Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Economics and Finance 27 (2015) 429 – 437

22nd International Economic Conference – IECS 2015 “Economic Prospects in the Context of
Growing Global and Regional Interdependencies”, IECS 2015

Sources of Innovation of Small Businesses: Polish Perspective

Andrzej Skibiskia, Monika Sipaa,*
a
Faculty of Management, Czestochowa University of Technology, Czestochowa, Poland

Abstract

The contemporary economies focus on increasing the potential of innovation of the companies functioning in the above economies,
especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs) which constitute 99% of companies operating in the European Union. Particular
attention should be paid to small companies being the dominant ones in this sector. Recognition of sources of the undertaken
innovative activities by small companies will enable to provide a more direction-oriented support and offer for this scale of
companies. The key objective of the article is identification of the sources of innovation of small enterprises and indicating the
directions of changes in this area in the researched period. The conclusions were drawn based on the results of two own researches
relating to innovativeness and competitiveness of small enterprises conducted in 2006/2007 and in 2013.
2015 The
© 2015 TheAuthors.
Authors.Published
PublishedbybyElsevier
Elsevier B.V.
B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of Faculty of Economic Sciences, "Lucian Blaga" University of Sibiu".
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Faculty of Economic Sciences, “Lucian Blaga” University of Sibiu”
Keywords: innovation process, small enterprises, sources of innovation.

1. Introduction

Today's economy is characterized by great complexity and economic growth is related to economies based on
knowledge and innovation. Innovations are considered the key to productivity growth and better life conditions. They
create jobs, generate incomes and improve people's lives by creating useful products and services. (Laforet, 2013)
However, the increase of innovation requires a favorable environment for innovative activity as well as an appropriate
potential in the form of highly-qualified human resources and financial resources that can lead to creation of more
efficient technologies. (Navickas, Kontautiene, 2013) Number and quality of generated or implemented innovations
largely depend on their source type.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: monikasipa@gmail.com (M. Sipa), skibinskia@tlen.pl (A. Skibiski).

2212-5671 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Faculty of Economic Sciences, “Lucian Blaga” University of Sibiu”
doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(15)01017-5
430 Andrzej Skibiński and Monika Sipa / Procedia Economics and Finance 27 (2015) 429 – 437

Moreover, the dominant role of the sector of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), constituting a
numerous and quite differentiated internal group, is also visible in world economies. These enterprises are considered
the most dynamic and elastic form of activity. In the economy, foundation and development of operators of this size
is very important for the creation of "normal" economic environment. Small operators occupy a special place in this
sector, accounting for over 99% of MMSEs and largely contributing to the national income, to the creation of jobs
(also in the form of self-employed companies) and, above all, to the development of entrepreneurship. Also, these
operators have many particular characteristics that are evidence of their big potential for undertaking innovative
activities. Unfortunately, these operators encounter barriers to innovative activities, such as limited internal resources.
In the case of small companies, their central figure is their owner. His versatile skills and knowledge determine the
efficiency of using the innovative potential of their companies, in particular the human potential. In small companies,
the owner's ideas are usually the main source of innovation, the employee's ideas are of lesser importance.
Competences and skills of the entrepreneur are crucial for choosing sources of innovations to be implemented.

2. Sources of innovation activity

Innovation should not be analyzed as a single event, but rather as a process occurring in time, a continuous
interaction of science, technique and production. Innovative activity in the company is an interactive process,
characterized by reciprocal technological relationships between different subsystems (Teece, 1996).
The innovation process can also be analyzed as a process of learning. (Cohen, Levinthal 1989; Dodgson 1993; Hitt
et al., 2000). Enterprises, if they want to increase their innovation, have to be learning organizations, because this type
of operators consistently create new knowledge, spread it widely throughout organization and quickly transform it
into new technologies and products (Nonaka, Takeuchi, 2000, p. 76).
The increase of innovation largely depends also on the innovation potential of the enterprise. Burgelman et al.
(2004) indicated that the innovation potential of companies is defined as a global set of characteristics that enable and
sustain the company's innovation strategy.
Research works, design and implementation of new production, undertaken by enterprises, depend on having
appropriate competences: technical and managerial skills and the ability to learn (Dankbaar, 1996, p. 22). The
complexity of modern innovations requires cooperation (more: Tomski, 2011) of enterprises with their clients and
with research centers in the development phase of the project; in the production process, on the other hand, a
cooperation with other companies, suppliers and wholesalers is indispensible. What is also relevant in this process, is
the interaction with universities, educational, financial and standard institutions, research centers and professional
associations. Innovations are therefore a result of feedback between technical possibilities and needs and an interaction
between technique, science and implementation activities within the company. (Tödtling, Trippl, 2005)
Generation and use of knowledge depend, nevertheless, on frequency and density of the company's interactions
with external sources of innovation and on the openness of enterprises to the external knowledge. (van Hemert,
Nijkamp, Masurel, 2013) As underlined by Kotey (2014), the enterprise's environment is a source of both various
limits and many possibilities.
Sources of innovation are often defined as an impulse leading to undertaking innovative activities. It is important
to define the source of innovation because it determines the capacities the company must have in order to timely
implement indispensible innovations and to achieve success in the market. (Lin et al., 2002) The traditional
categorization of innovation sources identifies: own scientific research (basic, applied and developmental), invention-
rationalization activities and outside technological know-how. Taking into consideration the mechanism for
encouraging innovation, we can distinguish between supply- and demand-side sources of innovation. In the case of
the supply-side sources, innovations are born as a direct result of scientific and technological development, while the
demand-side sources influence new innovations as a consequence of the needs expressed by the market, production,
environmental protection (Duda, 2013). Among traditional sources of innovation, we can also mention: the needs of
the client or the technological development which contribute to creation of new combinations of resources, that is,
innovations (Dodgson, Rothwell, 1994, p. 33-50). The literature also identifies the functional sources of innovation.
Von Hopel (1995, p. 3) indicates in this respect: recipients, suppliers and cooperators, remaining business partners
and competitors. Reciprocal relations among these elements bring them economic, technical and market benefits. The
author also underlines that these sources have different meanings, depending on the type of innovation.
 Andrzej Skibiński and Monika Sipa / Procedia Economics and Finance 27 (2015) 429 – 437 431

Sources of innovation, however, are most frequently divided into internal and external ones. The internal sources
of innovation include: results of works carried out within the company, invention and rationalization projects of the
employees. The external sources of innovation are represented, inter alia, by: results of research conducted in
universities and research and development units, licenses, know-how, factual transfer of technology, other companies,
professional publications and shows and exhibitions. This distinction was also indicated by P.F. Drucker (1993, p.
37-130), who lists seven basic sources of innovation. The internal sources, in his opinion, include: unexpected events
(e.g. success, failure), discrepancy between reality and expectations, changes in the industry or market structure and
the need, as an impulse to generate innovations. The external sources include: demographic change, changes in
people's thinking and, also, new knowledge.(Swaim, 2010) Observation of changes in the market can be a source of
ideas and innovations, but it is not a sufficient condition to generate and implement them.
The entrepreneur and his approach to innovation can also be a source of innovation. His presence is very important
in the stage of discoveries, in particular in relation to establishing modes of realization and implementation of the
innovations in the market. This dependence is particularly visible in micro and small operators with no more than 10
employees. Here, all the tasks focus on one person: entrepreneur/owner. He plays two roles: the traditional one, of
creator and conductor of the business, and the role of innovator, introducing new products, processes or organizational
solutions. (Shane, 2003; Hashi, Krasnigi, 2011). The success of innovation depends on his versatile skills and
knowledge. The literature divides entrepreneurs introducing changes into adapters and innovators. Adapters improve
things within existing boundaries, attitudes, theories; innovators, on the other hand, want to do something completely
different, they try re-analyze the problem and to solve it again. (Verhees, Meulenbeg, 2004)
A.Pérez-Luño, J.Wiklund, R.Valle Cabrera (2011) underline that enterprises can independently generate
innovations or introduce existing solutions from the outside, but they should not be limited to adaptations of already
existing solutions, in particular when functioning in a dynamically-changing environment.

3. Small enterprises and innovative activity

Innovations are not reserved only for big companies (Laursen, Salter, 2004), which are based on rational and
analytical approach in identifying chances in the market and are frequently limited by formalized processes of
management and strategic planning (Hunter, 2013). Having by nature a limited competitive position on the current
market where large corporations dominate small and medium-sized enterprises should use all available opportunities
of development (Okrglicka 2014)
The literature underlines that small enterprises have a significant potential that favors innovative activities. In
comparison to big operators, they distinguish themselves with the lack of bureaucracy in the management process of
R&D, bigger elasticity enabling a quick reaction to market changes, and the absence of a conflict of aims at the owner-
manager level. (Rothwell, 1989; Stock et al., 2002)
In the case of many MSMEs, making use of new possibilities is the only strategy of the owner. It also applies to
entrepreneurs providing services (Lemaska-Majdzik, Tomski, 2014). All activities of this kind of companies are
focused on seizing opportunities and learning through actions, on the basis of trials and errors, and feedback from
employees and customers. (Hunter, 2013).
Unfortunately, small companies are also characterized by many limitations in relation to innovative activity. This
kind of activity involves a big risk (Gorze-Mitka, 2013) and a high financial commitment, which often go beyond
the capacities of small operators. (Okrglicka, 2007) Creation and implementation of innovations also require
adequately-educated and creative staff. Innovative capacities of enterprises are in the knowledge, experience and skills
of employees and managers (Castanias, Helfat, 1991; Kogut; Zander 1992). In small companies, there are not enough
adequately-skilled specialists who, for this reason, are unable to sufficiently support research and development
activities of the company.(Rothwell 1989) As indicated by Smolarek and Dziedziora (2014), without competent
employees, it is difficult to increase the quality of products or customer services - that is why it becomes so important
to improve skills of MSME employees. In relation to innovative activities, it is necessary to convince the employees
about the importance of the innovation and to engage them in the processes. The employees must be interested in
expressing and exchanging information and in sharing their knowledge about innovation in order to achieve success.
Therefore, innovation of small enterprises is also intended as owners' readiness to learn about innovation and to
introduce it from both internal and external market. (Verhees, Meulenberg, 2004) A.Hausman (2005) underlines,
432 Andrzej Skibiński and Monika Sipa / Procedia Economics and Finance 27 (2015) 429 – 437

however, that owners of small companies often lack an appropriate education in management and they find it difficult
to transform information coming from customers into new products and services.
As indicated by K. Hoffman et al. (1989), small and medium enterprises, within the framework of innovative
activity, concentrate on creating products for niche markets and create both incremental and disruptive innovations.
These activities are mostly realized without prior planning and concern to a greater extent products, rather than
processes. The author also underlines that innovative activities are more common in companies producing final goods
and least common among subcontractors. (Hoffman, 1989) Frequent concentration on incremental innovations arises
from the lack of a defined process of results management; for this reason, the "dormant" potential of small companies
is not fully used. (Campos, Campos, 2013)
Innovative potential, as well as openness to share knowledge, are relevant for consolidation of the level of
innovation. It applies in particular to MSMEs that, due to limited internal resources, should not rely only on their
internal potential. Therefore, the key element of a successful innovation is also the enterprise's ability to exploit and
use the knowledge coming from the outside. (van Hemert et al., 2013) Small enterprises do not have to be (limited to)
based only on the knowledge created within their own research and development activity. They can also increase their
knowledge and absorption capacity by using the external knowledge (Cohen, Levinthal, 1989; Huber, 1991).
Consequently, the environment in which they function - its type, quality and character - is crucial for companies of
this size. The process of creation of an appropriate environment and tools supporting the innovation of this sector is
not simple, due to the heterogeneity of proper, individual behaviors of particular companies forming this sector.
Operators with both low and high level of innovation can be found there (Rizzoni, 1991).
Changes occurring in the environment affect the functioning of all economic operators, irrespective of their size.
The differences concerning the force of this impact are, however, easy to see. In the case of small companies,
turbulences in the economic environment have a strong influence on the accepted rules of functioning of companies
of this size on the market. The world financial crisis of 2008 and the changes it brought about, particularly affected
the functioning of the group of enterprises being analyzed. According to the authors, it may have influenced their
attitudinal change in relation to innovation and the way in which they build their competitive position on the market.
Therefore, the purpose of the study is to identify the sources of innovation, implemented or generated by small
enterprises, as well as to indicate the direction of changes in this area in the context of two studies (study I - 2006/07
- before the financial crisis and study II in 2013). The details of the studies as well as their results are presented later
in this article.

4. Characteristics of study area – selected aspects

The Provinces of Maopolska and Silesia form the Southern Region, one of the six regions in Poland. The Region
is marked by the highest population density in the entire country, with Silesia being more densely populated than
Maopolska by as many as 154 people per sq km. Poland’s population density is 123/km2. The total area of the two
Provinces amounts to 8.79% of the total area of Poland. Moreover, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in this
Region is one of the highest in the country and topped only by the Provinces of ód
and Mazovia. In Silesia, GDP
per capita is higher than in Maopolska by 20.1%.
There are numerous business entities operating within these two Provinces. In terms of the number of small-sized
enterprises, Silesia ranks second (right behind the Mazovia Province), while Maopolska ranks fourth (behind the
Wielkopolska Province). Nearly 20% of all Polish small-sized enterprises is based in the Southern Region. This figure
is more than 456,000 and more than 348,000 for Silesia and Maopolska, respectively.
Selected aspects referring to the potential of an environment conducive to innovation were also taken into account.
In the entire Southern Region, there are 73 tertiary educational institutions, 41 of which are located in the Silesia
Province. There are 334,154 students: 189,609 in Maopolska and 144,545 in Silesia. In 2013, there were 662 research
entities in the two Provinces, with more than 81% in the enterprise sector. In the investigated period of time, the
number of such units almost doubled, and in the enterprise sector – it almost tripled. There was a slightly larger
increase in Silesia. The situation is not that promising in the case of the average share of innovative enterprises in the
total number of enterprises, or in the case of the proportion of outlays on innovative activities in enterprises in
comparison with total domestic expenditures. When comparing 2013 with 2006, it is noticeable that the average share
of innovative enterprises in the Southern Region dropped by 19.1%. In 2013 in Maopolska, innovative enterprises
 Andrzej Skibiński and Monika Sipa / Procedia Economics and Finance 27 (2015) 429 – 437 433

accounted for 11.6% of all companies, while in Silesia it was 10.9%. What is interesting, before 2013 the trend was
reversed. As for the outlays on innovative activities in enterprises, there was a decline of more than 5% within the
Region. Despite the difficult economic situation in the analyzed period, the proportion of outlays on such activities in
Maopolska compared to total national expenditures increased by 0.6% versus 2006. The details are presented in Table
2.

Table 1: Selected information on the innovative potential of the investigated provinces (2013)
outlays on
Number of enterprises Research entities the average share
innovative activities
of innovative
in enterprises in
enterprises in the
in the comparison with
total number of
small enterprises total enterprise total domestic
enterprises
total sector expenditures
(%)
(%)
0-9 10-49 in all 2006 2013 2006 2013 2006 2013 2006 2013

Provinces of
335314 12989 348303 351074 96 274 53 209 6.2 6.8 18.4 11.6
Maopolska

Provinces of
436932 19142 456074 460350 126 388 82 329 16.7 10.6 23.2 10.9
and Silesia

0 772246 32131 804377 811424 222 662 135 538 22.9 17.4 41.6 22.5

Source: own study based on: www.stat.gov.pl

5. Trends in the sources of innovation – results of the own research

5.1. Method

The conclusions are based on the results of two own studies on innovation and competitiveness of small-sized
enterprises. The studies comprised of questionnaires and were conducted at the turn of 2006 and 2007 in Silesian
small-sized enterprises (Study I) and in the first quarter of 2013 in small companies in Maopolska (Study II). The
criterion to be identified as a small-sized enterprise was based on the categorization adopted in the European Union –
the number of employees. The results presented below are only part of a more comprehensive research.
In both studies, similar questionnaires were employed in order to investigate changes in the perception of the
discussed issues. The questionnaire consisted of 36 open-ended, semi-open-ended and closed-ended dichotomous
questions as well as response scales. The scales used in questions included nominal, ratio, and rank scales. The
questions were grouped thematically into three sections: (a) market and competition, (b) innovative activities, and (c)
cooperation with the environment. The questionnaire also included demographics. 216 (Study I) and 105 (Study II)
complete and properly filled out questionnaires were approved for analysis.

5.2. Results

According to the results, at the turn of 2006 and 2007 small-sized enterprises based their innovation primarily on
inspirations associated with trade fairs and exhibitions (19.5% of all responses). It was followed by: the company
owner (18.3%) and customer needs and feedback (14.6%). Research entities and foreign research institutions were
not included in the responses (For more see: S). A small number of answers also indicated such sources of innovation
as: own R&D activities and consulting firms which support innovation (less than 2% of all answers).
In the case of the main sources of innovative activities undertaken by small companies in 2006-2007, the company
owner (the management) ranked first, as 1/3 of the respondents believed it to be the most important source of
innovation in a company. As the most important source of innovation, company employees accounted for only 4.2%.
It is therefore clear that, in the area of innovation, the studied companies primarily used the ideas of their managers
434 Andrzej Skibiński and Monika Sipa / Procedia Economics and Finance 27 (2015) 429 – 437

as well as inspirations derived from their participation in trade fairs and exhibitions. They rarely benefited from
external sources like other companies or consulting firms.
Human capital is a key factor in innovation. For a company, highly skilled employees are a knowledge base which
is a source of ideas for new products and processes. Not having this base could be a significant impediment to
innovation (Mohnen, Röller, 2005; Hoffman, 1998)
The results of research conducted in 2013 indicate that entrepreneurs focus more attention on external sources of
innovation. Among all the answers, market demands seem to be the most crucial, accounting for more than 1/5 of all
responses (21.8%). They are followed by suppliers (14.7%) as well as products and technologies of other enterprises
in the industry (13.1%). The company owner as a source of innovation ranked fifth, with less than 10% of all responses
(9.9%).
Company owners were asked to assign levels of importance to various sources of innovation. It turned out that
market demands were considered the most important in this group too, with almost 1/3 of all answers. The runner-up
was products and technologies of competitors (16.35%), while the company owner’s ideas ranked third (13.46%).
Such a distribution of responses indicates that small businesses do not completely disregard the external sources of
innovation; however, a significant role is still played by a company owner. He is mentioned as one of the three top
sources of innovation. Positive changes are also noticeable in the context of human capital, because company
employees ranked seventh, with almost 4% of all responses as the most vital source of innovation and with 6.4% of
all identified sources (right behind the company owner).
When comparing the results of all the studies, the changes in innovation sources are even more pronounced.
Considering the differences in the results obtained in the two studies, the most significant changes are observed for
market demands and the company owner/management. It is clear that small-sized enterprises pay greater attention to
consumer needs. The number of answers here increased by 7.24%. In the case of the owner/entrepreneur as the main
initiator of generated and introduced innovations, there was an 8% drop in the number of answers. These trends are
confirmed by the results for the most important sources of innovation (rank 1). Also in this group, the biggest changes
were recorded for the two aforementioned sources: an 18.35% increase for customer needs and feedback, and almost
20% less answers for the company owner as the main source of innovation.
Other noticeable positive changes included: suppliers (+4.41%), employees (+1.72%), and R&D entities (+1.60%).
Apart from the owner/entrepreneur, the biggest drop (-7%) was observed for trade fairs and exhibitions. Detailed
changes are presented in Figure 1.

customers' needs and opinions 7.24%

suppliers of materials, raw materials, equipment 4.41%
company employees 1.72%
domestic research and development centres 1.60%
products and technologies of the competitors 0.93%
market studies and predictions 0.90%
companies with which an enterprise collaborates 0.37%
foreign research and development centres 0.32%
own R&D activities -0.28%
consulting companies -0.45%
specialist press -1.74%
-6.66% fairs and exhibitions
-8.37% enterprise's owner

Fig. 1. Changes in the sources of innovation in small-sized enterprises

Source: own work based on survey.
 Andrzej Skibiński and Monika Sipa / Procedia Economics and Finance 27 (2015) 429 – 437 435

When considering the sources of innovation recognized by entrepreneurs as the most crucial, it should be noted
that the ones which gained in significance over the years include (apart from market demands) products and
technologies of competitors (5.08%) and suppliers (4.05%). This refers to the trends presented above. Unfortunately,
consulting firms are still not very popular, as they received a smaller number of answers in both analyzed categories
compared to Study I. (Data on the changes in the most important innovation sources are presented in Figure 2).
Considering the sources marked as most important, there were no changes in the number of answers for national
and foreign research entities. What is heartening is that there is a visible growth in all the answers for national research
entities, amounting to 1.60%; however, it should be noted that in Study I entrepreneurs did not mention this source at
all.
What is also interesting are the responses about other companies with which an enterprise collaborates. There is an
increase in the number of answers in both categories, with a higher number in the group of the most significant sources
– 2.51%. This is a step in the right direction, because small and medium-sized enterprises experience problems with
collaborating with other entities due to their lack of trust. Cooperating with other players and using them as a source
of innovation increases the flow of information and knowledge as well as generates innovative solutions. Oksanen
and Rila (2009) also emphasize that SMEs are marked by limited cooperation with external partners in the field of
innovation.

customers' needs and opinions 18.35%

products and technologies of the competitors 5.08%
suppliers of materials, raw materials, equipment 4.05%
companies with which an enterprise collaborates 2.51%
foreign research and development centres 0.00%
domestic research and development centres 0.00%
specialist press -0.19%
company employees -0.38%
consulting companies -0.45%
market studies and predictions -2.04%
own R&D activities -2.11%
fairs and exhibitions -5.17%

-19.64% enterprise's owner

Fig. 2: Changes in the most important sources of innovation in small-sized enterprises

Source: own work based on survey.

Summing up, in both categories of answers (all sources of innovation and the most important sources of
innovation), the direction of changes is similar for most sources. Opposite trends are observed only for company
employees and market studies and forecasts. In the case of these two sources, the number of total answers soared;
however, the percentage of responses describing them as the most important sources of innovation dropped.

6. Conclusions

The necessity of introducing innovation is beyond argument and promoting a knowledge-based economy
constitutes the best example of the above. The rapidness of transformations taking place in the business environment,
market pressure and complexity of the created innovations contribute to the entrepreneurs being focused on searching
for new opportunities of increasing the level of innovativeness at their organizations.
The type of the source of transformations which determines the permanence of market advantage achieved by
companies has a significant impact on the character of innovations generated and introduced at those companies.
436 Andrzej Skibiński and Monika Sipa / Procedia Economics and Finance 27 (2015) 429 – 437

Recognition of sources of the undertaken innovative activities by small companies will enable to provide a more
direction-oriented support and offer for this scale of companies. It also provides the companies with an opportunity
of generating and introducing innovations which are better in terms of the quality and which enable a higher level of
market advantage permanence.
A data analysis shows that the existing economic turbulences caused the focus to move within the scope of
innovativeness of small companies. The largest increase in the indications were in such innovativeness sources of the
researched companies as: customers (recipients) and their needs, suppliers and employees. Similar changes can be
seen among the most important sources of innovations, whereas the employees being the source, were placed among
these variables which decreased (-0.3%) as compared to the results from 2006/07. In the case of the top three values,
the place of employees was taken by products and technologies of other companies operating in the industry.
To sum up, small enterprises pay more attention to the market and the needs submitted by consumers. What can
also be observed is the larger number of indications in relation to the ideas submitted by employees as well as a large
change in relation to the entrepreneur as the main source of innovative ideas at companies (the largest decrease in the
number of indications). It should also be mentioned that in the case of small companies, one cannot anticipate
marginalisation of this source, because when it comes to entities operating within this scale, and in particular micro-
enterprises, an entrepreneur will remain to be the dominant person responsible for all decisions taken. In connection
to the above the important aspect is the know-how and skills possessed by the entrepreneur in relation to recognising
these sources of innovation which will enable to develop a more permanent market advantage. To conclude, managers
of small enterprises should develop such skills as: efficient communication, continuous readiness for changes, result-
orineted as well as a very important skill, which provides a significant competitive advantage, i.e. the ability to learn
new behaviours, technologies and forms of activity continuously and quickly.
The authors of this article are aware of the fact that a small extent of the research sample will not allow to form
far-reaching generalisations but the compared results show the direction of changes in the operations of small Polish
enterprises and may be the basis for further analyses. Furthermore, the frequency of research showed the direction of
changing the focus within the scope of the sources of introduced innovations at companies operating in this scale,
resulting to some extent from the changes which took place in the business environment and in connection to the
recession in 2008.

References

Burgelman, R, Maidique, M.A., Weelwright, S.C. (2004) Strategic management of technology and innovation. McGraw, New York.
Campos, L. B. P., Campos, R. J. (2013) Análise multi-casos da gestão da inovação em empresasde pequeno porte. Pretexto, Belo Horizonte, 14, n.
1, p. 36-51.
Castanias, R.P., Helfat, C.E. (1991) Managerial resources and rents, Journal of Management, 17(1), p. 155–171.
Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A. (1989) Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D, The Economic Journal, 99, p. 569–596.
Dankbaar, B. (1996) Patterns of Technology Management in European Firms: A Overview [in:] Technology Management and Public Policy in
the European Union, W. Cannell, B. Dankbaar (ed.), Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, New York.
Dodgson, M. (1993) Organizational learning: a review of some literature, Organization Studies, 14 (3), p. 375–394.
Dodgson, M., Rothwell, R. (1994) The Handbook of Industrial Innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Drucker, P.F. (1993) Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Harper bussines, p. 37-130.
Duda, J. (2013) Rola i znaczenie innowacji w budowaniu pozycji konkurencyjnej polskich MSP , ZESZYTY NAUKOWE UNIWERSYTETU
SZCZECISKIEGO, Finanse, Rynki Finansowe, Ubezpieczenia 786 (64/1), p. 555–568.
Gorze-Mitka, I. (2013) Risk Identification Tools - Polish MSMES Companies Practices, Problems of Management in the 21st Century, 7/2013, p.
6-11.
Hashi, I., Krasnigi, B.A. (2011) Entrepreneurship and SME Growth: Evidence from Advanced and Laggard Transition Economies, International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour&Research, 17 (5), p. 456-487.
Hausman, A. (2005) Innovativeness Among Small Businesses: Theory and Propositions for Future Research, Industrial Marketing Management,
34 (5), p. 773-782.
Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., Lee, H. (2000) Technological learning, knowledge management, firm growth and performance: an introduction essay,
Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 17 (3- 4), p. 231–246.
Hoffman, K., Parejo, M., Bessant, J., Perren, L. (1998) Small firms, R&D, technology and innovation in the UK: a literature review, Technovation,
18 (1), p. 39-55.
Huber, G. (1991) Organizational learning: the contribution processes and a review of the literature, Organ Science, 2(1), p. 88–115.
Hunter, M. (2013) Typologies and Sources of Entrepreneurial Opportunity (I), Economics, Management, and Financial Markets, 8(3), p. 58–100.
 Andrzej Skibiński and Monika Sipa / Procedia Economics and Finance 27 (2015) 429 – 437 437

Kogut, B, Zander, U. (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology, Organ Science, 3(3), p. 383–397.
Kotey, B. (2014) Small Business Innovation in the Hostile Environment of Australia’s Drought Stricken Rural Communities, Australasian Journal
of Regional Studies, vol. 20, No. 2, p. 325-350.
Laforet, S. (2013) Organizational innovation outcomes in SMEs: Effects of age, size, and sector, Journal of World Business, 48, p.490–502.
Laursen, K., Salter, A.J., (2004) Searching high and low: what type of firms use universities as a source of innovation?, Research Policy 33 (8),
1201–1215.
Lemaska-Majdzik, A., Tomski, P. (2014), Konkurencyjno przedsibiorstwa usugowego. Identyfikacja dziaa przedsibiorstw obsugujcych
rynek nieruchomoci, Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocawiu nr 353, p.110-120.
Lin, C., Tan, B., Chang, S. (2002) The critical factors for technology absorptive capacity, Industrial Management & Data System, 102 (6), p. 300–
308.
Mohnen, P., Röller, L.-H. (2005) Complementarities in innovation policy. European Economic Review, 49 (5), p. 1431–1450.
Navickas, V., Kontautiene R. (2013) The Initiatives of Corporate Social Responsibility as Sources of Innovations, Verslas: Teorija ir Praktika
Business: Theory And Practice, 14(1), p. 27-34.
Nonaka, A.J., Takeuchi, H. (2000), Kreowanie wiedzy w organizacji, Poltext, Warszawa.
Okrglicka, M. (2007) Innovation Activities in the Microenterprise Sector - Selected Aspects. [in:]: Information Technologies in Economics and
Innovative Management. Ed. J.T. Duda, Uczelniane Wydawnictwo Nauk.-Dyd. AGH, Kraków, p. 162-168.
Okrglicka, M. (2014), Adoption and Use of ICT as a Factor of Development of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in Poland, Przedsibiorczo
i Zarzdzanie, T.15 z.7 cz.1., p. 393-405.
Oksanen J., Rilla, N. (2009) Innovation And Entrepreneurship: New Innovations as Source for Competitiveness in Finnish SMEs, International
Journal of Entrepreneurship, 13, Special Issue, p. 35-48.
Pérez-Luño, A., Wiklund, J., Cabrera, R.V. (2011) The dual nature of innovative activity: How entrepreneurial orientation influences innovation
generation and adoption, Journal of Business Venturing, 26, p. 555–571.
Rizzoni, A. (1991) Technological Innovation and Small Firms: A Taxonomy, International Small Business Journal, 9, p. 32-36.
Rothwell, R. (1989) Small Firms, Innovation and Industrial Change, Small Business Economics, 1, p. 51-64.
Shane, S. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship. The Individual-Opportunity Nexus. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Sipa, M. (2012) Specificity of Innovation Sources in Micro and Small Enterprises in: Theory of Management 6. The Selected Problems for the
Development Support of Management Knowledge Base. Scientific Papers, (ed.) S.Hittmar EDIS, University Publishing House, University of
Zilina, p. 250–254.
Smolarek, M., Dziedziora, J. (2014) Potrzeby rynku pracy w zakresie podnoszenia kwalifikacji pracowników MP w obszarze zarzdzania,
Zeszyty Naukowe Wyszej Szkoy Humanitas, Seria: Zarzdzanie, z. 1, p. 79–90.
Stock, G.N., Greis N.P., Fischer W.A. (2002) Firm size and dynamic technological innovation, Technovation 22 (9), p.537-549.
Swaim, R.W. (2010), The Strategic Drucker: Growth Strategies and Marketing Insights from the Works of Peter Drucker, John Wiley&Sons, p.
83-109.
Teece, D.J. (1996) Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation, Journal of Economics Behavior&Organization, 31 (2),
p.193–224.
Tödtling, F., Trippl, M. (2005) One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach, Research Policy, 34 (8), p. 1203–
1219.
Tomski, P. (2011), Paradygmat hiperdynamiki otoczenia a wspódziaanie gospodarcze wspóczesnych przedsibiorstw, Zeszyty Naukowe
Politechniki Czstochowskiej, Zarzdzanie, 1, p. 7-18.
van Hemert, P., Nijkamp, P., Masurel, E. (2013) From innovation to commercialization through networks and agglomerations: analysis of sources
of innovation, innovation capabilities and performance of Dutch SMEs, The Annals of Regional Science,50 (2), p. 425-452.
Verhees, F.J.H.M., Meulenberg, M.T.G. (2004) Market Orientation, Innovativeness, Product Innovation, and Performance in Small Firms, Journal
of Small Business Management, 42 (2), p. 134-154.
von Hoppel, E. (1995) The Sources of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford.