Abstract
Innovation is currently seen as a process which results from various interactions among different actors. Recent theories of innovation emphasize clusters and geographical proximity as loci of knowledge, development and exchange, critical to higher levels of innovation and regional growth. As a consequence, there is a territorial dimension to innovation. This article investigates the innovation activities and networking of 53 small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in Ottawa, Canada. Taking its point of departure from the proliferating literature on the localized nature of innovation processes, the article sets out to answer three empirical questions: How intensively are SMEs engaging in innovation activities? To what extent do they interact during innovation process activities? What is the relevance of spatial proximity in networking, and what is the relative importance of localized cooperation as compared to non‐localized cooperation. The results revealed SMEs rely as much on external networks of customers and suppliers, as they do on ones based in their own region, and that these are considerably more important, than other potential sources of ideas, to the innovation process within the firm.
Notes
David Doloreux, Canada Research Chair in Regional Development, Université du Québec à Rimouski, 300 allée des Ursulines, Rimouski, Québec, G5L 3A1, Canada; E‐mail: [email protected]
Earlier versions of this article have been presented at meetings in Puerto Rico (US) and Linköping (Sweden).
This article is based on research entitled “Regional Systems of Innovation in Canada: A Comparative Perspective” undertaking at the School of Planning, University of Waterloo (Canada) between 1998–2001. The objective of the research was to draw comparisons on the nature of innovation activities of SMEs in two distinct regions in Canada: the National Capital Region of Ottawa and a more peripheral setting in the Beauce, a southern region of the Province of Quebec.
They include: Nepean, Gloucester, Kanata, Vanier and Rockcliffe, plus the municipalities of Osgoode, Rideau, West‐Carleton, Goulbourn and Cumberland.
In terms of response rate, the survey achieves representative coverage of the size and technological sectors and there is, a priori, no discernable bias between those firms that responded and those that did not.