Les systèmes régionaux d’innovation : superpositions et articulations. Le cas de Sophia Antipolis

Milieu innovateur et entrepreneuriat innovant : la force des proximités et des réseaux

“…Bénéficiant d'une certaine autonomie d'organisation (légale et économique) des ressources productives, sa caractéristique première est la formation et la mise en valeur des ressources spécifiques et la réalisation des combinaisons particulières de ces ressources spécifiques (cf. le cas de Sophia-Antipolis étudié par D. Elidrissi et V. Hauch, 2008). Ces dernières sont composées de capital et de travail ayant des formes et des contenus spécifiques par rapport à des activités et à des secteurs donnés : spécifiques sur le plan technologique, financier ou démographique, mais aussi sur le plan des compétences, des qualifications, du niveau d'éducation, etc.…”

Knowledge transfer within clusters: the catalyst role of private collective support structures

“…To support this cooperative value creation process and enhance the international competitiveness of firms, several territorial policies have emerged since the late 70s. The territory is then considered as a place combining interactions between local actors and non-local actors, and as a space gathering unique resources -such as knowledge-which are not easily available on the market (Elidrissi & Hauch, 2008). Depending on history and on the amount of knowledge accumulated in each territory, these policies are grounded in different structures: innovative milieus, districts, localized production systems, technopoles, clusters and more recently in France poles of competitiveness.…”

“…Depending on history and on the amount of knowledge accumulated in each territory, these policies are grounded in different structures: innovative milieus, districts, localized production systems, technopoles, clusters and more recently in France poles of competitiveness. Innovative milieus focus on technological innovation and are considered mostly as a combination of actors in interaction forming a network and not as such as a space (Elidrissi & Hauch, 2008). On the other hand, technopoles refer to an urban region organized to favor technological synergies.…”

“…Innovation results from the overlap of these various sources of proximity. This has led to a distinction between on the one hand, spontaneous development processes in a territory leading to innovative micro-systems or milieus (such as that of the Silicon Valley) and on the other hand, planned processes (such as that of Sophia Antipolis) where public or mixed initiatives aim at favoring interactive learning (Elidrissi & Hauch, 2008).…”

“…Nowadays, institutional proximity does not solely rely on public actors but also on private business and non business actors such as universities, research centers, industrial and professional associations. They act as stimulators in territorial animation (Massart & Torre, 2004) by facilitating information and technological exchanges, organizing common activities and encouraging coordination between firms (Elidrissi & Hauch, 2008). In Sophia-Antipolis, several such associations and clubs have emerged over time (Longhi & Rainelli, 2010): the CEO club, the Telecom Valley Association (early 1990s) and more recently Eurosud55 (experimentation of an ATM platform), IMcT (telematics and digital computer systems), Database Forum, MITSA (multimedia) or the PERSAN club (public research and higher level training).…”