CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 408Public Procurement and PolicyInnovation Policy and R&DAuction Theory and Applications

Barriers to innovation through public procurement: a supplier perspective

Open access
Uyarra, Elvira, Edler, Jakob, Garcia-Estevez, Javier, Georghiou, Luke, Yeow, Jillian·2014·Technovation
DOI 10.1016/j.technovation.2014.04.003
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Public procurement is increasingly viewed as having important potential to drive innovation. Despite this interest, numerous barriers prevent the public sector from acting as an intelligent and informed customer. This paper seeks to understand how barriers related to processes, competences, procedures and relationships in public procurement influence suppliers׳ ability to innovate and to reap the benefits of innovation. We address this by exploiting a dedicated survey of public sector suppliers in the UK, using a probit model to investigate the influence of structural, market and innovation determinants on suppliers׳ perception of these barriers. The main barriers reported by suppliers refer to the lack of interaction with procuring organisations, the use of over-specified tenders as opposed to outcome based specifications, low competences of procurers and a poor management of risk during the procurement process. Such barriers are perceived most strongly by R&D intensive organisations. Our results also indicate that certain organisations, particularly smaller firms and not-forprofit organisations, encounter greater difficulties with innovation arising from the procurement process, for instance in relation to contract size, lack of useful feedback and communication of opportunities. Government procurement policies are queried in light of the findings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.technovation.2014.04.003

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A lack of interaction between procurer and supplier remains the main barrier to the implementation of innovative solutions through public procurement.

    “However, a lack of interaction between procurer and supplier remains the main barrier to the implementation of innovative solutions though public procurement (Uyarra et al., 2014).”

    From Implementation and management of a circular public procurement contract for furniture (2023) · cites this paper as Uyarra et al., 2014

    The Discussion (§4; page unavailable) identifies lack of interaction with procuring organisations as a main barrier to innovation through public procurement. It lists several other main barriers, however, and does not establish lack of interaction as the single main barrier. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The lack of knowledge and experience of CPP in the public sector is the main barrier to implementation.

    “The lack of knowledge and experience of CPP in the public sector is the main barrier to implementation (Uyarra et al., 2014;Trindade et al., 2017;Vejaratnam et al., 2020).”

    From Implementation and management of a circular public procurement contract for furniture (2023) · cites this paper as Uyarra et al., 2014

    Section 2.2.1 identifies a lack of procurer skills and expertise as an important barrier to innovative purchasing. But Section 4 (Discussion) lists low procurer competence alongside several other main barriers; it does not identify lack of knowledge and experience as the single main barrier to implementation. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Overly specific tenders and a lack of competence and risk management in procuring organizations are barriers.

    “Overly specific tenders and a lack of competence and risk management in procuring organizations are other barriers mentioned in the literature (Uyarra et al., 2014).”

    From Implementation and management of a circular public procurement contract for furniture (2023) · cites this paper as Uyarra et al., 2014

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Arrowsmith, S., Treumer, S., 2012. Competitive Dialogue in EU Procurement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  2. Aschhoff, B., Sofka, W., 2009. Innovation on demand-can public procurement drive market success of innovations? Res. Policy 38 (8), 1235-1247.
  3. Byatt, I., 2001. Delivering Better Services for Citizens -A Review of Local Government Procurement in England. Department for Transport, Local Govern- ment and the Regions and the Local Government Association, London.
  4. Cabral, L., Cozzi, G., Denicolo, V., Spagnolo, G., Zanza, M., 2006. Procuring innova- tions. In: Dimitri, N., Piga, G., Spagnolo, G. (Eds.), Handbook of Procurement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 483-530.
  5. Caldwell, N.D., Roehrich, J.K., Davies, A.C., 2009. Procuring complex performance in construction: London Heathrow terminal 5 and a private finance initiative hospital. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 15 (3), 178-186.
  6. Cloutier-Fisher, D., Skinner, M.W., 2006. Levelling the playing field? exploring the implications of managed competition for voluntary sector providers of long- term care in small Town Ontario. Health Place 12 (1), 97-109.
  7. Dalpé, R., DeBresson, C., Xiaoping, H., 1992. The public sector as first user of innovations. Research Policy 21 (3), 251-263.
  8. Dimitri, N., Piga, G., Spagnolo, G., 2006. Introduction. In: Dimitri, N., Piga, G., Spagnolo., G. (Eds.), Handbook of Procurement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3-13.
  9. Edler, J., 2010. Demand oriented innovation policy. In: Smits, R., Kuhlmann, S., Shapira, P. (Eds.), The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy an International Research Handbook. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 177-208.
  10. Edler, J., Edquist, C., Georghiou, L., Hommen, L., Hafner, S., Papadakou, M., Rigby, J., Rolfstam, M., Ruhland, S., Tsipouri, L., 2006. Innovation and Public Procure- ment: Review of Issues at Stake. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
  11. Edler, J., Georghiou, L., 2007. Public procurement and innovation -resurrecting the demand side. Res. Policy 36 (7), 949-963.
  12. Edler, J., Uyarra, E., 2013. Public procurement of innovation. In: Brown, L., Osborne, S. (Eds.), The Handbook of Innovation and Change in Public Sector Services. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 224-237.
  13. Edquist, C., Hommen, L., 2000. Public Technology Procurement and Innovation Theory. In: Edquist, C., Hommen, L., Tsipouri, L.J. (Eds.), Public Technology Procurement and Innovation. Kluwer Academic Pub., Dordrecht, pp. 5-70.
  14. Edquist, C., Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J.M., 2012. Public procurement for innovation as mission-oriented innovation policy. Res. Policy 41 (10), 1757-1769.
  15. Erridge, A., Greer, J., 2002. Partnerships and public procurement: building social capital through supply relations. Public Adm. 80 (3), 503-522.
  16. Erridge, A., Nondi, R., 1994. Public procurement, competition and partnership. Eur. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 1 (3), 169-179.
  17. Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E., Laranja, M., 2011. Reconceptualising the 'policy mix' for Innovation. Res. Policy 40 (5), 702-713.
  18. Freel, M., Robson, P., 2004. Small firm innovation, growth and performance evidence from Scotland and Northern England. Int. Small Bus. J. 22 (6), 561-575.
  19. Geroski, P., 1990. Procurement policy as a tool of industrial policy. Int. Rev. Appl. Econ. 4 (2), 182-198.
  20. Green, P., 2010. Efficiency Review: Key Findings and Recommendations. Cabinet Office, London.
  21. HM Treasury 2005. Cox Review of Creativity in Business: Building on the UK's Strengths. London.
  22. HM Treasury, 2010a. Review of Competitive Dialogue. HM Treasury, London.
  23. Lember, V., Kalvet, T., Kattel, R., 2013. Public Procurement Policy for Innovation: International Perspectives. Springer, New York.
  24. Li, Y. 2011. Public Procurement as a Demand-side Innovation Policy Tool in China -A National Level Case Study. Paper presented at the 2001 DRUID Conference, Copenhagen, June15-17, 2011.
  25. McCrudden, C., 2007. Buying Social Justice: Equality, Government Procurement, & Legal Change. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  26. Myoken, Y., 2010. Demand-orientated policy on leading-edge industry and tech- nology: public procurement for innovation. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 49 (1), 196-219.
  27. Nugroho, Yanuar, 2011. Opening the black box: the adoption of innovations in the voluntary sector-the case of indonesian civil society organisations. Res. Policy 40 (5), 761-777 (June).
  28. Pavitt, K., 1984. Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Res. Policy 13 (6), 343-373.
  29. Peck, F., Cabras, I., 2011. The impact of local authority procurement on local economies the case of Cumbria, North West England. Public Policy Adm. 26 (3), 307-331 (July 1).
  30. Porter, M.E., 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Free Press, New York.
  31. Rothwell, R., Zegveld, W., 1981. Government regulations and innovation -indus- trial innovation and public policy. In: Rothwell, R., Zegveld, W. (Eds.), Industrial Innovation and Public Policy. Frances Pinter, London, pp. 116-147.
  32. Treumer, S., Uyarra, E., 2013. Competitive dialogue and contractual design fostering innovation and need analysis. In: Piga, G., Treumer, S. (Eds.), The Applied Law and Economics of Public Procurement. Routledge, London, pp. 13-27.
  33. Uyarra, E. 2013. Review of Measures in Support of Public Procurement of Innova- tion. Nesta Working Paper No. 13/17. London: Nesta.
  34. Uyarra, E., Edler, J., Gee, S., Georghiou, L., Yeow, J., 2013. Public procurement for innovation: the UK case. In: Lember, L., Kalvet, T., Kattel, R. (Eds.), Public Procurement Policy for Innovation: International Perspectives. New York, Springer, pp. 233-257.
  35. Uyarra, E., Flanagan, K., 2010. Understanding the Innovation Impacts of Public Procurement. Eur. Plan. Stud. 18 (1), 123-143.
  36. Vecchiato, R., Roveda, C., 2014. Foresight for public procurement and regional innovation policy: the case of Lombardy. Res. Policy 43 (2), 438-450.
  37. Yukins, C., Piga, G., 2012. Dialogue: set-asides for small and medium firms, as in the USA system with the small business act that reserves shares of tenders to SMEs only. In: Piga, G., Treumer, S. (Eds.), The Applied Law and Economics of Public Procurement. Routledge, London, pp. 215-230.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Uyarra, E., Edler, J., Garcia-Estevez, J., Georghiou, L., & Yeow, J.
Affiliations
University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Uyarra, Elvira
ORCID
Venue
Technovation
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
34
Issue
10
Pages
631-645
ISSN
0166-4972 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.technovation.2014.04.003
OpenAlex
W2063120748
Cited by
408
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 19
FWCI
70.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Technovation (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DMU Open Research Archive (De Montfort University) (submittedVersion)
  • Greater South Information System
Funders
  • UK Economic and Social Research Council
  • Department of Business Innovation and Skills, NESTA
  • Technology Strategy Board
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Public Procurement and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Innovation Policy and R&D
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Auction Theory and Applications
Keywords
public procurement, barriers to innovation, supplier perspective, procurement process, tender specifications, R&D-intensive firms, small business, nonprofit organizations, public procurement policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review