Evolving roles and dynamic capabilities of an innovation agency: the Dutch Rijksnijverheidsdienst, 1910–1940

References

• Blondel, D. 1995. “Efficiency Criteria for Intermediaries Involved in the Innovation Process.” International Journal of Technology Management 10 (4/5/6): 478–488.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centraal Bureau Voor De Statistiek. 1935–1937. Bedrijfstelling 31 december 1930. Den Haag: CBS.
   Google Scholar
• Coehoorn, C. A. 1995. The Dutch Innovation Centres: Implementation of Technology Policy or Facilitation of Small Enterprises. Capelle a/d IJssel: Labyrinth Publication.
   Google Scholar
• Dalziel, M. 2010. “ Why Do Innovation Intermediaries Exist?” DRUID summer conference, London, June 16–18.
   Google Scholar
• Davids, M., H. Lintsen, and A. van Rooij. 2013. Innovatie en kennisinfrastructuur. Vele wegen naar vernieuwing. Amsterdam: Boom.
   Google Scholar
• Eekels, J., H. H. C. M. Christiaans, and R. H. Kaasschieter. 1985. Ondernemen en vernieuwen: Hommage aan de kleine en middelgrote industrie naar aanleiding van 75 jaar Rijksnijverheidsdienst. Delft: Delftse Universitaire Pers.
   Google Scholar
• Gerwen, J. van, and F. de Goey. 2008. Ondernemers in Nederland. Variaties in ondernemen. Amsterdam: Boom.
   Google Scholar
• Hakanson, L., P. Caessens, and S. Macaulay. 2011. “InnovationXchange: A Case Study in Innovation Intermediation.” Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 13 (2): 261–274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassink, R. 1997. “Technology Transfer Infrastructures: Some Lessons from Experiences in Europe, the US and Japan.” European Planning Studies 5 (3): 351–370. doi: 10.1080/09654319708720404
   Google Scholar
• Helfat, C. E., S. Finkelstein, W. Mitchell, M. A. Peteraf, H. Singh, D. J. Teece, and S. G. Winter. 2007. Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Howells, J. 2006. “Intermediation and the Role of Intermediaries in Innovation.” Research Policy 35 (5): 715–728. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ingenool, A. 1927. Vijf en twintig jaren middenstandsbeweging: Gedenkboek van den Nederlandschen Middenstandsbond. Den Haag: Vereeniging “De Nederlandschen Middenstandsbond”.
   Google Scholar
• Kirkels, Y., and G. Duysters. 2010. “Brokerage in SME Networks.” Research Policy 39 (3): 375–385. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klerkx, L., and C. Leeuwis. 2009. “Establishment 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. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2008.10.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00119-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lente, D. van. 1990. “The Crafts in Industrial Society: Ideals and Policy in the Netherlands, 1890–1930.” Economic and Social History in the Netherlands 2: 99–119.
   Google Scholar
• Lintsen, H. 2005. Made in Holland. Een techniekgeschiedenis van Nederland, 1800–2000. Zutphen: Walburg Pers.
   Google Scholar
• Ludwig, G., and J. Pemberton. 2011. “A Managerial Perspective of Dynamic Capabilities in Emerging Markets: The Case of the Russian Steel Industry.” Journal for East European Management Studies 16 (3): 215–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcevily, B., and A. Zaheer. 1999. “Bridging Ties: A Source of Firm Heterogeneity in Competitive Capabilities.” Strategic Management Journal 20 (12): 1133–1156. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199912)20:12<1133::AID-SMJ74>3.0.CO;2-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meulen, B. van der, M. Nedeva, and D. Braun. 2005. “ Intermediaries Organisation and Processes: Theory and Research Issues.” PRIME Workshop, Enschede, October 6–7.
   Google Scholar
• Misa, T. J., P. A. E. Brey, and A. Feenberg eds. 2003. Modernity and Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Nauwelaers, C., and R. Wintjes. 2002. “Innovating SMEs and Regions: The Need for Policy Intelligence and Interactive Policies.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 14 (2): 201–215. doi: 10.1080/09537320220133866
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roxas, S., G. Piroli, and M. Sorrentino. 2011. “Efficiency and Evaluation Analysis of a Network of Technology Transfer Brokers.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 23 (1): 7–24. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2011.537085
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sapsed, J., A. Grantham, and R. Defillippi. 2007. “A Bridge over Troubled Waters: Bridging Organizations and Entrepreneurial Opportunities in Emerging Sectors.” Research Policy 36: 1314–1334. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schot, J., H. Lintsen, and A. Rip eds. 2010. Technology and the Making of the Netherlands: The Age of Contested Modernization 1890–1970. Zutphen: Walburg Pers.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair, J. ed. 2003. Cobuild Advanced Learner's English Dictionary. Glasgow: HarperCollins.
   Google Scholar
• Sluyterman, K. E. 2005. Dutch Enterprise in the 20th Century: Business Strategies in a Small Open Country. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Teece, D. J., G. Pisano, and A. Shuen. 1997. “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management.” Strategic Management Journal 18: 509–533. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tjong Tjin Tai, S.-Y. E. 2015. “Connecting Small Firms for Innovation.” PhD thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Winch, G. M., and R. Courtney. 2007. “The Organization of Innovation Brokers: An International Review.” Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 19 (6): 747–763. doi: 10.1080/09537320701711223
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar