Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation
description
Transcript of Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation
![Page 1: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation
Jerker MoodyssonCIRCLE, Lund University
Lecture at the Norwegian Research School in Innovation; Program in Innovation and Growth; Course on Innovation Systems, Clusters and Innovation Policy, Kristiansand, October 25, 2012
![Page 2: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Background• Theoretical development, specification and application of
the ”knowledge base” approach/typology• Publications 2004-2012, today’s presentation will focus
particularly on three:– Moodysson, Coenen, Asheim 2008, Environment and Planning A– Moodysson 2008, Economic Geography– Martin & Moodysson 2012, European Urban and Regional Studies
• Collective work, influenced by many (e.g. Gertler, Isaksen, Tödtling, Boschma, Manniche etc)
• Roman Martin’s dissertation: Knowledge Bases and the Geography of Innovation (successfully defended Oct 2)
![Page 3: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Ambition• Better understand innovation processes in different types of
economic activities• Specify when geography matters for interactive
learning/innovation, in what respect, and why• Move beyond dichotomies of local/global, tacit/codified, high-
tech/low-tech etc• Transcend sector classifications – less relevant for many (emerging
and transforming) industries (c.f. life science, cleantech, ICT, new media etc). Low explanatory value for heterogeneity of innovation practices (also in traditional/established industries).
• Combine qualitative and quantitative approaches
![Page 4: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Basic assumptions• Proximity contributes to reduced transaction costs and more
efficient knowledge exchange. Spatial and relational proximity
• Compatibility of knowledge (either through similarity or through relatedness) is one key aspect of relational proximity
• Firms conduct routinized behaviour → they search in proximity to their existing knowledge → transcending cognitive domains requires absorptive capacity
• More effective to exchange knowledge with others who share knowledge space, but only to a certain degree – optimal cognitive scope, related variety
![Page 5: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Basic assumptions
Cognitive distance
Novelty
Communicability
Effectiveness = novelty x communicability(non-redundant cognition)
Applicability of knowledge
![Page 6: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Basic assumptions• Knowledge is important for innovation in all sectors, high-
tech as well as low-tech. Most innovations are not ”high-tech” or ”science-based” (but still knowledge based)
• Knowledge is composed by two intertwined dimensions– Codified knowledge – information. Easy to transfer over spatial
distance– Tacit knowledge – we know more than we can tell. Embedded
in people and organizations. Impossible to transfer over spatial distance
– Knowledge always has a tacit dimension (you need tacit knowledge to interpret information)
![Page 7: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Basic assumptions
Research
Development
Production
Marketing
![Page 8: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Basic assumptions
Potential Market
Invent and/or
produce analytic design
Detailed design
and test
Redesign and
produce
Distribute and
market
Research
Knowledge
![Page 9: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Heterogeneity
• Innovation processes differ in many respects according to the economic sector, field of knowledge, type of innovation, historical period and country concerned. They also vary with the size of the firm, its corporate strategy or strategies, and its prior experience with innovation. In other words, innovation processes are ”contingent” (Pavitt, 2005, p. 87).
![Page 10: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Basis for heterogeneity
• Majority of research on innovation up till the mid 2000s based explanations on two main dimensions– Sector specificities (e.g. the SIS approach)– National context (e.g. the NIS approach)
• Among the most famous explanatory devices has been – the ”Pavitt taxonomy”, ultimately building on and further
aggregating traditional sector classifications (Standard Industrial Classification)
– the ”Varieties of Capitalism” approach, taking national institutional specificities into account (main categories LME vs CME etc)
![Page 11: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Pavitt’s taxonomy• Describe and explain similarities and differences among
sectors in the sources, nature and impact of innovations• Focus on industry level – firms grouped together into an
industry on the basis of their main output. Builds on traditional sector classification system (SIC/NACE etc)
• Two step classification: firms firstly attributed to an industry according to their main product, and subsequently the whole industry is attributed to a class of the taxonomy (see next slide)
• Empirically based (inductive) classification based on 2000 innovations in the UK 1945-1979
![Page 12: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Pavitt’s taxonomy• Supplier dominated firms
– Manufacturing, agriculture, housebuilding, financial/commercial services. In-house R&D/engineering capabilities weak, most innovation from suppliers
• Production-intensive firms– (1) Mass production industries. Technological lead maintained through know-how and
secrecy– (2) Small-scale equipment and instrument suppiers. Firm specific skills, ability to
respond sensitively to users’ needs• Science-based firms
– Industries aiming to exploit scientific discoveries. R&D activities of firms in sector, underlying sciences at universities. Patents, secrecy, technical lags, firm-specific skills
• Differences explained by sectoral characteristics: sources of technology (inside firms, R&D labs), users’ needs (price, performance, reliability), and means of appropriating benefits (secrets, technical lags, patents)
![Page 13: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Problems with Pavitt/sectors• The existence of multi-product and multi-technology firms• Platform technogies and emerging sectors – new ”sectors” continuously
born (e.g. ICT, life science, new media etc)• Modes of innovation differ substantially between firms within sectors
(Leiponen & Drejer, 2007)• Large categories of firms with very similar modes across countries and
sectors (Srholec & Verspagen, 2012)• Most varience (83-95%) given by heterogeneity at firm level. Sectoral
specificities explain 3-10%, national specificities 2-11% Study based on 13 035 innovating firms covering 26 sectors in 13 European countries (Srholec & Verspagen, 2012).
• Alternative explanations?
![Page 14: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Knowledge bases?• (How) can the KB approach help us better understand the
relation between knowledge content, modes of innovation, interaction, and relative importance of spatial and relational proximity between firms, universities and other actors in an innovation system context?
• (How) can the KB approach help us better understand innovation processes carried out by firms and related actors working with different types of economic activity?
• (How) can we better specify firms/activities according to the KB approach? Better than sector taxonomies? Better than the VoC-approach?
![Page 15: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
The KB typologyAnalytical Synthetic SymbolicUnderstand and explain features of the (natural) world by application of scientific principles
Construct solution to functional problems/ practical needs by combining knowledge and skills in new ways
Trigger reactions (desire, affect etc) in minds of beholders by use of symbols and images
Focus on the process rather than the outcome
• Dimensions represent theoretically derived concepts rather than empirical cases• Deliberately accentuates certain characteristics (not necessarily found clear cut in reality)• Heuristics aimed to provide a systematic basis for comparison
![Page 16: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Analytical (science based)
Synthetic (engineering based)
Symbolic (artistic based)
Developing new knowledge about natural systems by applying scientific laws
Applying or combining existing knowledge in new ways
Creating meaning, desire, aesthetic qualities, affect
Scientific knowledge, models, deductive
Problem-solving, custom production, inductive
Creative process, communication
Collaboration within and between research units
Interactive learning with customers and suppliers
Experimentation, in studio, project teams
Strong codified knowledge content, highly abstract, universal
Partially codified knowledge, strong tacit component, more context-specific
Interpretation, creativity, cultural knowledge, sign values, strong context specificity
Meaning relatively constant between places
Meaning varies substantially between places
Meaning highly variable between e.g. place, class, gender
The KB typology
![Page 17: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Disclaimer
• We are fully aware that all real cases (firms, industries, activities) draw on combinations of all three knowledge bases
• Nevertheless it is possible to specify the crucial KB of a firm (or activity) i.e. the KB upon which those actors ultimately build their competitiveness (through innovation), the KB which they cannot do (innovate) without (and neither outsource)
![Page 18: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Illustration: The Astonishing Tribe
![Page 19: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Empirical illustrations
• Processes and activities
• Firms and industries
• Discussion: next steps
![Page 20: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Application: processes and activities
• Aim: Decompose innovation processes, identify and understand modes of innovation. Address the dichotomy of ‘proximate’ and ‘distant’ knowledge sourcing by looking specifically at the characteristics of the knowledge creation process
• Approach: ‘innovation biographies’. Combining insights from studies of clusters and innovation systems with an activity-oriented focus
• Objects of study: innovation processes in life science (pharmaceutical and functional food applications)
![Page 21: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Initial observation
• Strong concentration in a few nodes. Agglomeration of (seemingly) similar firms in close proximity to Lund University
• Global network connections are indispensable for novel knowledge creation among those firms
• After mapping the spatial patterns of innovation (measured through formal partnerships, co-patents and co-publications) we applied an intensive research design with particular focus on the actual content of the knowledge generation and collaboration
![Page 22: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Approach
• Combination of theoretical reasoning, readings of the innovation literature, in-depth studies of innovation projects
• Used both for theory development (i.e. further specifications of the KB approach) and for empirical analysis (i.e. explaining different spatial and organizational patterns observed)
• First step of this project focused exclusively on analytical and synthetic KB
![Page 23: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Modes of knowledge creationAnalytical Synthetic
Understand and explain features of the (natural) world
Design or construct a solution to human problems/practical needs
Discovery and application of scientific laws
Apply or (re)combine existing knowledge in a novel way
Deconstruct natural systems Construct functional systems
Know-why Know-how
Formalized, scientific, standardized experimentation and abstraction
Less formalized, practical experimentation and trial-and-error
![Page 24: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Analysis
You start with theory. You create theoretical models with a reasonable potential to succeed in practice […] or put differently, you believe it will succeed. You then take it to the lab to test if it works. If it doesn’t work, theory is useless.
![Page 25: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
SynthesisWe construct and operate […] systems based on prior experiences, and we innovate in them by open loop feedback. That is, we look at the system and ask ourselves ‘How can we do it better?’ We then make some change, and see if our expectation of ‘better’ is fulfilled.
![Page 26: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
The life science value chain/problem sequence
I II III IV V VI VII
I: Identification and validation of target structure (cause of disease)II: Identification and validation of biotech application (possible treatment)III: Pre-clinical testsIV: Clinical tests, phase 1V: Clinical tests, phase 2VI: Clinical tests, phase 3VII: Registration and commercialisation
I II III IV V VI VII
I: Identification and validation of target structure (cause of disease)II: Identification and validation of biotech application (possible treatment)III: Pre-clinical testsIV: Clinical tests, phase 1V: Clinical tests, phase 2VI: Clinical tests, phase 3VII: Registration and commercialisation
PharmaAcademia
DBFs
2-4 years 2-4 years 4-6 years 1-3 years
![Page 27: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Example 1
Project phaseResearch to
understand human antibodies
Development of antibody library
(platform technology)
Research to discover
antibody based HIV drug
Pre-clinical and clinical
trials
Dominant mode of knowledge
creationAnalytical Synthetic Analytical /
Synthetic Analytical
Actors involvedLocal: researchers
at university department
Local: University and spinn-off
DBF
Local: DBFGlobal: DBF
Local: DBFGlobal: PRO
timeReveal the mechanisms of antibodies. Formalised, rational,
scientific process.
![Page 28: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Example 1
Project phaseResearch to
understand human antibodies
Development of antibody library
(platform technology)
Research to discover
antibody based HIV drug
Pre-clinical and clinical
trials
Dominant mode of knowledge
creationAnalytical Synthetic Analytical /
Synthetic Analytical
Actors involvedLocal: researchers
at university department
Local: University and spin-off DBF
Local: DBFGlobal: DBF
Local: DBFGlobal: PRO
timeLearn how to control, select, and reproduce antibodies. Experimentation in the lab,
trial and error.
![Page 29: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Example 1
Project phaseResearch to
understand human antibodies
Development of antibody library
(platform technology)
Research to discover
antibody based HIV drug
Pre-clinical and clinical
trials
Dominant mode of knowledge
creationAnalytical Synthetic Analytical /
Synthetic Analytical
Actors involvedLocal: researchers
at university department
Local: University and spinn-off
DBF
Local: DBFGlobal: DBF
Local: DBFGlobal: PRO
timeCreate a medical treatment of this tool. HIV was the selected application. A combination of analytical and synthetic mode of knowledge creation. The
antigens causing HIV had to be understood; the antibodies that could block these antigens had to be defined; then they had to be selected from the
’library’.
![Page 30: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Example 1
Project phaseResearch to
understand human antibodies
Development of antibody library
(platform technology)
Research to discover
antibody based HIV drug
Pre-clinical and clinical
trials
Dominant mode of knowledge
creationAnalytical Synthetic Analytical /
Synthetic Analytical
Actors involvedLocal: researchers
at university department
Local: University and spinn-off
DBF
Local: DBFGlobal: DBF
Local: DBFGlobal: PRO
timeCreate a medical treatment of this tool. HIV was the selected application. A combination of analytical and synthetic mode of knowledge creation. The
antigens causing HIV had to be understood; the antibodies that could block these antigens had to be defined; then they had to be selected from the
library.
Understanding and defining (analytical): DBF in collaboration with
New Jersey firm.Selection (synthetic): spinn-off DBF in
collaboration with old univ dept in Lund
![Page 31: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Example 1
Project phaseResearch to
understand human antibodies
Development of antibody library
(platform technology)
Research to discover
antibody based HIV drug
Pre-clinical and clinical
trials
Dominant mode of knowledge
creationAnalytical Synthetic Analytical /
Synthetic Analytical
Actors involvedLocal: researchers
at university department
Local: University and spinn-off
DBF
Local: DBFGlobal: DBF
Local: DBFGlobal: PRO
timeHighly formalised. DBF in
collaboration with hospitals and research institutes in Stockholm
and Great Britain.
![Page 32: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Example 2
Project phaseDevelopment of
probiotic in medical context
Development of probiotic in
commercial food context
Pre-clinical and clinical trials
Dominant mode of knowledge creation Synthetic Synthetic Analytical
Actors involvedLocal: various departments at
university
Local: DBF and food company
Local: DBFGlobal: PRO
timeMedical problem: how to cure a leaking gut after surgery. Three reserchers from different disciplines (surgery, food technology, applied microbiology). Combined their skills and developed a ferment nutrient solution that could be administered by tube.
![Page 33: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Example 2
Project phaseDevelopment of
probiotic in medical context
Development of probiotic in
commercial food context
Pre-clinical and clinical trials
Dominant mode of knowledge creation Synthetic Synthetic Analytical
Actors involvedLocal: various departments at
university
Local: DBF and food company
Local: DBFGlobal: PRO
timeA related application on the commercial market: functional food. Combine
knowledge about function with knowledge about food production
![Page 34: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Example 2
Project phaseDevelopment of
probiotic in medical context
Development of probiotic in
commercial food context
Pre-clinical and clinical trials
Dominant mode of knowledge creation Synthetic Synthetic Analytical
Actors involvedLocal: various departments at
university
Local: DBF and food company
Local: DBFGlobal: PRO
timeA related application on the commercial market: functional food. Combine
knowledge about function with knowledge about food production
The functional part: a local DBF.The food part: a local food company.
Very much trial and error to make these systems work togehter.
![Page 35: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Example 2
Project phaseDevelopment of
probiotic in medical context
Development of probiotic in
commercial food context
Pre-clinical and clinical trials
Dominant mode of knowledge creation Synthetic Synthetic Analytical
Actors involvedLocal: various departments at
university
Local: DBF and food company
Local: DBFGlobal: PRO
timeHighly formalised. Primarily a matter of getting scientific certification and
support by researchers and physicians. DBF in collaboration with
research institutes globally.
![Page 36: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Findings• Innovation processes involve elements of both analytical
and synthetic knowledge• The characteristics of ”the core of the matter” in terms of
KB differ (not only between firms and industries, but also within those)
• Dominant KB (in quantitative terms) ≠ crucial KB (what the activity cannot do without)
• A number of case studies in different sectors used as preliminary classification basis (this could be further developed and maybe used for more accurate “sector” classifications? Will come back to this)
![Page 37: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Application: firms and industries• Aim: Examine the geographical and organizational patterns of
knowledge sourcing among firms with different crucial KB (classification of firms based on sample of case studies similar to those described above)
• Research questions – What is the role of regional/global knowledge sources (for firms
drawing on different crucial KB)?– What is the role of less/more formalized knowledge sources (for
firms drawing on different crucial KB)?• (parts of) life science, (parts of) food, (parts of) moving media
in Skåne. NB. Selection of cases not based on sector statistics.
![Page 38: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Expected patterns of knowledge sourcing (based on theoretical reasoning)
38Source: own draft.
regional
global
less formalized
more formalized
Synthetic
Analytical
Symbolic
![Page 39: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Expected patterns of knowledge sourcing
• Knowledge sources in geographical proximity are particularly important for synthetic or symbolic firms, whereas analytical firms tend to be less sensitive to geographical distance
• Formalized (scientific, codified, abstract and universal) knowledge sources are more important for analytical firms, whereas synthetic and symbolic firms rely on less formalized knowledge sources
![Page 40: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Knowledge sourcing through…• Monitoring refers to search for knowledge outside the
firm, but without direct interaction with these external sources
• Mobility refers to retrieving knowledge input through recruitment of key employees from other organizations (e.g. firms, universities)
• Collaboration refers to exchange of knowledge through direct interaction with other actors
• Network analysis based on data generated through structured interviews
40
![Page 41: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Monitoring
41
Table: relative importance of various sources for gathering market knowledge through monitoring. Source: own survey.
Mean Std. Deviation Nmoving media 3.00 1.29 36food 3.11 1.40 28life science 2.72 1.39 29moving media 3.19 1.39 36food 3.07 1.27 28life science 2.83 1.34 29moving media 2.44 1.25 36food 2.86 1.30 28life science 3.31 1.51 29moving media 2.31 1.21 36food 1.86 1.08 28life science 3.31 1.31 29
fairs
magazines
surveys
journals
Analytical firms rely more on formalized knowledge sources than symbolic and synthetic firms.
![Page 42: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Mobility
42
Table: relative importance of various sources for recruitment of highly skilled labour. Source: own survey.
Mean Std. Deviation Nmoving media 2.94 1.45 35food 2.11 1.23 28life science 3.93 1.55 30moving media 2.26 1.15 35food 1.89 1.20 28life science 1.90 1.40 30moving media 4.36 .93 36food 3.96 1.04 28life science 3.87 1.41 30moving media 2.61 1.13 36food 2.93 1.30 28life science 1.77 1.04 30
university
technical college
same industry
other industries
Analytical firms recruit primarily from universities and other firms in the same industry; synthetic and symbolic firms recruit primarily from other firms.
![Page 43: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
regional
Source: own survey. Graphical illustration inspired by Plum and Hassink (2010).
Figure: Knowledge sourcing through
collaboration in media
![Page 44: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
regional
Source: own survey. Graphical illustration inspired by Plum and Hassink (2010).
Figure: Knowledge sourcing through
collaboration in media
![Page 45: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
regional
Source: own survey. Graphical illustration inspired by Plum and Hassink (2010).
Figure: Knowledge sourcing through
collaboration in media
![Page 46: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
regional
Source: own survey. Graphical illustration inspired by Plum and Hassink (2010).
Figure: Knowledge sourcing through
collaboration in media
![Page 47: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
regional
Source: own survey. Graphical illustration inspired by Plum and Hassink (2010).
Figure: Knowledge sourcing through
collaboration in food
![Page 48: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
regional
Source: own survey. Graphical illustration inspired by Plum and Hassink (2010).
Figure: Knowledge sourcing through
collaboration in life science
![Page 49: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Knowledge sourcing through collaboration
49
moving media food life science
54.8%42.2%
29.4%
24.4%33.3%
23.9%
20.7% 24.5%
46.8%
internationalnationalregional
Table: share of regional, national and international linkages between actors Source: own survey.
![Page 50: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Conclusions• Symbolic firms retrieve knowledge from less formalized sources
and recruit primarily from other firms of similar type. Knowledge exchange through collaboration takes place in localized networks
• Synthetic firms retrieve knowledge from less formalized sources and recruit primarily from other firms. Intentional knowledge exchange takes place on the regional and national level
• Analytical firms rely on knowledge stemming from scientific research and recruitment from higher education sector. Knowledge flows and networks are very much globally configured
• Findings support theoretically derived expectations
![Page 51: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Discussion: next steps• The KB approach/typology helps us do alternative and better
industry classifications(?)– Compare similar industries with different KB in same regional setting
(e.g. traditional vs functional food, forestry, specialty chemicals, ICT etc)
– Compare different industries drawing on same KB, for verification of the robustness of the KB approach (this is partly what we have done, but could take this further)
– Ultimately skip industry classifications based on characteristics on the output side (e.g. producs) and instead focus on the process side (knowledge base)
– Better understaning of related variety (e.g. Asheim, Boschma, Cooke 2011)
![Page 52: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Discussion: next steps
• The KB approach will benefit from cleaning the typology, avoiding circular arguments(?)– Mode and rationale of knowledge creation is the core of the
matter– Spatial and social configuration of networks are
expectations/empirical questions• How to deal with the challenge moving beyond
qualitative approach and work with larger datasets?– Occupation data?– Professional background of entrepreneurs?– Other ideas?
![Page 53: Comparing knowledge bases: on the geography and organization of innovation](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022062410/568162a4550346895dd3203f/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Contact details
www.circle.lu.se