Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 11
.
3
Proximity, cognitive and innovation advantages for UK ICT i rms
Proximity indicator
All respondents,
%
Collaborators
in cluster, %
Non- collaborators
in cluster, %
Swifter, clearer knowledge
exchange
79
83
72
Reduce interaction cost
70
66
75
Facilitates informal
communication
87
89
83
Reduce uncertainty
59
68
36
Facilitating collective learning
48
55
36
Innovation cooperation in
cluster
23
26
20
Source:
CASS ICT Collective Learning Survey.
collaboration than expected even though there were respectable improvements in wholly
new product innovation. A similar conclusion can be made regarding turnover increase.
It occurred but not as much as expected. Conversely, wholly novel innovation occurred
more than expected, as did market share and patenting improvements but not employ-
ment. On innovation specii cally, perceived and actual performance were marginally out
of line, with wholly novel innovations being realised more in fact than was expected to
be the case by i rms.
Table 11.3 concerns the value of proximity and answers questions regarding 'all
respondent' and 'collaborator-non-collaborator' 'cluster-non-cluster' performance. The
i rst i ve rows are i rm responses as to what their respondent (CEO or R&D/innovation
manager) has experienced, benei cial or not, from cluster-based collaboration. It com-
pares collaborators and non-collaborators in clusters on the same indicators. Row
six reports, as the acid test, how much innovation cooperation, dei ned as contract-
based and legally binding partnering, actually occurred. Collaborators favour spatial
proximity to a greater extent than the respondent group as a whole and that of non-
collaborators. Respondents answering these questions were low in number, with even
those emphasising clustering cooperation for innovation a minority compared to those
conducting such activities with intra-i rm cooperation (larger i rms), and intra- or even
extra-UK innovation cooperation. Spatial proximity is thought benei cial by clustered
i rms that collaborate as it facilitates informal communication (89 per cent), facilitates
knowledge exchange (83 per cent), and reduces uncertainty (68 per cent) and interaction
costs (66 per cent).
Interestingly, the reasons that motivate proximate location dif er among collabora-
tors and non-collaborators in clusters. Most non-collaborating i rms preferred cluster-
ing to reduce interaction costs, including transaction costs, whereas most collaborators
valued this less. Non-collaborators also consider reducing uncertainty and facilitation
of collective learning as less important than collaborators do. But on speeding up the
knowledge exchange process and facilitating informal communication there is little dif-
ference between the two groups, as shown in Table 11.3. The main anomaly requiring
explanation here refers to the possibly strong neoclassical interpretation above that
