PurposeThe purpose of the paper is two‐fold: one, to focus on a specific industry – the manufacturing industry. In response to recent criticisms research in small to medium‐sized enterprises (SME) is not sector/industry‐specific, consequently the advice for these companies was too general and not of any particular help. Two, the research addresses innovation management in terms of the interrelationship among the three elements of a business: product, process and ways of working, which were often explored in isolation in the literature. Similarly, a definition of innovation was established and a systematic approach to company innovativeness was adopted.Design/methodology/approachA survey of 1000 West‐Midlands‐based manufacturing SMEs (SMMEs) was conducted. Ten indicators were used to measure company innovativeness. The top 20 per cent firms were compared with bottom 80 per cent firms in terms of product innovation management, process and work organisation. Means of responses were compared for two sets of companies. T‐tests were performed to draw some conclusions on the results. Discriminant analysis was used to determine the factors distinguishing more and less innovative companies.FindingsThe results showed SMEs in the manufacturing industry are similar to SMEs in other industries. The drivers of SMME innovativeness were: market anticipation, customer focus and commitment of CEO/owners in NPD, processes and new ways of working. Innovation was part of the business strategy and goal‐oriented. However, innovation in SMME was based more around developing new ways of working than new product innovations. The use of systems/technology and process innovation was not uniform amongst more and less innovative companies. The main constraints of SMMEs were customer dependency, skills and knowledge acquisition through training, poor learning attitude and networking because of their tradition of being insular and autonomous.Originality/valueThe paper provides useful information on innovation management in small manufacturing firms.

No abstract

Objective In recent years prescribing rights have been extended beyond doctors and dentists in the UK, first to nurses and subsequently to pharmacists. The aim of the study was to explore general practitioner (GP) perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of pharmacist supplementary prescribing and the future introduction of independent prescribing. Method A qualitative study was conducted with GPs from three practices, in each of which a pharmacist prescriber was regularly working. Key findings The prescribing pharmacists, all of whom were already working in the practice when they qualified as prescribers, had negotiated new areas of work. Not all GPs in the practices referred patients to the prescribing pharmacists. Those GPs who did refer patients generally described benefits from the service, with some ambivalence. There was evidence that the GPs had, to some extent, redefined their professional boundaries, and delegated some routine work which involved no diagnosis and only limited decision making. In this way the GPs exercised control over the interprofessional boundaries. Conclusion The study findings indicate selective acceptance of pharmacist prescribing by GPs.

It has long been recognized that counting patents offers a poor gauge of the extent and value of inventive activity, not least because the quality of patented inventions varies enormously. The Schankerman‐Pakes model provides a valuable alternative gauge that utilizes the data from renewal fees which are regularly paid to keep a patent in force. This article suggests, however, that the model's application to nineteenth‐century UK patents may underestimate the value of Victorian inventive activity because many patentees lacked the financial resources to implement the rational choice that the model assumes. Focusing on steam‐engineering patents, it explores further problems with renewal data and the increasing rate of lapsed applications.

No abstract