E R I C J O L I V E T

U N I V E R S I T Y O F T O U L O U S E I C A P I T O L E

M A N A G E M E N T R E S E A R C H C E N T E R ( C R M ) - C N R S

Agglomeration mechanisms in biotech clusters: insights from the French experience

Introduction

The nature of competition has radically changed in recent times (Porter 1998a).

Size, factor endowments, barriers to entry have become less efficient as

competitive forces than they used to be (Porter 1998b).

As a result, the traditional advantages based on stand alone large firms is eroded (Florida 2002).

Equallly, previously successful regions and nations are facing

difficulties adapting to this new context (Florida 2002).

Introduction

Clusters are the novel ‘ecosystems’ of competition (Porter 1998a)

efficient organizational arrangements to compete in a globalized and knowledge based world (Porter 1998b).

cornerstone of competitiveness for regions and nations (Porter 2003)

Introduction

Biotech (and ICT) have become emblems of this emerging economy

Many initiatives and investments to structure bio-clusters around the world.

Some successful, some less successful…

QUESTION:

WHAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUCCESSFUL AND

UNSUCESSFUL BIO-CLUSTERS?

What did we learn?

LR finding I – Clusters are organizations efficient at learning and innovating

When successful, bioclusters develop outstanding capacity to collectively learn and innovate (Saxenian 1994, Talman 2004)

This ability comes from creating, accumulating and circulating specialized and tacit knowledge, platforms/standards and specific assets between members (Maskell 2001, Porter 2000) This collective learning process requires participants to share proximity/location. knowledge and specific assets circulated are ‘sticky’ ie mainly available to this restricted area and members (Von Hippel 1994, Feldman et al 1999)

Proximity is not enough

One of the key problems associated with clusters is that gathering resources in one place is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to get this efficient collective

dynamics

What did we learn

LR finding II – Two necessary conditions for collective innovation to happen

One key factor is the attractivity towards high quality factors, notably human capital - ‘geographic charisma’ (Appold 2005).

Another one is the establishment of ‘synergies’ between clusters members based on the generation of ‘external economies’ within the cluster (Porter 1998a).

What did we learned

More precisely, in successful clusters:

Synergies have been shown to depend on the establishment of a cohesive socio-cognitive dynamics (trust, shared views, norms and values, communities of practice and knowledge) (Saxenian 1994, Dibaggio et al 2003, Rowley et al. 2000, Nielsen 2005, Cowan et al 2007 2009, Bell et al. 2009)

What did we learn

More precisely, in successful clusters:

Long term sustainability and performance has been shown to depend on the formation of hybrid collectives, networks of communities covering different areas of expertise and different stages of the innovation process that would be flexibly called upon on a project base (Arora et al. 2001, Saxenian 2006, DallaPria et Vicente 2006, Sydow et al. 2009).

Problem

How to characterize clusters success (taking dynamics into consideration)

Proposal grid of analysis

Two major factors are to be considered:

1) quality and complementarity of ressources and competences

2) virtuous social and cooperative dynamic

Perspective from some French cases

French main bioclusters

Alsace biovalley

Medicen Paris Region

Evry Genopole

Nantes Atlanpole

Cancer Bio-Santé (TLS)

Orpheme (Marseille)

B A S E D O N I N V E S T I G A T I O N S M A D E B Y J O L I V E T 1 9 9 8

L A N C I A N O - M O R A N D A T , J O L I V E T , N O H A R A 2 0 1 0

Evry genopole

Quality and complementarity of ressources and competences

Management style: Head quarter type of organization with planning and well defined activities Very high selectivity mechanism based on ‘experts views’ Effort to build quality label and attract star scientists and Venture capital Effort to build complementary competences around clear scientific & technological domain (Public labs, drug discovery start ups, diagnostic start ups, technological platforms)

Virtuous social and cooperative dynamic

‘happy few’ style /cohesive commando with clear rules of the game and head

Cluster administration with overall vision and stable framework (good network at the State and public research institutions)

Complementarity and collaborations along the value chain has been organized (mainly early exploration phases)

summary

Evry is a commando style cluster with a very strong governance, restrictive rules and selectivity It is built on a planned, consistent vision held by cluster head, with strong but channelled social interactions. Efficient vehicle built for early phases explorations of genomic applications. Entrepreneurs had limited initiative to grow their own culture, norms and vision Strong planning limits unexpected creativity and adaptation to rapid change. Techno-push vision and limited downstream (pharma and practitionneers) connection

B A S E D O N I N V E S T I G A T I O N S M A D E B Y M U N I S I , S E N G O K U , L E T H I , J O L I V E T 2 0 1 2

Lyon Biopole

Quality and complementarity of ressources and competences

Management style: intermediation between pharma/universities and entrepreneurs

From a selectivity based on a shared therapeutic niche (infectious disease) to gradual enlargement

Effort to build new complementary building blocks and explore novel therapeutic approaches for human and animal vaccine industry

Virtuous social and cooperative dynamic

Cluster administration with overall vision and stable framework (local and regional authorities and large pharma)

Effort to aggregate existing networks and communities in a more focused way (large pharma, entrepreneurs networks, technological platforms, research labs, students, training, local authorities)

Effort to enhance their collective learning and innovating capacity around industrialised innovation processes.

summary

LyonBiopole is an intermediation style cluster acting as a mediating governance structure with an industrial purpose It benefits of a consistent vision based on industrial and innovative objectives led by large pharma around long established competences. This strategic vision leads to the selection and attraction of complementary resources (especially research labs) to enhance the capacity of innovation and exploration of novel therapies in the infectious disease field of large industrial companies. It is an effort to capitalize on long existing social and professional networks and communities and bring them to cooperate around innovative and entrepreneurial projects This model seems to work mainly as a local eco-system and one question regards its links with more international and venture capital comunities.

Preliminary conclusion

Variety and ambiguity

The purpose of this work was to try to capitalize on 15 years of research on clusters to identify important conditions in building successful clusters

France has a handful of bioclusters experience. The study of two of them shows that success depends on two major aspects - quality and complementarity of resources and competences attracted (in and out) - ability to establish social and cooperative dynamics based on trust and shared orientations

Variety and ambiguity

Two cases show two different routes to build quality and complementary assets and create socio-cognitive dynamics conductive to innovation and creativity

They also indicate that each cluster is a unique sort of organization. Like other organizations they exhibit robust constructions but also areas of weakness and fragility.

References

Références

April, F. et al. (2006) Knowledge diffusion through employee mobility. RJE 37:841-860 Appold, S. (2005) The location patterns of US industrial research: mimetic isomorphism and geographic

charisma. RS 31 (1) 17-39. Bell, S., Tracey, P., Heide, J. (2009) the organization of regional clusters. AMR 34 (4) 623-642 Buenstorf, G. et al. (2010) Heritage and agglomeration: the Akron tyre cluster revisited. TEJ 119, 705-733. Buenstorf, G. et al. (2010) Why does entry cluster geographically? Evendence from the US tyre industry. JUE

68:103-114 Casper, S. (2007) How do technology clusters emerge and become sustainable? Social Network formation and

interfirm mobility within the San Diego biotechnology cluster RP 36, 438-455 Cowan, R., Jonard, N. (2009) knowledge portfolios and the organzation of innovation networks, AMR 34 (2)

320-342. DallaPria, Y, Vicente, J. (2006) interactions mimétiques et identité collective: gloire et déclin du Silicon

Sentier, RFS 47(2) 293-317. DiBaggio, L. Ferrary, M. (2003) communautés de pratiques et réseaux sociaux dans la dynamique de

fonctionnement des clusters de hautes technologies. REI 103 111-130. Feldman, M., Audretsch, D. (1999) Innovation in cities: science based diversity, specialization and localized

monopoly. European Economic Review 43, 409-429. Florida, R. (2002) The rise of the creative class. Basic Books Klepper, S. (2010) The origin and growth of industry clusters: the making of Silicon Valley and Detroit. JUE

67, 15-32 Klepper, S. (2011) Nano-economics, spinoffs and the wealth of regions. SBE 37:141-154.

References

Maskell, P. (2001) towards a knowledge based theory of the geographical cluster, ICC 10, 921-943.

Moore, G. et al. (2001) Learning the Silicon valley way. SIEPR DP 45, Stanford U. Nielsen, B. (2005) the role of knowledge embeddedness in the creation of synergies in strategic

alliances, JBR 58(9) 1194. Porter, M. (1998a) Clusters and the new economics of competition. HBR, Decembre, 77-90. Porter, M. (1998b) The Adam Smith address: location, clusters and the new microeconomics of

competition. Business Economics, 33 (1) 7-17. Porter, M. (2003) The economic performance of regions. RS 37 (6-7) 549-578. Powell, W, Grodal, S. (2005) Networks of innovators in Faberger, Ox. Handbook of innovation Rowley, T. Berhens, D., Krackhardt, D. (2000) redundant governance structures, SMJ 21, 369-

386 Suire, R, Vicente, J. (2008) why do some places succeed while other decline? A social

interaction model of cluster viability, WP LEREPS. Saxenian, A. (1994) Regional advantage: cuture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route

128. Harvard UP Saxenian, A. (2006) The new argonauts. Harvard UP. Sydow, J. Schreyogg, G, Koch, J. (2009) organizational path dependence: opening the black

box, AMR 34 (4) 689-709. Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., Heny, N., Pinch, S. (2004) knowledge clusters and competitive

advantage. AMR 29 258-271.