Birth of a cluster: the microelectronics industry in the Marseilles Metropolitan Area

Rychen, Frédéric; Zimmermann, J.B.

doi:10.1504/ijtm.2002.003083

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The evidence reviewed shows that network configurations are dynamic and principally guided by the choices of partners and their network management capabilities and are beyond the direct influence of policy intervention (Rychen and Zimmermann 2002; Saxenian 1990). The evidence also suggests that network infrastructures can have an indirect positive or negative impact on network configurations and can consequently encourage or hinder the development of certain forms of network relationships (Boter and Holmquist 1996; Momma and Sharp 1999; Walcott 1999).…”

Section: Overview Of Network Formation and Configurationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All networks have rules of engagement which constrain the partners’ behaviour (Boter and Holmquist 1996). These rules are governed by the network's governance mechanisms and the infrastructure (particularly industrial culture) within which the network is embedded (Rychen and Zimmermann 2002). For example, the pharmaceutical industry has an industrial culture that has encouraged more open and networked innovation, while the defence sector, owing to the sensitivities surrounding the technologies, has tended towards narrower and more focused networks (Bower 1993; Frenken 2000).…”

Section: Network Failure and Network Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence

Pittaway

Robertson

Munir

et al. 2004

Int J Management Reviews

1,301

1,026

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent work on competitiveness has emphasized the importance of business networking for innovativeness. Until recently, insights into the dynamics of this relationship have been fragmented. This paper presents a systematic review of research linking the networking behaviour of firms with their innovative capacity. We find that the principal benefits of networking as identified in the literature include: risk sharing; obtaining access to new markets and technologies; speeding products to market; pooling complementary skills; safeguarding property rights when complete or contingent contracts are not possible; and acting as a key vehicle for obtaining access to external knowledge. The evidence also illustrates that those firms which do not co‐operate and which do not formally or informally exchange knowledge limit their knowledge base long term and ultimately reduce their ability to enter into exchange relationships. At an institutional level, national systems of innovation play an important role in the diffusion of innovations in terms of the way in which they shape networking activity. The paper provides evidence suggesting that network relationships with suppliers, customers and intermediaries such as professional and trade associations are important factors affecting innovation performance and productivity. Where networks fail, it is due to inter‐firm conflict, displacement, lack of scale, external disruption and lack of infrastructure. The review identifies several gaps in the literature that need to be filled. For instance, there is a need for further exploration of the relationship between networking and different forms of innovation, such as process and organisational innovation. Similarly, we need better understanding of network dynamics and network configurations, as well as the role of third parties such as professional and trade associations. Our study highlights the need for interdisciplinary research in these areas.

show abstract

Section: Overview Of Network Formation and Configurationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Network Failure and Network Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence

Pittaway

Robertson

Munir

et al. 2004

Int J Management Reviews

1,301

1,026

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Introducing the hitherto unchartered fields of economic geography and regional studies, the objective of the paper is to gain a better understanding under which conditions actors that participate in SNM can leverage the 'regional advantages' (Saxenian, 1994;Rychen and Zimmermann, 2002;Filippi and Torre, 2003) which might take place in these localities for niche experimentation and upscaling. It offers a conceptual synthesis of key concepts in the geographical literature on innovation, i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local niche experimentation in energy transitions: A theoretical and empirical exploration of proximity advantages and disadvantages

Coenen

Raven

Verbong

2010

Technology in Society

172

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses how the approach of Strategic Niche Management (SNM) relates to proximity advantages in innovation processes as identified in the geography of innovation literature. The latter claims that the locations where innovation emerge and thrive are not coincidental, but that they follow certain patterns and explanatory logics. Such specific attention for explaining locations is not explicitly present in SNM, although this literature makes claims about the importance of experimentation in local settings, and local and global dynamics. Hence a confrontation of both literatures is thought to be promising. The paper draws on a theoretical discussion and a case study about aquifer thermal energy storage to conclude (1) that there is sufficient evidence for proximity dimensions in niche development; (2) that taking proximity dimensions seriously in SNM helps to unpack processes of upscaling and aggregation; (3) that literature on proximity and innovation can benefit from a more agency-based and dynamic perspective on proximity advantages; and (4) that there is a bias in proximity literature towards advantages of proximity while neglecting potential disadvantages for innovation, aggregation and upscaling..

show abstract

“…Pittaway et al (2004) state that, although evidence is limited, the indications are that government policy can indeed create formal arrangements for collaboration (what they term 'implantation'), but those formal collaborations should be led by the existence of established networks. They cite Rychen and Zimmermann (2002) whose study of the microelectronics cluster in the Marseilles area of France showed that, when designing a national policy for the implantation of local clusters or networks in the area, the failure to take local conditions into consideration led to an unsuccessful initiative. The conclusion was that "localised (regional) policy is more appropriate for the formation of infrastructures that tend to depend somewhat on existing networks in a locality".…”

Section: Rationalementioning

confidence: 99%