Clusters and innovation eco-systems – same-same or different?Emily Wise

Academic 3: The Evolution of Cluster: from the Competitive Advantage of Nations to the Cluster Initiatives Greenbook 2.0

12 November 2014

CLUSTERS AND INNOVATION ECO-SYSTEMS – SAME-SAME OR DIFFERENT?

EMILY WISE, PHDRESEARCH FELLOW AND CONSULTANT

LUND UNIVERSITY AND IEC

Clusters and innovation eco-systems – same-same, or different?Has the cluster concept changed? Have we really moved away from the original Porterian definition?

Policy practice versions 1.0 and 2.0 – same-same, or different?Has cluster policy evolved over the last decade? How does policy practice differ then and now?

TCI 2013 IN DENMARK LEFT ME THINKING ABOUT TWO QUESTIONS

FIRST, ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING?

Clusters

Innovation Eco-systems

Open innovation arenas

Innovation NetworksInnovation Platforms

Centres of

Expertise

Cluster Eco-systems

Clusters are...…a geographical proximate groups of interconnected companies and associated institutions in a particular field, linked by commonalities and externalities. (Porter 1998)

Innovation Eco-systems are......collaborative arrangements through which firms combine their individual offerings into a coherent, customer-facing solution. (Adner 2006, Durst and Poutanen 2013)

DISSECTING THE DEFINITIONS

Industry relatedness

Geographic proximity

Knowledge spillo

vers

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 1

Clusters and innovation eco-systems – same-same, or different?

Different scope, yet same systemic nature and focus on knowledge spillovers

Different ”scope of the system” Clusters more narrowly focused in terms of industry and geography Innovation eco-systems are broader

Same focus on linkages, knowledge spillovers and collaboration

”Innovation is not an activity performed in isolation but one which involves a variety of actions within the system.” (Smits and Kuhlmann 2004)

Systemic instruments focus on interaction between multiple actors and actor groups.

Systemic instruments address five functions:• Management of interfaces• Building and organising systems• Providing a platform for learning and experimenting• Providing an infrastructure for strategic intelligence• Stimulating demand articulation, strategy and vision development

SYSTEMIC INSTRUMENTS IN INNOVATION POLICY

COUNTRIES WITH LONG-STANDING CLUSTER PROGRAMMES

• Sweden• Norway• Finland

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CLUSTER POLICY ASSESSED

• Policy approach (building or leveraging)

• Scope of the cluster initiatives (industry relatedness, geographic proximity...narrow or broad)

• Activities supported by the programme

SECOND, HAS THE PRACTICE OF CLUSTER POLICY EVOLVED?

• Generally consistent cluster policy practice• Expansion of systemic instruments that use/leverage clusters

SWEDEN

2004Objective: LeverageScope: NarrowActivities: Cluster development

Research and innovation projectsOther process support

2014Objective: LeverageScope: NarrowActivities: Cluster development

Research and innovation projectsOther process support

VINNVÄXTest. 2002 4 calls (2003, 2004, 2005, 2012) call planned in 2015

Other systemic instruments

Challenge-driven innovation (2012)Strategic innovation areas (2012)

• Continuous transformation of cluster programme• Expansion of systemic instruments specifically targeting clusters

NORWAY

2004Objective: BuildScope: NarrowActivities: Cluster development

Other process support

2014Objective: Build and LeverageScope: Narrow and BroadActivities: Cluster development

Knowledge cooperationInnovation cooperationCluster-to-cluster collaboration

Arena est. 2003

NCE est. 2006

Other systemic instruments

”Innovation frame” (2014)International research cooperation (2014)

GCE est. 2013

• Closed the cluster programme end 2013• Launch of new systemic instruments targeting regional innovation eco-

systems

FINLAND

2004Objective: Build and LeverageScope: NarrowActivities: Cluster development

Research and innovation projectsOther process support

2014Objective: LeverageScope: BroadActivities: Research and innovation projects

Development environments (e.g. demo and test platforms)National and intl cooperation

(Regional) CoE est. 1994

(Natl) CoE est. 2007

Other systemic instruments

SHOKs (2008) INKA (2013)

RESPONSE TO QUESTION 2

Policy practice versions 1.0 and 2.0 – same-same, or different?

Same policy objective, yet different (and evolving) policy practice

Same objective of leveraging cooperation and pooling of resources among various actors in particular industrial/thematic areas in order to foster innovation, new business and new companies (all systemic instruments)

Different policy practice then and now: Then: build (and leverage), narrow, cluster development (and R&I) activities Now: mostly leverage, broader, new activities (including cross-cluster,

international cooperation, and development/test/demo platforms)

• Need to recognise that we are talking about different ”nouns”, but the same ”verb” (what we want to do) and targeted outcome Consider ’adopting’ narrow (clusters) and broad (eco-systems) definitions, similar

to approach with innovation systems

• Design of (cluster) programmes is evolving (mirroring the ”broader” concept), with implications on selection criteria (who gets in), activities (what gets funded), ?expectations on results, as well as the inter-play between different policy instruments Should benchmark and pursue mutual learning activities between these different

systemic instruments (learn different approaches to addressing the functions of systemic instruments; discuss complementarity and interplay between instruments; investigate commonalities in frameworks for evaluation)

OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Adner, R. (2006). “Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem “ in Harvard Business Review, 84: 98–110.

Durst, S. and Poutanen, P. (2013). ”Success factors of innovation ecosystems - Initial insights from a literature review” in Smeds, R. And Irrmann, O. (eds.) CO-CREATE 2013: The Boundary-Crossing Conference on Co-Design in Innovation, Aalto University Publication series SCIENCE + TECHNOLOGY 15/2013.

Jackson, D. (2011). ”What is an innovation ecosystem?”, National Science Foundation, USA.Lindqvist, G., Ketels, C. and Sölvell, Ö. (2013). The Cluster Initiative Greenbook 2.0, Ivory

Tower Publishers, Stockholm.Mercan, B. And Göktaş, D. (2011). ”Components of Innovation Ecosystems: A Cross-Country

Study” in International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 76: 102-112.Porter, M. (1998). ”Clusters and the New Economics of Competition” in Harvard Business

Review Reprint, 7 (6): 77–90.Smits, R. and Kuhlmann, S. (2004). “The rise of systemic instruments in innovation policy”

in International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1 (1/2): 4-32.

REFERENCES