The Biotechnology Industry in the Prague Metropolitan Region: A Cluster within a Fragmented Innovation System?

Abstract

Introduction In a recent detailed study (1) concerning policy-relevant, theoretical approaches towards stimulating innovativeness in regions (Cooke et al, 2006), the idea that``Regional innovation systems [RISs] have played and will continue to play a strategic role in promoting the innovativeness and competitiveness of regions'' (page 16) was stressed. The authors arrived at this conclusion on the basis of a thorough examination of other well-known theoretical concepts including clusters, learning regions, competitive advantage, and the triple helix. The primary thesis of this study is that a region is a suitable platform for the mobilization of key innovation actors and that, with appropriate proinnovation support, regional advantage can be actively constructed even in less successful regions. Therefore, the authors of this approach coin the phrase`constructing regional advantage'. In a response to Bathelt's critique that the RIS approach runs the risk of underestimating the importance of institutions, negotiated and defined at the level of the nation-state (Bathelt, 2003), the authors emphasize the necessity of employing a multilevel approach to innovation and governance and that RISs are open, socially constructed, and linked to global, national, and other regional systems of innovation, within a multilevel governance perspective (Cooke, 2006). Within this context the extensive literature on systems of innovation (Edquist, 1997; Freeman, 1987; Lundvall, 1992) can be summarized as largely emphasizing that innovations are the result of the continuous interaction of firms with each other and with other knowledge-generating organizations in the system. Therefore, the main focus of the innovation system (IS) approach is the operation of the system and the complex interactions that take place among the different organizations and institutions in the system.

System Failures, Knowledge Bases and Regional Innovation Policies

“…Functional, cognitive and political lock-ins supress innovation and keep the region in existing development paths (Grabher 1993, Trippl and Otto 2009, Hassink 2010. Finally, fragmentation can frequently be found in metropolitan areas (OECD 2010, Blazek and Zizalova 2010). This particular type of RIS deficiency often results from too much industrial diversity and a lack of related variety (Frenken et al 2007, Asheim et al 2011a, leading to low levels of intra-regional knowledge flows and innovation.…”

Industry-science collaboration in joint projects: harvesting potential of the RDI Information System for targeted innovation policy / Spolupráce podniků a znalostních institucí formou kolaborativních projektů: možnosti využití dat IS VaVaI pro cílenější podporu

“…Koncept inovačních systémů zdůrazňuje, že jednotliví aktéři jsou při svých aktivitách zakořeněni (Granovetter 1985 Součástmi inovačního systému jsou vedle organizací s adresou také instituce, včetně kulturních zvyklostí a dalších pravidel hry (Edquist 2005 Obrázek 5: Sítě spolupráce podniků a znalostních institucí v kolaborativních projektech -force-based zobrazení dle počtu napojení Výsledkem je hustá spleť tenkých linií a malých bodů s několika vystupujícími centry -VUT Fakulta strojního inženýrství [1], VUT Fakulta elektrotechniky a komunikačních technologií [2], VUT Fakulta stavební [3], ČVUT Fakulta strojní [4], Univerzita Pardubice Fakulta chemicko--technologická [5], Výzkumný ústav rostlinné výroby [6], Výzkumný ústav potravinářský Praha [7]. Z podniků má centrální pozici ÚJV Řež Výsledek ukazuje, že pokud se omezíme na opakující se spolupráci podniků a znalostních institucí formou kolaborativních projektů, inovační systém zůstává v Česku poměrně fragmentovaný.…”

“…Podobnou propojovací funkci plní i ÚJV Řež [1], finančně nejvýznamnější podnik se silným napojením na sedm fakult a dvě výzkumné instituce. Oproti tomu druhý podnik v pořadí, ÚJP Praha [2], vykazuje výrazně méně diverzifikovanou síť spolupráce se dvěma znalostními institucemi.…”

Reframing the Role of Knowledge Parks and Science Cities in Knowledge-Based Urban Development

“…(6) Nevertheless, in understanding how KCPs emerge and function, we should consider in parallel the interactive building of precincts and knowledge communities. Although much is known about the functioning and dynamics of local university-industry knowledge communities (cf Blažek and Žížalová, 2010;Etzkowitz, 2012;Gertner et al, 2011;Kasabov, 2008), much less is known about how to actively build these communities in particular places to stimulate KBUD. This is particularly apposite given that these local knowledge communities are themselves embedded in wider networks that can be conceptualised at a variety of scales, including networks of practice, epistemic communities and knowledge collectivities, or even imagined communities (cf Amin and Roberts, 2008).…”

“…First is passively anchoring globally connected knowledge actors in the same location (cf Kim et al, 2014). Second is actively promoting connectivity between these actors to construct critical mass, spillovers, and competitiveness, building creative, innovative communities (Blažek and Žížalová, 2010;Etzkowitz, 2012). We focus on these two classes of within-city effect-passive and active-to pose the following questions.…”