The significance of proximityin cluster initiatives

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse relations between geographical and competence proximity and development of cooperation in cluster initiatives. Design/methodology/approach The research was based on an original theoretical concept referring to the trajectory of the development of cooperative relations in cluster initiatives. The research was carried out in mid-2017, in four purposefully selected cluster initiatives. The research sample was 132 cluster enterprises. The main research strategy involved non-experimental models; the basic method of data collection was an online questionnaire. Findings The results indicated that the role of geographical and competence proximity depends on the level of cooperation in a cluster initiative. In both these dimensions, proximity was important during the initial stage of cluster development: to start cooperation between the members, however, when more mature forms of cooperation were undertaken, the factor of common location was not so crucial any longer. It was also recommended to maintain some competence distance between the partners. Research limitations/implications The main limitations referred to the static character of the data, the use of original measurement tools, which had not been tested before, the small and little differentiated research sample and the subjective nature of the research. The above-mentioned limitations should be viewed as a starting point for further empirical research. Practical implications Knowledge on the significance of geographical and competence proximity at various levels of cooperation in clusters is valuable for efficient management of a cluster and for higher competitiveness that it can achieve. Originality/value The research study contributes to the literature, which refers to the question of proximity in clusters through the analysis of relations between geographical and competence proximity and development of cooperation in cluster initiatives. The results of the research point out that the role of geographical and competence proximity evolves with the development of cooperation in cluster initiatives.

To meet or to connect? Face-to-face contacts vs ICT in cluster organisations

“…Based on the research conducted in selected cluster organisations, it has been established that cooperation in COs can take different forms, which separated into sets, can form a hierarchical system consisting of four levels of cooperation: level I "Integration at the unit level", level II "Allocation and integration at the process level", level III "Impact on the environment" and level IV "Creation and integration at the organisational level" (Lis, 2018(Lis, , 2019. As the research survey indicates, despite the differences among the four stages of development of cooperative relationships, cluster organisations may assume three fundamental roles at each stage: of a direct resource supplier, a broker and an integrator.…”

Innovating in the textile industry: An uncoordinated dance between firms and their territory?

“…On the other hand, in order to fully use the services provided by institutions (e.g., technological institutes, universities, or business associations) in their innovation processes, there should be greater interaction between institutions and companies 15 , and institutions should speak the language of companies and meet their needs. In other words, strong cluster initiatives are required (Freije, 2015;Lis, 2019) to reinforce the associative networking of the textile sector and thus avoid the "uncoordinated dance" in which it seems to be immersed.…”

Organisational competence vs transferability of knowledge in cluster organisations and technology parks

“…As far as a regional competence is based on common knowledge that allows different organisations to coevolve, one particular competence -the capacity to cooperate -is considered the contingent upon the interaction within the multiagent setting. Different firms participating in the regional cluster have different aims and divergent systems of preferences; however, the cooperation is available on the basis of some harmonised aims (Lis, 2018(Lis, , 2019. Problem solving actions within a group of interrelated organisations is based on the set of competences available to individual firms.…”

“…The choice of a cluster and park structures for the study was affected by the similarities observed between them. Cluster organisations, also named cluster initiatives (Sölvell et al, 2003;Lindqvist et al, 2013;Štverková & Mynarzová, 2017;Lis, 2018Lis, , 2019, are understood as formally established organisations, functioning at a higher level of aggregation, composed of institutional members that consciously joined them (Lis, 2018). With regard to park structures, they are organisations that support the development of entities located in them, especially in the area of innovation and technology transfer.…”