Utifrån dagens litteratur kring projektbaserade organisationer (PBO) kan tre problem identifieras: 1) motsägande resultat gällande om organisationsformen PBO främjar innovation, 2) överdrivet fokus på teknisk innovation i dessa sammanhang samt 3) bristfällig systematik i dessa typer av studier. Av denna anledning har vi genomfört en kvantitativ studie för att bidra med mer systematik i debatten kring PBO och innovation. Vi valde också att studera en annan typ av innovation i PBO-sammanhang, nämligen managementinnovation (MI). Studien syftar till att identifiera om det föreligger ett samband mellan MI och organisationsfaktorerna centralisering, samarbete och kommunikation, överkapacitet samt formalisering. Utöver detta skall studien identifiera om det föreligger något samband mellan den formella organisationsstrukturen PBO och MI, samt om sambanden mellan organisationsfaktorerna och MI är starkare eller svagare i en PBO-kontext. Studien genomfördes i Sverige med hjälp av en enkätundersökning. Urvalet uppgick till 500 företag vilka blev identifierade genom ett slumpmässigt stratifierat urval. Svarsfrekvensen uppgick till 192 företag vars svar sedan analyserades i statistikprogrammet SPSS genom regressionsanalyser. Slutsatsen av studien blev att vi på en femprocentig signifikansnivå bekräftade en av femton hypoteser, nämligen H8c. Hypotesen beskriver att sambandet mellan personalöverkapacitet och MI är starkare i en PBO än i andra organisationstyper. Utöver detta kunde vi bekräfta hypotes 9b på en tioprocentig signifikansnivå. Denna hypotes behandlade formalisering 2 och innebar att sambandet mellan formalisering 2 och MI är starkare i andra organisationstyper än i en PBO. Med detta sagt positionerar sig denna studie bland författarna som hävdar att det inte föreligger något samband mellan PBO och innovation. / We were able to identify three problems from today’s literature about project-based organizations: 1) conflicting results about whether PBOs further innovation or not, 2) excessive focus on technical innovation in this context, and 3) insufficient systematics in these kinds of studies. For that reason, we have carried through a quantitative study to contribute with more systematics in the debate about PBO and innovation. We also chose to study a different kind of innovation in the PBO context, namely Management Innovation (MI) This study aims to identify if there exist a correlation between MI and the organizational factors centralization, teamwork and communication, slack of resources and formalization. Beyond this the study aims to identify if there exist a correlation between the formal organizational structure PBO and MI, and if the connection between the organizational factors and MI is stronger or weaker in a PBO context.  A survey was carried out in Sweden. 500 companies were asked to participate and they were all selected through a random stratified sampling. The response rate was 192 and the information from the questionnaires was then analysed in the statistical software SPSS through regression analysis. With a significance level of five percent this study confirms one out of fifteen hypotheses. The confirmed hypothesis was H8c which states that the connection between personnel slack and MI is stronger in a PBO than other kinds of organizational structures. We also confirmed hypothesis 9b on a significance level of ten percent. H9b states that the connection between formalization 2 and MI is weaker in PBO than other kinds of organizations. Consequently, this study position itself alongside authors and studies that claim that it doesn’t exist a correlation between PBO and innovation.

This doctoral thesis consists of five self-contained essays.Common themes that unify the essays are the conditions for innovative engagements and the effort to endogenize innovations into the explanation of profitability, productivity and growthin manufacturing and service production. The purpose is to explore the importance of innovation in explaining heterogeneity in the performance of firms. The traditional analysis of the relationship between research and developmentand productivity is extended and developed by using, on the onehand, firm-level data not previously available and, on theother, a modern state-of-the-art econometric framework. Essay I. Methods and results are reviewed and stylized facts presented regarding the return on innovation. The limitations of the data and methods used in mainstream literature are discussed. A set of firm-level observations recently made available and a multiple knowledge production function analysis have been used to clarify the role of innovation in explaining performance heterogeneity among manufacturing firms inSweden. Essay II. The relationships between innovation and productivity among manufacturing firms in Finland, Norway and Sweden are studied. The main purpose is to investigate the contributions of firm-level innovation in creating the large observed differences in aggregated productivity growth between Norway on the one hand and Finland and Sweden on the other. Essay III. The focus of this essay is threefold. One, since innovation has been found to be a major contributor to productivity growth in manufacturing, we seek to find whether there is any evidence for the notion that service industrie shave a lower propensity to be innovative or that they are less efficient in deriving benefits from innovations. Second, we consider what real productivity growth does, and what the measurement methods do to produce the reported weak growthrates in services. Third, given that intermediate services have been found to be one of the fastest growing input factors inmanufacturing, largely reflecting the replacement of internally provided activities by externally produced outputs, we examine what the impact of outsourcing is on productivity growth in manufacturing. The essay brings a comparative perspective to these issues by analyzing the firm-level data on innovativeactivities and economic performance in knowledge-intensive manufacturing and service firms in Sweden. Essay IV.This essay investigates the sensitivity of estimated relationships between innovation and firm performance. The essay compares the sensitivity of results with regards to different types of models, estimation methods, measures of firm performance, classification of firms, type of innovations and data sources. The analyses are performed on both the level and growth rate of firm performance, and theinfluence of outliers is explored. Essay V. The role of capital structure and external financing in innovation and production is studied. Results from different model specifications are explored. A preferred dynamic model with flexible adjustment is used for an inter-country and an intra-country comparison of the determinants of the optimal mix between debt and equity as wellas the rate of change towards an optimal capital structure. / <p>QC 20100526</p>

Questo lavoro intende analizzare la correlazione tra innovazione delle imprese e capital sociale, misurato da indicatori classici (come la partecipazione politica e le attività nel tempo libero) e da indicatori maggiormente legati alla dimensione aziendale (come accordi e cooperazioni). L’analisi viene fatta sia per l’Italia che per il Regno Unito attraverso l’uso della Community Innovation Survey 4, la survey europea sull’innovazione e la R&S nelle imprese per i dati su innovazione e capital sociale aziendale. Inoltre vengono utilizzate l’Indagine Multiscopo 2000 per l’Italia e l’Indice di Deprivazione per l’Inghilterra come misure di capitale sociale classico. Infine viene proposta una comparazione dei risultati per i due paesi per l’analisi sul capitale sociale aziendale. Questa comparazione è riletta alla luce di più generali considerazioni sui due differenti sistemi produttivi ed economici. / This work would try to test the correlation between innovation in firms and social capital, measured by classic indicators (like political participation, leisure and activities) and more corporate indicators (like agreements and collaborations). The analysis is carried out for Italy and UK and we use the Community Innovation Survey 4, the European survey on innovation and R&D in the firms, for the data on innovation and corporate social capital. We use the Multipurpose Survey 2000 for Italy and the Index of Deprivation for England like measures of classic social capital. We further try a comparison of the results between the two countries for the analysis on corporate social capital. This comparison is finally referred to more general issues like the two different productive and economic systems.

This is a study of innovation in Knowledge Intensive Business Services (KIBS) and the impact innovation has on employment. The thesis relies on theories within the fields of "innovation in services", in particular KIBS, and "innovation and employment", taking as its point of departure the taxonomy of product and process innovation. The thesis is based on a discussion of innovation in services with a focus on how innovation in services may be understood and delineated. A long discussion is dedicated to the taxonomy of product and process innovation and the extent to which these concepts may be applicable to innovation in services. The thesis also scrutinises the concept of KIBS and how this can be defined. It further discusses features commonly associated with KIBS firms. The thesis is also rooted in the broader issue of innovation as a creator and destroyer of employment and makes a contribution in applying these issues to service sectors. The empirical part of the thesis builds on a database compiled for the research project, comprised of 967 Swedish KIBS firms. The database covers issues of innovation, employment and characteristics of the firm. The findings indicate that innovation was common in Swedish KIBS firms and that innovations often had an impact on employment. However, the thesis did not detect a straightforward relation between type of innovation (technological process innovation, organisational process innovation, goods product innovation and service product innovation) and the impact on employment. Explanations other than type of innovation have to be considered to analyse the impact of innovation on employment. The thesis further suggests that although innovation in KIBS is common, innovation itself is difficult to conceptualise and delineate.