence from Copper Mining Industry Patents.” European Planning Studies 17 (12): 1861–1879.
Bell, B. W. Jr., and C. Juma. 2007. “Technology Prospecting: Lessons from the Early History of the Chile
Foundation.” International Journal of Technology and Globalisation 3 (2–3): 296–314.
Benassi, M., and A. Di Minin. 2009. “Playing in Between: Patent Brokers in Markets for Technology.” R&D
Management 39 (1): 68–86.
Benavente, J. M. 2005. “Innovación Tecnológica en Chile: Dónde Estamos y qué se Puede Hacer?”
Economia Chilena 8 (1): 53–74.
Benavente, J. M., J. Katz, C. Contreras, R. Cancino, and F. Zamorano. 2010. Análisis de la Dinámica de los
Sistemas Regionales de Innovación y su Impacto en la Innovación del Sector Productivo: El Caso de
Chile. Santiago de Chile: INTELIS – Departamento de Economía – Universidad de Chile.
Benavente, J. M., and J. J. Price. 2009. “Apoyo Público a la Innovación Empresarial: de FONTEC a Nuestro
Días.” In Desarrollo Productivo en Chile. La Experiencia de CORFO entre 1990 y 2009, edited by O.
Muñoz, 117–148. Santiago de Chile: CORFO, FLACSO-Chile. Catalonia Editores.
Bessant, J., and H. Rush. 1995. “Building Bridges for Innovation: The Role of Consultants in Technology
Transfer.” Research Policy 24 (1): 97–114.
Bitrán, E. 2004. “Sistema de Innovación, Consorcios Tecnológicos y Clusters Dinámicos en Chile.” Working
Paper Expansiva Foundation. Accessed August 1, 2012. www.expansiva.cl
CNIC. 2007. Estrategia Nacional de Innovación – Volumen II. Santiago de Chile: Consejo Nacional de
Innovación para la Competividad.
CNIC. 2009. Orientaciones Estratégicas Para Fortalecer el Apoyo Público al Emprendimiento Innovador.
Santiago de Chile: Consejo Nacional de Innovación para la Competividad.
Cruz, A. 2008. “La Ruta de la Innovación en Chile.” Journal of Technology Management and Innovation
(JOTMI) 3 (1): 1–9.
 90 L. Klerkx et al.

Den Hertog, P. 2000. “Knowledge-Intensive Business Services as Co-Producers of Innovation.”

International Journal of Innovation Management 4 (4): 491–528.
Dutrénit, G., A. Rocha-Lackiz, and A. O. Vera-Cruz. 2012. “Functions of the Intermediary Organizations for
Agricultural Innovation in Mexico: The Chiapas Produce Foundation.” Review of Policy Research
29 (6): 693–712.
Ekboir, J. M., and A. O. Vera-Cruz. 2012. “Intermediary Organisations to Foster the Agricultural System of
Innovation: The Mexican Produce Foundation.” International Journal of Technological Learning,
Innovation and Development 5 (1–2): 111–125.
Foster, C., and R. Heeks. 2013. “Analyzing Policy for Inclusive Innovation: The Mobile Sector and Base-of-
the-Pyramid Markets in Kenya.” Innovation and Development 3 (1): 103–119.
Goldberger, J. 2008. “Non-Governmental Organizations, Strategic Bridge Building, and the Scientization of
Organic Agriculture in Kenya.” Agriculture and Human Values 25 (2): 271–289.
Herstad, S. J., C. Bloch, B. Ebersberger, and E. van de Velde. 2010. “National Innovation Policy and Global
Open Innovation: Exploring Balances, Tradeoffs and Complementarities.” Science and Public Policy
37 (2): 113–124.
Howells, J. 2006. “Intermediation and the Role of Intermediaries in Innovation.” Research Policy 35 (5):
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 16:57 04 March 2015

715–728.
Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (2011). “Open Innovation: State of the Art and Future Perspectives.” Technovation
31 (1): 2–9.
Intarakumnerd, P., and P. Chaoroenporn. 2013. “The Roles of Intermediaries in Sectoral Innovation System
in Developing Countries: Public Organizations versus Private Organizations.” Asian Journal of
Technology Innovation 21 (1): 108–119.
Jacobsson, S., and A. Bergek. 2006. “A Framework for Guiding Policy-Makers Intervening in Emerging
Innovation Systems in ‘Catching-Up’ Countries.” European Journal of Development Research 18
(4): 687–707.
Katz, J. 2004. “Market-Oriented Reforms, Globalization and the Recent Transformation of Latin American
Innovation Systems.” Oxford Development Studies 32 (3): 375–387.
Katzy, B., E. Turgut, T. Holzmann, and K. Sailer. 2013. “Innovation Intermediaries: A Process View on Open
Innovation Coordination.” Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 25 (3): 295–309.
Kilelu, C. W., L. Klerkx, C. Leeuwis, and A. Hall. 2011. “Beyond Knowledge Brokering: An Exploratory
Study on Innovation Intermediaries in an Evolving Smallholder Agricultural System in Kenya.”
Knowledge Management for Development Journal 7 (1): 84–108.
Kimble, C., C. Grenier, and K. Goglio-Primard. 2010. “Innovation and Knowledge Sharing Across
Professional Boundaries: Political Interplay Between Boundary Objects and Brokers.” International
Journal of Information Management 30 (5): 437–444.
Klerkx, L., A. Hall, and C. Leeuwis. 2009. “Strengthening Agricultural Innovation Capacity: Are Innovation
Brokers the Answer?” International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 8 (5/
6): 409–438.
Klerkx, L., and C. Leeuwis. 2009. “The Emergence and Embedding of Innovation Brokers at Different
Innovation System Levels: Insights from the Dutch Agricultural Sector.” Technological Forecasting
and Social Change 76 (6): 849–860.
Kolodny, H., B. Stymne, R. Shani, J. R. Figuera, and P. Lillrank. 2001. “Design and Policy Choices for
Technology Extension Organizations.” Research Policy 30 (2): 201–225.
Marjanovic, S., C. Fry, and J. Chataway. 2012. “Crowdsourcing Based Business Models: In Search of
Evidence for Innovation 2.0.” Science and Public Policy 39 (3): 318–332.
Metcalfe, S. 1995. “The Economic Foundations of Technology Policy: Equilibrium and Evolutionary
Perspectives.” In Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change, edited by P.
Stoneman, 409–512. Oxford: Blackwell.
Meyer, M., 2010. “The Rise of the Knowledge Broker.” Science Communication 32 (1): 118–127.
Negoita, M., and F. Block. 2012. “Networks and Public Policies in the Global South: The Chilean Case and
the Future of the Developmental Network State.” Studies in Comparative International Development
47 (1): 1–22.
Nelson, R. C. 2007. “Transnational Strategic Networks and Policymaking in Chile: CORFO’s High
Technology Investment Promotion Program.” Latin American Politics and Society 49 (2): 149–181.
Obstfeld, D. 2005. “Social Networks, the Tertius Iungens Orientation, and Involvement in Innovation.”
Administrative Science Quarterly 50 (1): 100–130.
OECD. 2007. OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy – CHILE. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development.
 Innovation and Development 91

OECD. 2009. Chile‘s National Innovation Council for Competitiveness. Interim Assessment and Outlook.
Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
OECD. 2010. Strengthening Institutional Capacities for Innovation Policy Design and Implementation in
Chile. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Pavitt, K. 1984. “Sectoral Patterns of Technical Change: Towards a Taxonomy and a Theory.” Research
Policy 13 (6): 343–373.
Rapini, M. S., E. da Motta e Alberquerque, C. V. Chave, L. A. Silva, S. G. A. de Souza, H. M. Righi, and
W. M. S. da Cruz. 2009. “University–Industry Interactions in an Immature System of Innovation:
Evidence from Minas Gerais, Brazil.” Science and Public Policy 36 (5): 373–386.
Ritala, P., V. Agouridas, D. Assimakopoulos, and O. Gies. 2013. “Value Creation and Capture Mechanisms
in Innovation Ecosystems: A Comparative Case Study.” International Journal of Technology
Management 63 (3): 244–267.
Rojas, J. 2007. “Capturando Valor en las Universidades y Centros Tecnológicos. Hacia la Definición de
Estrategías, Políticas y Procedimientos de Apropiabilidad, Protección Legal, Explotación y
Transferencia Tecnológica de Resultados de Proyectos de I+D+I en Chile.” Journal of Technology
Management and Innovation (JOTMI) 2 (1): 4–10.
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 16:57 04 March 2015

Salles-Filho, S., M. Beatriz, and M. Bonacelli. 2010. “Trends in the Organization of Public Research
Organizations: Lessons from the Brazilian Case.” Science and Public Policy 37 (3): 193–204.
Shou, Y., and P. Intarakumnerd. 2013. “The Roles of Intermediaries in Sectoral Innovation Systems and
Clusters in China and Thailand: An Overview.” Asian Journal of Technology Innovation 21
(SUPPL 2): 1–6.
Smits, R., and S. Kuhlmann. 2004. “The Rise of Systemic Instruments in Innovation Policy.” International
Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 1 (1/2): 4–30.
Sutz, J. 2000. “The University–Industry–Government Relations in Latin America.” Research Policy 29 (2):
279–290.
Szogs, A., A. Cummings, and C. Chaminade. 2011. “Building Systems of Innovation in Less Developed
Countries: The Role of Intermediate Organizations Supporting Interactions in Tanzania and El
Salvador.” Innovation and Development 1 (2): 283–302.
Theodorakopoulos, N., D. J. Sánchez Preciado, and D. Bennett. 2012. “Transferring Technology from
University to Rural Industry Within a Developing Economy Context: The Case for Nurturing
Communities of Practice.” Technovation 32 (9–10): 550–559.
Tödtling, F., and M. Trippl. 2005. “One Size Fits All?: Towards a Differentiated Regional Innovation Policy
Approach?” Research Policy 34 (8): 1203–1219.
Van Lente, H., M. Hekkert, R. Smits, and B. Van Waveren. 2003. “Roles of Systemic Intermediaries in
Transition Processes.” International Journal of Innovation Management 7 (3): 1–33.
Villasana, M. 2011. “Fostering University–Industry Interactions under a Triple Helix Model: The Case of
Nuevo Leon, Mexico.” Science and Public Policy 38 (1): 43–53.
Visser, E.-J., and O. Atzema. 2008. “With or Without Clusters: Facilitating Innovation through a
Differentiated and Combined Network Approach.” European Planning Studies 16 (9): 1169–1188.
Wieczorek, A. J., and M. P. Hekkert. 2012. “Systemic Instruments for Systemic Innovation Problems: A
Framework for Policy Makers and Innovation Scholars.” Science and Public Policy 39 (1): 74–87.
Winch, G. M., and R. Courtney. 2007. “The Organization of Innovation Brokers: An International Review.”
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 19 (6): 747–763.
World Bank. 2009. CHILE – Fostering Technology Transfer and Commercialization. Washington, DC:
World Bank.
Yin, R. K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yusuf, S. 2008. “Intermediating Knowledge Exchange between Universities and Businesses.” Research
Policy 37 (8): 1167–1174.