developing technology intelligence strategy to access ... · developing technology intelligence...

HAL Id: halshs-00504075https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00504075

Submitted on 19 Jul 2012

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open accessarchive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-entific research documents, whether they are pub-lished or not. The documents may come fromteaching and research institutions in France orabroad, or from public or private research centers.

L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, estdestinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documentsscientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,émanant des établissements d’enseignement et derecherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoirespublics ou privés.

Developing technology intelligence strategy to accessknowledge of innovation clusters.

Rani Jeanne Dang, Letizia Mortara, Ruth Thomson, Tim Minshall

To cite this version:Rani Jeanne Dang, Letizia Mortara, Ruth Thomson, Tim Minshall. Developing technology intelligencestrategy to access knowledge of innovation clusters.: The case of KODAK in Cambridge. Strategiesand Communications for Innovations, SRINGER-Verlag, Chapter 1.4, 2010. <halshs-00504075>

https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00504075

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr

EditedBookStrategiesandCommunicationsforInnovationsCoordinatedbyProf.Dr.MichaelHülsmannandDipl.‐Ök.NicolePfeffermann

DANGR.J.,MORTARAL.,THOMSONR.,“DEVELOPINGTECHNOLOGYINTELLIGENCESTRATEGYTOACCESSKNOWLEDGEOFINNOVATIONCLUSTERS”

1

DEVELOPINGATECHNOLOGYINTELLIGENCESTRATEGYTOACCESSKNOWLEDGEOFINNOVATIONCLUSTERS

Authors:

RaniJ.DANG,LetiziaMORTARA,RuthTHOMSONandTimMINSHALL

Abstract

Current times are characterisedby a knowledge‐based economyand fast technological change. Inthisdifficultenvironment,companiescompetetomaintainarelevantpositionthroughinnovation.Inresponse to these challenges, many companies are currently adopting an open approach toinnovation, pursuing innovation by combining internal and external resources. Technologyintelligence (TI) activities support the implementation of open innovation with the systematiccaptureanddeliveryofinformationaboutthreatsandopportunitiesarisingfromnewdevelopmentsinscienceandtechnology.ApopularchoiceforTIistoestablish‘listeningposts’inareasofintenseinnovativeactivities,forexampleinregionalclusterswheretechnicalinformationflowsareknowntobe particularly intensive. In fact, literature suggests that in clusters vertical interactions along thevalue chain andhorizontal interactionsbetween competing companies help companies to capturethe regional market trends and preferences and take relevant decisions concerning their futuretechnological focus. As companies cannot afford to setup a technology outpost in every singlegeographic area where innovation and technological development are intense and relevant, theyneedtodevelopaTIstrategytoexploreremotelythescienceandtechnologythatisbeingdevelopedacross long geographic distances. This chapter illustrates through a detailed case study of KodakEuropeanResearch(KER),howcompaniescanorganiseand implementTIactivitiesto leveragetheknowledge and existence of regional clusters. It integrates two domains of research on TI andregionalclusters,givinginsightsintohowTIactivitiesarestronglyinfluencedbylocation.ThroughtheexperienceofKER,thischapterexploresi)theprosandconsofbecomingembeddedwithinaclusterto take part in the ‘local buzz’; ii) the strategy to access knowledge of other clusters; iii) thecommunicationstrategytomanagetheTIactivitywithinandoutsideofthecluster.



2

ProfileofAuthors

Rani Jeanne DANG is a Doctoral Researcher in Management at CNRS, (GREDEG ManagementDepartment,UniversityofNice Sophia‐Antipolis, France).Hermain research interest is KnowledgeManagement in regional clusters. Currently she studies the process of SMEs’ insertion intoinnovation projects within regional clusters by examining the micro foundations of territorialinnovation dynamics. Her research is conducted in partnership with a pôle de compétitivité: The“PôleSCS”.RaniisalsoaVisitingResearcherattheCentreforTechnologyManagementattheIfM,UniversityofCambridge(UK)in2008and2010.

DrLetiziaMortaraisaResearchAssociateattheCentreforTechnologyManagementattheInstituteofManufacturing,UniversityofCambridge (UK) since2005.Her current research interests includeopeninnovationandtechnologyintelligence.PriortojoiningIfMLetiziagainedaDegreeinIndustrialChemistry at the University of Bologna in Italy. After spending three years working as aProcess/ProductManagerinachemicalindustry,shemovedtotheUKwhereshegainedherPhDinProcessingandProcessScale‐upofAdvancedCeramicMaterialsatCranfieldUniversity.

RuthThomsonwas the InnovationsLeaderofKodakEuropeanResearch,Cambridge (UK) fromJan2006until June2009. In this roleRuthestablished theOpen InnovationandTechnical Intelligencestrategiesforthecentreandestablishedmechanismsandtoolsthathelpedtheteamtoidentifyandprogressexternal'ideas'andtechnologyleadsfromacrosstheEuropeanregion.RuthnowworksasaBusinessDevelopment Consultant at CambridgeConsultants, and she continues herwork inOpenInnovationthroughherroleasaVisitingIndustrialFellowatIfM,CambridgeUniversity.

Dr Tim Minshall is a Senior Lecturer in Technology Management at the Centre for TechnologyManagementattheInstituteofManufacturing,UniversityofCambridge(UK).Hisresearchinterestsincludetechnologyenterprise,fundingoftechnologyenterprises,universitytechnologytransferandopen innovation. He is amember of the Board of St John's Innovation Centre. Before joining theCentre,hewasaProjectManagerandBoardMemberatStJohn's InnovationCentreLtdwhereheworked on a series of projects to support industry / academic collaboration focused around newtechnology ventures. Prior to working at St John's Innovation Centre, he worked as a teacher,consultant,plantengineerandfreelancewriterintheUK,AustraliaandJapan.TimhasB.Eng.fromAstonUniversityandaPhDfromCambridgeUniversityEngineeringDepartment.



3

INTRODUCTION

It isnowadayscommonlyacknowledged that innovation isat thesourceofcompetitiveadvantagefor companies. In order to innovate, companies need to have an efficient management of theirinternal resources as well as their external relationships. They need to manage increasingspecialisationwhileatthesametimeexploringnewopportunitiesforinnovation.Currenttimeshaveoftenbeenreferredtoascharacterisedbyaknowledge‐basedeconomyandfastpacetechnologicalchange.Inthisdifficultenvironment,companiescompetetomaintainarelevantposition.

Current studies on technologymanagement have emphasised the importance of keeping abreastwith technological development by adopting technology intelligence (TI) strategies ‐ i.e. byestablishingactivitiesforthesystematiccaptureanddeliveryoftechnologicalinformationtodecisionmakers that can help an organisation to be better aware of technology threats and opportunities(Kerr,Mortara et al. 2006) .Kerr et al. (2006) developed a conceptualmodel to operationalise TIactivities.

TI is typically operationalised by setting up a number of activities, employing peoplewith specificskills andprofiles andby implementing infrastructural support (Mortara, Kerr et al. 2009). Amongthese activities, a number of companies have chosen to establish ‘listening posts’ (Gassmann andGaso 2004; Gassmann and Gaso 2005) in areas of intense innovative activities, for example, inregionalclusters.Accordingtomainstreamthinking,bybeinginaparticularlocationcompaniescanbetteraccessknowledge, inthemoretacit form,throughparticipation inthe local ‘buzz’accessingfirsthand theup‐to‐datenews in the region. In fact,within regional clusters technical informationflows are known to be particularly intensive. The easy flowof knowledge, the transfer of ideas isargued to contribute to greater dynamics of knowledge creation and exploitation. By operatingwithin a cluster, companies can thus have an easier access to knowledge. Moreover, verticalinteractions along the value chain, horizontal interactions between competing companies andexchange between suppliers and consumers enable the companies “participating” in a cluster tocapture the regionalmarket trends and preferences and help them to take a decision concerningtheir futuretechnological focusandto identifythefrontiersandthe limitsoftheirknowledge.Theadvantagesof clusteringhavebeenabundantlyargued theoreticallyaswellasempirically to showhow it can support innovation through the capture of information and knowledge. Similarly,researchershavemadelotsofeffortstodevelopappliedmodelsforTIstrategy.Yet,weknowverylittleabouthowthesetwoprocessesofknowledgecapturearelinked.Companiescannotaffordtosetup a technology outpost in every single geographic area where innovation and technologicaldevelopmentareintenseandrelevant.Hence,companiesneedtodevelopaTIstrategyforreachingoutandexploreremotelywhatscienceandtechnology isbeingdevelopedacross,potentially, longgeographicdistancesbythrowingoutglobalpipelines(Bathelet,Malmbergetal.2004).Aquestionremainstounderstandhowtheexistenceofclustersandoflocalknowledgeinterfaceorganisationscouldfacilitatetheaccessofknowledgeforfirmsexternaltothecluster.

Thereforeanalysingthe interplaybetweenTIactivitiesandthefeaturesofclusters ispromisingforunderstanding themechanismsbywhich the efficiency of TI strategy could be improvedby being



4

embedded in a cluster. The objective is therefore to look at how do companies organise andimplement TI activities to leverage on the knowledge and existence of regional clusters?Particularlyconcerning the first stepof thestrategy, i.e. thecaptureof relevantnewtechnologicalinformation.

To answer this question this chapter will first present and define Technology Intelligence. In thesecond part, the features of regional clusters are reviewed and we discuss how they can beparticularly relevant inaddressingTIneeds. In the lastpartweexamine,aparticularcasestudyofhow Kodak accessed both the local knowledge by being embedded in a high tech cluster anddevelopedaTIstrategytoallowthemtoaccessknowledgefromotherlocations.

1. TECHNOLOGYINTELLIGENCE:ANIMPORTANTACTIVITYFORTHEINNOVATIONSTRATEGY

Maintainingand increasing thepaceof innovation is a fundamental requirement for companies intoday’s evolving markets. In order to achieve this goal many companies are embracing a newinnovation approach,which relies on inputs coming from outside the company’s boundaries. Thisapproachhasbeenframedbyacademicsas‘openinnovation’(OI)(Chesbrough2003).Itimpliesthatcompanies’ boundaries become more ‘permeable’ to allow the identification and exploitation ofopportunities from the external environment. Innovation is becoming an increasingly distributedprocess involving players dispersed across the globe, open to innovate through possible differentvalue chain configurations (Fraser,Minshall et al. 2005). Identifying potential innovation partners,recognisingopportunitiesandthreats,isanimportantstepinthe‘openinnovation’process.Infact,inthemostrecognisedOIprocess(WantFindGetManage;(Witzeman,Slowinskietal.2006)),‘Find’impliesidentifyingopportunities(andthreats)comingfromtheexternalenvironment.

Knowledgeaboutnewtechnologiescanofferfirmsacompetitiveedgeifitispairedwithknowledgeregarding market opportunities and competitor’s domains (Deschamps and Nayak 1995).Consequently, companies set up intelligence activities dedicated to keeping abreast of interestingandrelevantdevelopments intheenvironment.Withaspecificfocusontechnological information,technology intelligence (TI) activities concentrate on capturing and delivering technologicalinformationaspartoftheprocesstodevelopanawarenessoftechnologythreatsandopportunities(Kerretal.,2006).TheTIactivityisnotonlyaboutsimpleknowledgemanagementandinformationprocessing:itspurposeistoprovide‘intelligenceconsumers’(i.e.,decisionmakers)(Bernhardt1993)with analysed, contextualised and purposeful intelligence. Recent academic research has beendirectedtoexplorethisparticularactivityandhasresultedinseveralworksinthisarea(SaviozandBlum2002; Lichtenthaler2003;GassmannandGaso2004; Lichtenthaler2004; Lichtenthaler2004;SaviozandTschirky2004;GassmannandGaso2005;Lichtenthaler2005;Lichtenthaler2006;Savioz2006;Lichtenthaler2007;ArmanandFoden2010;Rohrbeck2010).For most practitioners, technology intelligence is a required resource. However, in many casescurrent technology intelligence activities are not structured and organised. Mortara et al (2009)studied14UKtechnology‐basedcompaniesinavarietyofsectorslookingatthedifferentapproachesthe companies were using to gather information, exploring their strengths and weaknesses andidentifyingpracticalwaystoaddresscommonproblems.



5

They also developed amodel (Kerret al., 2006),which can help companies in structuring their TIactivities.Themodelcomprisesfourprincipalsearchmodes(Fig.1)forgatheringinformation.Theinternalmodeslookforinformationinsidetheorganisation:• Mining: extracting explicit intelligence information from internal resources such as libraries

anddatabases.• Trawling:making in‐house informationexplicit,particularly informationthat isnotknownto

bethere.Theexternalmodesareusedtocapturenewrelevantinformation:• Targeting: focusing on identified relevant new technologies outside the company and

monitoringtheirdevelopment.• Scanning:keepingabreastofanyunforeseendevelopmentsthatcouldhaveanimpactonthe

business.

Fig.1:TIsearchmodes(Kerretal.,2006)Throughcrosscomparisonofcompanycasestudies(Mortara,Kerretal.2009)andbuildingonKerretal.’s(2006)theoreticalmodel,ageneralisedsetofelements(toolbox)whichcanbeusedtomapandcharacteriseaTI systemwasproposed.Thisworkhighlighted that socialnetworkconnectionshaveadominantroleinanyintelligencesystem.Aninitialmodel(Fig.2,(Mortara,Kerretal.2009))was developed combining Stephenson’s (1999) model of social networks with the observation ofpractice.Themodelsuggests thatacompanyestablishes linkswithprimarysourcesof informationviatheexternalgatekeepers(thescouts),whileScanprovidestheconnectionwithalargenumberofnon pre‐identified sources of information across the environment. Both target and scan could beoperated through linkswithprimaryor secondary sourcesof information. The importanceof linkswithsecondarysources(intermediarieswhocanpassinformationbetweentwogroups)canbeseenintheexampleshowninFig.2:where,byconnectingtothreeintermediaries,thecompanyachievessecondary connections with eight primary sources of information. However, social networks withintermediary1and2areclustered(UzziandDunlap2005)astheybothreachstart‐upA.Makingtheconnectionwith intermediary1 is somewhat redundant.Ontheotherhand, intermediary4allows



6

the connection to the network of intermediary 3, giving access to 5 information sources throughsecondarycontacts.

Researchersworking in the field of social networks have long since highlighted the importance ofweak ties (Granovetter 1983) i.e. the relationships that enable the connection between differentsocialgroups,toreachthemostusefulandrelevantinformation.Networksenableinformationflowsderiving from the social linkages that connect employees from different companies (Almeida andKogut,1999).Socialexchangesthereforerequirephysicalproximityandregularinteractions.This isthereasonwhyscholarsworking inthefieldofeconomicgeographyandeconomicsociologyshowthatthereisasignificantqualitativedifferencebetweenlocalandglobalnetworks(Witthingtonetal,2009).Therefore,itwouldbeinterestingtoexaminewhatfeaturesoflocalisedinnovationnetworks‐orregionalclusters‐technologyintelligencesystemscanleverage.

2. REGIONALCLUSTERSANDINNOVATION

Theinnovationcapabilitiesofclustersinthecontextofopeninnovation

Regionalclustershavetriggeredahugestrandofliterature.Amongstthestudies,theattentionofthescholars has increasingly been focused on the analysis of how clusters’ networks can supportinnovation. This isduetothefactthat innovation isnowadaysseenasacollectiveprocess,which

COMPANY

Company2

Start‐up

Start‐up

Start‐up

Start‐up

Start‐up

Start‐upA

Start‐up

Start‐up Start‐up

Start‐up

University

UniversityUniversity

University

University

R&DCentre

Company3

Company4

Company5

Intermediary1

Intermediary2Intermediary3

Intermediary4

Connectiontoinformationsourceobtainedthroughintermediary

Directconnectiontoinformationsource

Fig.2:RepresentationofTIexternalnetworks.Anexampleobservedduringpastresearch.(Mortaraetal,2009)



7

involves many different actors that need to combine their resources for innovation. Whilsttraditionallycompanieshaveoperateda‘closedinnovation’modelwheretheyrelyonlyoninternalR&D, companies now adopt an open approach to innovation by allowing external access to theirinnovationprocessesandreachingouttoexternalknowledge.Infact, increasinglyfirmsaregettinginvolved in collaborations that transcend sectors and country boundaries. In this perspective,participatingin,andaccessingregionalclustersisparticularlyrelevant.Regionalclusterscanenhancethe capacity for innovation (Maskell, 2001) as they promote the exchangeof information and thecombination of complementary knowledge (Von Hippel 1988, Lundvall 1992) through local socialinteractions(GarnseyandLonghi,2004).However,thefront‐endprocessofinnovationisparticularlytricky for companies as they need to capture the most recent and relevant information. Thisinformationisusuallytacitandthereforehighlydependentonitssocialcontextanditisknowntobe“sticky context‐laden” (Asheim, Gertler 2005). Tacit information is often bound to a geographiclocation and requires contextual understanding. Spatial proximity enablespeople interactions thatfavour the exchange of tacit knowledge thanks to physical encounters, informal and face‐to‐faceexchangesthatenhancetrustandafastdiffusionofnewideas.Thesedynamicsareoftenreferredtoas “localised knowledge spillovers”. Companies search for a constant renewal of their knowledgethroughtheexchangeandcaptureofinformalknowledgethatwouldacceleratetheirtechnologicaladvancement(Audretsch,Feldman1996;Garnsey,Longhi1998).Interactingwithinclustersfacilitatesthiscomplexprocess.

Howfirmsgainbyinteractinginclusters?

The transfer of information and knowledge that can assist innovativeness can proceed throughseveral dimensions within a cluster: the structural dimension, the relational dimension and thecognitivedimension(Dang,ThomasandLonghi,2010).Amongthethreedimensions,thecaptureofrelevantinformationisparticularlyconcernedwiththestructuralandtherelationaldimensions.

Thestructuralfeaturesofclusters

Significant research exists on the structural features of regional clusters. Previous work mainlyfocusesonthewayactorscanbenefitfromlocalisedknowledgespillovers(AudretschandFeldman,1996; Breschi and Lissoni, 2001) depending on the structure of interactions in clusters networks.Regionaladvantagesderivefromtheexistenceofdensenetworksofinteractionbetweenactorsbutthebenefitsvaryaccordingtoseveralmechanisms.

Typeoflinksandpositioninthenetwork

Itissuggestedthattheanalysisoftheactors’positioninthenetworkandthetypeoflinkshaveanimpactonthewaytheycanaccessrelevantinformationforinnovation(Burt,1992).Theimportanceof the structural dimension is also pointed out by Kogut (2000)who argues that, in a technologycluster,thenetworkofrelationshipsbetweenparticipantsistheprincipalsourceofknowledgeandthis is related to the networking potential (Saxenian, 1994; Sorenson et al, 2006). Capaldo (2007)



8

outlinesthenatureof“dualnetworks”oninnovativecapabilities.Dualnetworksrefertostructureofnetworksinwhichasmallcoreofstrongtiesisintegratedinalargerperipheryofweakerties.Weaktiesspeedupinnovationbyexpandingthenetworkdiversity,whilststrongtiesstimulateknowledgetransfer(Granovetter,1985).However,astiesandconnectionsaretypicallyconstrainedbydistance,thegeographicalconcentrationplaysacrucialrole.Theintegrationofacompanyinaclusterenablesthemtomobilisebothstrongtiesaswellasweakties.Thepotentialbenefitofnetworksregardingthecaptureofnewinformationisthereforeenhancedwhencompaniesembedthemselveswithinacluster. Besides,Owen‐Smith and Powell (2004) claim that the innovative capabilities of networksalso depend on the position of actorswithin the network. Powell, Koput, and Smith‐Doerr (1996)showtheimportanceofbeingcentraltothenetwork,centralitybeingmeasuredbythenumberandimportance of strategic alliances between organisations. As shownby recent studies (Giuliani andBell,2004)informationandknowledgeflowsinclusternetworksarenotdiffusedevenly‘intheair’asstatedbyMarshall(1920):somecompaniesmaybeisolatedfromrelevantinformationiftheyarenotcentraltothenetwork.Alsothenumberofconnectionsbetweenactorscouldbeusedasameasureofcentralityinthenetwork(Uzzi,1996).

Thelocalglobaltrade‐off

Forafirm,beingembedded inthecluster,orat leasthavinganoutpostwhichactsasan interfacebetween the main firm headquarters and the local actors and networks, is crucial. This is alsohighlighted in the works on gatekeepers of knowledge, (Allen, 1977, Lazaric et al, 2008, Rychen,Zimmermann,2006)where the roleof thegatekeepers is to create linksandchannelsboth insideandoutsidethecluster.AssuggestedbyWilkinsonetal.(1998),successfulclustersarethose,whichcombine dense internal inter‐firm interactions but also synergies with external, and often global,networks.Currentresearchalsoshowsthatclusterperformancedoesnotonlyresultfromthequalityofinteractionsandcoordinationinsidetheclusterbutalsofromexternalnetworksandcooperationwithdistantrivalsorpartners (RychenandZimmermann,2006).Onemainadvantageofclusters isbasedontheircapacitytofostercomplementaritybetweendenseinternalinteractionsthatsustaininnovationandat the same time fulfil theneeds forexternalandglobal knowledge.Most clustershave “technological gatekeepers” (Allen 1977), actors that “link their organisation to thetechnologicalworldatlarge”.Thisconceptreferstotheproblemofcommunicationintechnologyinthe context of R&Dorganisations.As statedbyRychen and Zimmermann (2006), indirect flowsofinformation are forwarded through opinions leaders. These gatekeepers are the people ororganisationsthat“forvariousreasons,tendtobecomemoreacquaintedwithinformationsourcesoutside their immediate community. They either read more extensively than most or developpersonalcontactswithoutsiders.Alargeproportionofthesepeopleinturnattractcolleaguesfromwithinthecommunitywhoturntothemforinformationandadvice”(Allen,1977,p.150,quotedbyRychen et al 2006). Technological gatekeepers are interfaces between internal and externalresources enabling local actors to take advantage of their own external relations but also giveexternalactorsaccessto localresources.Theyalsoplayarole in internalco‐ordinationastheyareverywell positioned to knowwhat expertise and local skills they shouldmobilise and combine todrawbenefitsfromgeographicalproximityeffects.



9

Thesocialandrelationalfeaturesofclusters

The influence of geographical proximity is beneficial onlywhen strategic alliances link local actors(Almeida and Kogut, 1999). The access to new knowledge is not only the result of interactionsbetweenactors,butthetypeofrelations,whetherformalorinformal,businessalliances,commercialrelationshipsorsocialinteractionbetweenactorsdoplayarole.

Clustersasacombinationofverticalandhorizontalrelationships

If the cluster combines competitors’ competencies as well as partners’ competencies within thesameindustry,innovationisstimulatedbycompetitiveaction.

Porter(1998)hasidentifiedthatinteractionsbetweencompetitorsandcollaboratorsinaclusterisacrucial element of cluster innovation dynamics. The ‘horizontal relationships’ – i.e. those withcompetitors‐createalotofpressureonfirmswhoareanxioustoemergewellinanycomparisons.Horizontal interactions with competitors give companies close cognitive repertories stimulatingobservation, comparison and exchange of information that create a local buzz resulting in aperpetualupdatingofinformation.Inthisperspective,clusterscanbeviewedasidealincubatorsforinnovation(Preissl,Solimene2003).Theyfosterrelationshipsandregularinteractionsthatcreateandsupportnewmarkets.Thisdynamiccreatesadefinitivepushtowardsinnovation.

Also ‘vertical relationships’ ‐ i.e., relationships along the supply chain ‐ also stimulate innovationwithinclusters.MalmbergandMaskell (2005) refer to thisas“learningby interacting”.Theyclaimthat vertical interactions in clusterswith ‘sophisticated’ consumers enable companies to formaliseandanticipatetheirofferandupdatetheirknowledgeaboutthemarket.

Embeddingactorswithinaclusterandtheeffectsof“LocalBuzz”

Local interactions are based on social relations that are due to, and fostered, by co‐location. Theclusterstructureofembeddedactorsreliesontheinterdepenciesbetweentheseindividuals,whichhaveevolvedovertime(He,2006;Bathelt,2008).Infact,asclaimedbyStorperandVenables(2003),the localbuzz isaprivilegedchannel forknowledge flow,particularlywhentheknowledge is tacit.Companiesbenefitfrombeingembeddedinaclusterbacausetheiremployeesregularlyinteractingwith other actors allowing for the exchange of tacit knowledge.While codified knowledge can bequiteeasilydiffusedwithanycommunicationmeans,informalandtacitknowledgeisspreadratheraccidentally.Neitherthetransmitternorthereceiverknowsinadvanceaboutitsrelevancebeforeitis communicated (Saxenian 1994, Feldman 1994). This exchange of informal new knowledgeacceleratestechnologicaladvancement.Thislocalbuzzisthekeydifferencebetweenlocalandglobalnetworks (Witthington et al, 2009). Indeed, the concept of local buzz developed by Storper andVenables(2004)refersto“the informationandcommunicationecologycreatedbynumerousface‐to‐face interactions (…)” (Malmberg and Maskell, 2006). According to these authors, this buzzconsists of information continuously exchanged and updated both through intended andunanticipatedlearningprocesses,forexampleinorganisedandaccidentalmeetings.Thebuzzexistsbecause of a number of tacit constructs such as the application of the same interpretativeframeworks and a shared understanding of new knowledge and technologies, as well as culturaltraditionsandhabits.Theseconditions,typicalofacluster,makeinteractingandlearninglesscostly.



10

Personal contacts are hence considered a necessary element in the transfer of knowledge and itimpliesthatacertaindegreeofcognitiveproximityexiststhroughwhichpeoplecanachieveamutualunderstanding of new technologies. Cooke (2006) has pointed out that clusters accumulateknowledgeand intimebecomearichknowledgebase,whichhereferstoas“leadingknowledge”.Firmsareattractedbythis‘leadingknowledge’andmaydecidetoestablishthemselvesintheclusterinordertocaptureknowledgespillovers(Hervas‐OliverandAlbors‐Garrigos2008).

Insummary,regionalclustersconstituteanimportantleverforTechnicalIntelligencestrategy.Theyallow vertical interactions along the value chain and horizontal interactions between competingcompanies.Theexchangebetweensuppliersandconsumersenablefirmstounderstandandcapturetheregionalmarkettrendsandpreferencesandhelpthemtotakeadecisionconcerningtheirfuturetechnological focus and their next investments. Besides, direct interactionwith a cluster iswidelyrecognised to be a necessary condition for establishing trusting relations and communicatingsensitive, early‐stage knowledge and information. Technical information flows are particularlyintensive and facilitated in clusters thanks to the "local buzz" or, in other words, the networkingpotential. Finally, clusters’ global pipelines represent privileged channels and conduits forinformationflowsbetweenlocalcompaniesandexternalnetworksenhancingafastdiffusionofnewideas.Clustersrepresentasignificantmeanfortheestablishmentoftrans‐localrelationsincommonsituations of incomplete knowledge and uncertainty. ‘Local buzz’ and global pipelines are thus,mutuallyreinforcingmechanisms(Batheltetal.2004)helpingcompaniestoidentifythefrontiersandthelimitsoftheirknowledge,andtocapturenewtechnicalknowledge.

The following section will explore how these theoretical concepts and cluster characteristics arereflected in the TI strategy developed by Kodak. We will focus on how they accessed the localknowledge by being embedded in a high tech cluster (Cambridge, UK) and how they developedglobalpipelinestoaccessknowledgeinotherlocations.

3. DEVELOPMENT OF A TI STRATEGY AT KODAK EUROPEAN RESEARCH: ACCESSING KNOWLEDGE THROUGH

INNOVATIONCLUSTERS

KodakisaUS‐basedmultinationalcompanyemployingover20thousandpeopleglobally.Itcurrentlyhasalocalpresenceinmorethan50countriesworldwide.Thisglobalpresencehasbeenestablishedsincethecompany’sfoundationin1888.The current Kodak business focuses on three major areas ‐ Consumer Digital Imaging, GraphicCommunicationsandFilm,Photofinishing&Entertainment.Kodakoffersproductsandservicesforabroad range of imaging applications for consumer, commercial and industrial customers. TheinnovationcommitmentofKodak isdemonstratedby theirextensivepatentportfolioandby theirstrongandrespectedbrand.Following the growth of digital technology and Kodak’s diversification into a wide range ofimaging/printing technology businesses it was clear that for future innovation internal resourcesalonewerenotsufficient.KodakhenceadoptedanOpenInnovationstrategytocomplementinternalinnovation initiatives and, as part of this; in January 2006 they established an ‘Open Innovation’



11

centre(KodakEuropeanResearch(KER))inEurope.KERhadthemissiontoidentifyopportunitiesandpartnersofstrategic importancewithintheEuropean,African,andMiddleEasternRegion(EAMER)(Mortara,Thomsonetal.2010).Although KERwas closed in 2009 due to the 2007‐2008 financial crisis, the story of how KER’s TIstrategy was developed represents an interesting case study to understand how TI and thecommunicationstrategyofacompanycanbeinfluencedbytheexistenceandactivityofknowledgeclusters.Inparticular,thefollowingsectionswilldiscuss1)howKERbenefitedfromtheCambridgelocationand2)howKERcouldleverageotherregionalclustersaroundEuropebyconnectingthrough“global pipelines” (Bathelet, Malmberg et al. 2004). In particular, this case study will discuss thecommunication approaches adopted at KER to carry out their scouting activity and how theseapproacheswererefinedthroughtheexperienceof3yearsofactivity.TheCambridgeknowledgeclusterCambridge,UK,waschosenbyKodakasthebaseforKERfromwhichtobegintheexplorationofthewholeofEAMER.Cambridgeischaracterisedbyahighdensityof“actorsandnetworks”(CookeandHuggins2003)andbyextremelyefficient informal channelsandpersonal relationshipswhichhavedevelopedsincetheoriginofthecluster.TheprimaryspecialisationfieldsoftheclusterareICTandlifescience,especiallybiotechnologies(Huggins2008)aswellasinkjetprinting(DrofiakandGarnsey,2009).OfparticularimportancefortheclusteristheroleoftheUniversityofCambridgeanditsspin‐offcompanies(GarnseyandLonghi2004).Theuniversityplaysakeyroleinthedevelopmentofnewtechnologies,inthefoundationofnewspin‐offfirms,inthecreationofinter‐companynetworksandgeneratingahighlyqualifiedworkforce(GarnseyandHeffernan2005).Inadditiontotheuniversity,the cluster encompasses a number of key players including intermediaries and consultancyorganisationssuchasCambridgeConsultantsandTTPaswellasarichVentureCapitalcommunity.Cambridgehasseveralsitesdedicatedtoinnovation,includingscienceparksandincubators.Thankstotheinterplaybetweenalltheseorganisations,Cambridgehasseenrealsuccessstories.OneofthemostfamousisthatofARM(originatedasthejointventurebetweenAcornandAppleandwiththesupport of serial entrepreneur Herman Hauser). ARM is now the global leader in the licensing ofmicroprocessors and chips. Also CSR is a success example, a global company in the ICT sectororiginally spun out from Cambridge Consultants. Cambridge’s dynamic environment has attractedmultinationalcorporationsfromadiverserangeofsectorsincludingMicrosoft,Hitachi,Toshiba,RollsRoyce, Schlumberger, Philips, Nokia, GSK and Unilever. They have come to Cambridge to benefitfrom the ‘local buzz’. Some of these companies have partnered with the University to fundUniversity‐Industry research initiatives andestablishR&Dcentres. In addition,CambridgeNetworkLtd.isalocalorganisationthatfocusesonreinforcingandexpandingthetiesacrossthenetworkbyacting as a knowledge intermediary. Of particular success are events such as the ‘CorporateGateway’, an event‐showroomwhere external companies are introduced to ideas and technologyfromCambridgeandtheEastofEnglandregionthroughbespokevisitsandseminars.



12

Accessingthe‘localbuzz’TheCambridgeclusterwaschosenastheprimarylocationandbaseforKER’sactivity.Anumberoffactorsimpactedonthischoice,includingtherelevanceofthetechnicalknowledgeintheclustertoKodak’sbusiness,thestrengthofthestart‐upandventurecapitalcommunitiesbutalsoincludingthesofter aspects of the lifestyle of the region, the communication and transport channels, and theopportunitiesforidentifyingandrecruitingcompetencesinthearea.AccordingtoKodak’smanagersinvolved,theabilityofthelocalinvestmentagenciesandclusterorganisationsto‘sell’Cambridgeasan attractive and unique location helped determine this as the location for KER. The agenciesportrayedaclearimageofhowtheclusterdiffersfromothers,thecoreskillsandcapabilitiesthatareaccessible, as well as the benefits and opportunities of participating in local initiatives. Throughinitiatives such as the Corporate Gateway organised by the Cambridge Network, Kodak couldappreciatethespecialicismsoftheareaandmakethefirstbusinessconnectionsevenbeforesettinguptheirownestablishment.OnceKERwasestablished,inordertoaccesslocalknowledge,the25KERstaffdevelopedanactiveprogrammeofparticipationinCambridgeactivities,events,networksworkshopsandinterestgroups.Activelyparticipating,forexamplebyspeakingatlocalevents,waskey:“Itwasimportantforustostartdisseminatingourmessage,tellingpeopledirectlyaboutthe‘OpenInnovation’strategyatKodakandaboutthenewandexcitingventureoftheKERcentre.Youwantpeopletohearthestoryfromyousothatthemessageisclear.Newcomerstoclusters,particularlythosewithbigbrandnames,alwaysattractalotofinterestandifthemessageisnotclear,coherentanddirected,itisinevitablethatcontrastingvoiceswillemerge.Byspreadingaconsistentmessageandbybeing‘open’aboutwhatwewantedtoachievewecouldreallymakethemostofthe‘initialsplash’ofmovingtoCambridge.OurexperienceofmovingtotheCambridgeclusterwasthatmanypeoplecameforwardtointroduceustodifferentgroupsandtohelpusmakethemostoftheclusternetworks. Actively participating in the networks is important not only because you want yourcompanytobeknown,butalsoyouwanttobeknownpersonallyasarepresentativeofthecompany.”–RuthThomson,InnovationLeaderatKERParticularattentionwaspaidtothePRmessagesaboutwhyKodakmovedtoCambridgeandwhattheywanted to achieve at KER. In thesemessages itwas explainedwhat technologies and fieldswere of interest, the ways in which Kodak could collaborate with different partners and who atKodak should be contacted to begin a discussion. This allowed the community to immediatelyidentify the gatekeepers at Kodak and the best ways to communicate and propose ideas andtechnology.RuthThomsonalsonotedthathavingastronginitialPRmessagehasthesideeffectofraisingexpectationsinthecommunityandpeoplemightusethemessagetoevaluateprogressandresultsbeforethesecanberealisticallyachievedand/orcommunicatedexternally.Being in the cluster had many advantages due to the predicted availability and access to localtechnology andnetworks. Theplethoraof relevant events ‘on thedoorstep’made it possible to



13

easily attend events just for part of the day or in the evening, making the best of the internalresources.“Theflipsideofthisisthatthereissomuchalwaysgoingon[locally]thatitwasverydifficultnottobetotallyabsorbedbythe localeventswiththeriskofspendingthemajorityof time inCambridgeandneglectingopportunitiesintherestoftheEAMER!”–RuthThomsonEstablishingglobalpipelinesToreachout the restof theEAMER,KERdevelopeda four‐stepTI strategybasedon theTImodel(Kerr,Mortaraetal.2006)inFig.1.TheprocessisshowninFig.2(Mortara,Thomsonetal.2010)andprogressesfromanopensearchforinformationonwhatinterestingtechnology,knowledgeandclustersexistindifferentcountriesintheEAMER(Scan(Kerr,Mortaraetal.2006))tothetargetingofrelevanttechnologicalareasthroughtheestablishmentoflinksandrelationshipswithkeycontactsandgroupsacrossEAMER.

The first stepconsistedof theunderstandingof thecontextandbackgroundof the regionsacrossEAMERand inparticular,howscience, technologyand innovationaredevelopedandsupported inthose regions. This step was achieved through a systematic desk‐based creation of background“country guides”. Thesewere living documents collating key information relative to the differentregions.Theseguidesformedthebackgroundknowledgeforboththeidentificationoftheregionstobe explored andof relevant organisations that could act as knowledge intermediaries to facilitateaccess to the area. For the development of the guides a clear set of rules were established (seeMortara,Thomsonetal.2010).

Intermediaries of knowledge, i.e. people and organisation that could provide support in accessinglocalknowledge,especiallyinareasofdensescienceandtechnologicaldevelopmentsuchasclusters,helpedKERtoestablishavisititinerary.

“Workingwithintermediariesmadethetaskofaccessingtechnologyandclusterssignificantlymoreefficient.Intermediariesunderstandtheirownregionsotheycanhelpyouunderstandthecontextofthe innovation environment. Working closely with them and helping them to understand yourinterestsandobjectivesmeansyoucanidentifytherealopportunities.Inthiswayyoucanmakethemostofapotentialvisitandfollow‐up interactions,whilebuildinganongoingrelationshipwithkeycontactsintheregion”–RuthThomson

Intermediaries ranged from local and national development agencies, to Venture Capitals andconsultancy organisations. In some cases, single individuals provided feedback and access to localknowledge. Some intermediaries were privately owned, others were part of universities, scienceparks,orpublicbodiesatalocalnationalorinternationallevel.



14

Figure3.TechnologyintelligenceatKER,movingfromScantoTarget(Mortara,Thomsonetal.2010).

“Therewas a great difference between the [intermediary] options and the responsewe got fromthem.Sometoldustoomuch,withouttailoringtheinformationtoourneeds,otherstoolittlesothatwewereunable toevaluate theadvantageswewouldhavehad in collaboratingwith themand invisitingtheregion.”–RuthThomson

Problems in the identification and evaluation of intermediaries often came because they did notexplicitlyexplain theuniquedifferentiationof theiractivitiesandtheir region; theydidnotexplaintheir focus and specialities. There can be many organisations proposing themselves as theintermediaryofchoiceforthesameareaandforthoseexternaltothelocalcontextitcanbequitedifficulttodeterminewhotheyshouldcollaboratewith.Itcouldbemucheasiertoappreciatehowacluster or a region differentiates itself if there is a clear reference to the specificity of clusterknowledge(forexample,whenitisreflectedinthenameoftheintermediaryorganisationorclearlystatedonthewebsite).However,thedownsidetothisisthatthereistheriskthatbyforcinglabelsandovergeneralisingtheknowledgeofthecluster,onecouldoverlookinterestingopportunities.

KER developed a triangulation approach and a clear checklist to assess information fromintermediaries(Mortara,Thomsonetal.,2010)reportedinFig.5.

Scan Target

Collection of countryʼs

technology context

Identify intermediaries

and set up visits Visit the

targeted country to establish

networks

1 2

3 Follow up with

relevant contacts 4

• Country strengths/ weaknesses

• Main technology groups • Governmental / educational /

structural / financial / social contexts of region

Select intermediaries:

• National level • Regional level • Research center level

• What technologies are relevant?

• What is their readiness level?

• Views on collaboration opportunities with research centers?

Collaborations

feedback

Looking for relevant technologies across the region



15

Figure4.InordertogainthemostobjectiveunderstandingandidentifythebestcontactsforKERinacertainregion, KER reviewed and compared information gathered from different intermediaries. This approachhelpedtoreducethepotentialbiasofanysingleintermediaryandtocapturealargersetofinformation.

Equally,itwasveryimportanttobecoherentandclearaboutwhatKodakwantedfromthevisitandthe opportunities for potential collaboration. Talking with the intermediaries prior to the visit,iteratingideasfortheitineraryandbeingclearwhatKERwantedoutofthevisitwaskey.

Oncearranged,visitstothedesignatedregiontookplace.Thecommunicationstrategywascarefullyplannedinordertomaintainacoherentandopendiscoursewiththecontacts.

“Itwasvery important thatwewere ‘open’ too.Weknewthat contactswouldbedoing their ‘duediligence’onus,bothasKER,andusas individuals–wewouldbe ‘Googled’! Wewantedtomakesurethattheyfoundaccurateand‘open’ informationthatwouldhelpfacilitateinteraction.”–RuthThomson

AbrochureandapresentationwithimportantinformationwerepreparedtobecirculatedaswidelyaspossiblewhereKERexplaineditsneedsandinterestsandroutestocollaboration.

“Duetoourstrongbrandequityandtheassociationofthe‘Kodak’namewithphotographyitwouldbeeasyforpeopletoassumethatwewouldn’tbeinterestedinanythingelse.Howeverourinterestswerediverseacrossthewiderangeofcurrentandfutureprintingandimagingtechnologies.Itwasimportantwecommunicatedthisclearly.”–RuthThomson



16

Adouble‐actapproach to thescoutingvisitswasadoptedwherebyKERsent teamswithabalancebetween technical expertise and commercial understanding. This helped the dynamics during thevisitsandthedialoguebetweenthescoutsandtheirhosts.

Onceback from the journey, KER scouts followedupon connections andpotential collaborations.Obviously, the visits did not always lead to immediate collaboration, however, as part of the TIstrategy,KERprovidedfeedbackandfollowup.

“Weunderstoodthevalueoftheconnectionsandnetworkswehadestablishedaspartofavisit.Evenif something was not of interest at present it might have been in the future. Intermediaries inparticularareanexceptionallyimportantconduitofknowledgeandcouldbethekeytothediscoveryoffutureopportunities.Providingfeedbacktothemaboutwhatwas/wasnotofinterestsignificantlyimprovingtheirknowledgeonwhatwemightcouldbeof interest inthefutureandbymaintainingtheseconnectionswebuiltupaneffectivenetworkacrossEAMER.”–RuthThomson

DISCUSSION‐CONCLUSION

Technology intelligence is an important firm activity to keep abreast with technologicaldevelopments. One means of enhancing a firm’s ability to perform TI effectively is to establish“listening posts” in areas of intense innovative activity, such as regional clusters. However,companiescannotaffordtosetuptechnologyoutpostsineverysingleareaofpotentialinterest.Thispaper discussed an example of how companies can develop a TI strategy that enables them toexplore remotely science and technology developments across long geographic distances. Thischapter discussed also an example of how a company benefited from being embedded within aregionalcluster,andhowtheycouldalsosetupstrategiestoenablethemtoaccessknowledgefromotherremoteregionalclusters.

ThiscasestudyillustratesthisthroughtheexampleofKodakEuropeanResearch,andexaminestheroleofregionalclusternetworks’mainfeaturesinfacilitatingKodak’sTIstrategy.KodakTIstrategybenefitedfromCambridgeclusters’localandglobalnetworksintwoways.Ontheonehand,Kodakhasbuiltconnectionswithintheclustertakingadvantageofit’spositioninCambridge.Alsothecasestudy has highlighted how Kodak could access knowledge in other clusters by linking tointermediaries such as development agencies, university Technology Transfer Offices etc aroundEAMER.

By interactingwith the Cambridge cluster, Kodak becamemore central to the local network as itcoulddirectlyaccessrelevantlocalknowledgethatwasnoteasilyreachablefromtheheadquartersinAmerica.Theliteraturereferstocentralityasthenumberofstrategicconnectionsacompanygainsby interacting in the cluster. Through KER, Kodak accessed a great number of relevant localnetworking events such as those facilitated by CambridgeNetwork Ltd and could start numerousrelationshipswithlocalactors.However,althoughliteraturesuggeststhe‘number’ofconnectionsasapotentialmetricforthecentralityofthenetwork,practiceatKodaksuggestedthatthe‘number’ofconnections isa somewhat irrelevantmetric for thescouts. Firstofall,RuthThomsonpointsout:“what is valuable about connections is not their number but their relevance and pro‐activeness.Besides,itisnotenoughtotalkwithpeopleonceandcountthemasa‘connection’,connectionsneed



17

tobefosteredandmaintained”.Itisnotthenumberofconnectionsthatisbeneficial,butratherthequality,relevanceand‘freshness’oftheconnections.Thissuggeststhatthereistheneedformoredynamic and qualitative metrics of networks. Additionally, if one still desired to measure thenumberofconnectionsoneshouldalsokeeptrackoftheconnectionsthatcouldbeaccessedthrougheach relation. Although in current times people networks are becoming more explicit throughsystems like linkedIn®, thisapproachtomeasuringrelationshipssomewhatmisses thepointof thevalue of personal connections and the importance of the trust that can be established betweenindividuals.Furthermore, thenumberofconnectionscanbeonly interestingasa relativemeasurefor a scouting activity, i.e., if the total possible number of connections is known or if one coulddirectlycomparehowmanyconnectionsothersscoutsintheoutposthavegained.Butthenumberofpossibleconnectionswillbeconstantlychangingandthereforeverydifficulttocapture.

ThroughitspresenceintheCambridgeclusterKERbecametheintermediarybetweentheclusterandKodak’sheadquarters.ThroughKER,KodakcouldmoreeasilycapturelocalknowledgefromEAMER,andbringinformationtotheirheadquartersthatwasexternaltothecluster.Thus,KERconstitutedaglobalpipelineandconduitforinformationflowsbetweenlocalcompaniesandKodakheadquarters,enhancingthefastdiffusionofnewideas.Fig.5showsthetwotypesofchannels.

The Cambridge cluster combines dense internal inter‐firm interactions but also synergies withexternal, and often global, networks. The clusters constituted a significant channel for theestablishmentof trans‐local relations.ToreachtheseexternalconnectionsKERbenefited fromthehelpofseveralorganisationswhoactedasgatekeepers for their localknowledge.KERemphasisedthe importance of these intermediaries and considered them as an integral part of their socialnetwork(Mortaraetal2010b).TheroleofintermediarieswasfundamentalbothwithinCambridge(e.g. “Cambridge Networks”) and outside Cambridge. These agencies played the role of interfacebetweeninternalactorsandexternalnewactors,givingKodakaccesstotheextremelyefficientlocalinformal relationsandwith it, thenewsand tacit information in the region: the“localbuzz”. Thissuggests that further research within the field of TI and regional cluster should be directed tounderstandhowcompaniescouldidentifyandselectthebestintermediaryconfiguration.

Figure 5: A visual representation of Kodak’s networks. Although this is by no means an exhaustivedescription of the networks established, this picture qualitatively indicates the diverse types of networksacrossdifferentregionalclustersaccessedbyKodakthroughKER



18

Overall,theresearchbridgesthegapbetweentwodomainsofresearch,whoseintegrationcangiveinsights into the mechanisms by which TI activity of capturing knowledge can be enhanced bylocation. In this perspective, this paper has explored the value of (1) being embedded within acluster,and(2)remotelyaccessingtheknowledgeofacluster,andhowthesetwoapproachescanbecombinedtosupportacompany’sTIstrategy.

References

Almeida P., Kogut B. (1999), Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regionalnetworks.ManagementScience,vol.45,n°7

AllenT. J. (1977)Managing theFlowofTechnology:TechnologyTransferandtheDisseminationofTechnologicalInformationWithintheR&DOrganization.MITPress,Cambridge

Arman, H. and J. Foden (2010). "Combining methods in the technology intelligence process:applicationinanaerospacemanufacturingfirm."R&DManagement40(2):181‐194.

Asheim,B.T.andGertler,M.(2005),TheGeographyofInnovation:RegionalInnovationSystemsin:Fagerberg,J.,D.MoweryandR.Nelson(eds.),TheOxfordHandbookofInnovation.OxfordUniversityPress

Audretsch, D.B; Feldman, M.P. (1996), R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation andproduction,TheAmericanEconomicReview;Vol.86,N°3

Bathelet,H.,A.Malmberg,etal.(2004)."ClustersandKnowledge:localbuzz,globalpipelinesandtheprocessofknowledgecreation."ProgressinHumanGeography28(1):31‐56.

BatheltH.(2008),Knowledge‐basedClusters:RegionalMultiplierModelsandtheRoleof‘Buzz’and‘Pipelines’.inKarlsson,C.,HandbookOfResearchOnClusterTheory,EdwardElgar,336pages.

Bernhardt,D.(1993).PerfectlylegalcompetitorIntelligence,PitmanPublishing.

Breschi, S., Lissoni F. (2001), Localised knowledge spillovers vs. innovative milieux: Knowledge"tacitness"reconsidered.PapersinRegionalScience,Vol.80

Burt R. S. (1992), Structural Holes. The Social Structure of Competition, Cambridge, HarvardUniversityPress

Camagni R., Capello R. (2000), The Role of Inter‐SME Networking and Links in Innovative High‐TechnologyMilieux,Chapter5inKeeble,D.andWilkinson,F.etal.,2000.

Capaldo A. (2007). Network structure and innovation: The leveraging of a dual network as adistinctiverelationalcapability.StrategicManagementJournal,vol.28



19

Carbonara N., (2004), Innovation processes within geographical clusters: a cognitive approach,Technovation,vol.24.

Castell,M.,HallP.(1994),TechnopolesoftheWorld.London:Routledge

Chesbrough H. (2003), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting fromTechnology.Boston:HarvardBusinessSchoolPress.

Cooke, P. (2006), Global bioregional networks: a new economic geography of bioscientificknowledge.EuropeanPlanningStudies,vol.14

Cooke,P. andR.Huggins (2003).High‐technology clustering inCambridge (UK). The institutionsoflocaldevelopment.F.Sforzi.Aldershot,UK,Ashgate:51‐74.

DangR.J.,ThomasC.,LonghiC.(2010),Whatcanhelpsmallfirmsaccessingknowledgeinterritorialinnovationnetworks?.26thEGOSColloquium,Lisbon,Portugal.2‐4July2010Deschamps,J.P.andP.R.Nayak(1995),ProductJuggernauts:HowCompaniesMobilizetoGenerateaStreamofMarketWinners.Boston,HBSPress.

DrofiakA,GarnseyE. (2009), TheCambridgeHighTechCluster: resilienceand response to cyclicaltrends,CTMworkingpapers.Fraser, P., T. H. W. Minshall, et al. (2005). The distributed innovation pradigm: Evolution anddynamics. 6th International CINet Conference Continuous Innovation ‐(Ways of) making thingshappen.Brighton,UK.

Garnsey, E. and C. Longhi (2004). "High technology locations and globalisation: Converse paths,common processes." International Journal of TechnologyManagement & Innovation 28()(3): 336‐355.

Garnsey, E. and P. Heffernan (2005). "High‐technology clustering through spin‐out and attraction:TheCambridgecase.."RegionalStudies39(8):1127‐1144.

Gassmann,O.andB.Gaso(2004)."InsourcingCreativitywithListeningPostsinDecentralisedFirms."Creativity&InnovationManagement13(1):3‐14.

Gassmann, O. and B. Gaso (2005). "Organisational frameworks for listening post activities." Int. J.TechnologyIntelligenceandPlanning1(3):241‐265.

Giuliani E., Bell M. (2004), «Whenmicro shapes the meso: Learning networks in a Chilean winecluster»,SPRUElectronicWorkingPaperSeries,PaperNo.115,April2004

GranovetterM. S. (1985), Economic Action and Social Structure : The Problem of Embeddedness.AmericanJournalofSociology,vol.91,n°3.

Granovetter, M. S. (1983). "The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited." SociologicalTheory1:201‐233.



20

HeS.(2006),Clusters,structuralembeddedness,andknowledge:Astructuralembeddednessmodelofclusters.DRUID‐DIMEWinterPhDConference,Skoerping,Denmark.

Hervás‐Oliver J. L. ; José Albors‐Garrigós J. (2007), Do clusters capabilities matter? An empiricalapplication of the resource‐based view in clusters. Entrepreneurship& Regional Development: AnInternationalJournal,Vol.19,N°2

Hervás‐Oliver J. L. ; JoséAlbors‐Garrigós J. (2008), Local knowledge domains and the role ofMNEaffiliates in bridging and complementing a cluster's knowledge. Entrepreneurship & RegionalDevelopment:AnInternationalJournal,1464‐5114,Vol.20,N°6

Huggins, R. (2008). "The Evolution of Knowledge Clusters: Progress and Policy." EconomicDevelopmentQuarterly22(4):277‐288.

Keeble D., Wilkinson F. et al (2000) (eds.) High‐Technology Clusters, Networking and CollectiveLearninginEurope.Aldershot:Ashgate.

Kerr,C.I.V.,L.Mortara,etal.(2006)."Aconceptualmodelfortechnologyintelligence."InternationalJournalofTechnologyIntelligenceandPlanning1(2):73‐93.

Kogut, B. (2000), The Network as Knowledge: Generative Rules and the Emergence of Structure.StrategicManagementJournal,Vol.21

Lazaric N., Longhi C. and Thomas C. (2008), Gatekeepers of knowledge versus platforms ofknowledge:frompotentialtorealizedabsorptivecapacity,RegionalStudies,Vol.42,N°6,pp.837‐852

LazersonaMH, LorenzoniG. (1999), The firms that feed industrial districts: A return to the Italiansource.OxfordUniversityPress,IndustrialandCorporateChange,Vol.8,N°2

Lee C.‐K., Saxenian A.(2008), Coevolution and coordination: A systemic analysis of the Taiwaneseinformationtechnologyindustry.JournalofEconomicGeography,vol.8

Lichtenthaler, E. (2003), Third generationmanagementof technology intelligenceprocesses."R&DManagement33(4):361‐375.

Lichtenthaler,E.(2004),Technologicalchangeandthetechnologyintelligenceprocess:acasestudy.J.Eng.Technol.Manage.21:331‐348.

Lichtenthaler,E.(2004),TechnologyIntelligenceprocessesinleadingEuropeanandNorthAmericanmultinationals."R&DManagement34(2):121‐135.

Lichtenthaler,E.(2005),Thechoiceoftechnologyintelligencemethodsinmultinationals:towardsacontingencyapproach."InternationalJournalOfTechnologyManagement32(3/4):388‐405.

Lichtenthaler, E. (2006), Technology Intelligence: identification of technological opportunities andthreatsbyfirms."InternationalJournalofTechnologyIntelligenceandPlanning2(3):289‐323.



21

Lichtenthaler, E. (2007). "Managing technology intelligence processes in situations of radicaltechnologicalchange."Technologicalforecasting&socialchange74:1109‐1136.

Lundvall B.‐A. (1992), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation andInteractiveLearning.London:PinterPublishers

MalmbergA.,MaskellP.(2005),LocalizedLearningRevisited.Druidpaper

Markusen A. (1996), Sticky Places in Slippery Space: A Typology on Industrial Districts. EconomicGeography,Vol.72

MarshallA.(1920),PrinciplesofEconomics,8thedition.,Macmillan,London,Firstedition[1891]

Maskell, P. (2001), TowardsaKnowledge‐basedTheoryof theGeographicalCluster. Industrial andCorporateChange,Vol.10,No.4

Maskell, P., Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A. (2006), Building global knowledge pipelines: the role oftemporaryclusters,EuropeanPlanningStudies,vol.14

Minshall,T.,L.Mortara,etal.(2007).Openinnovation:Linkingstrategicandoperationalfactors.R&DManagementBremen,Germany.

Mortara, L., C. I. V. Kerr, et al. (2009). "A toolbox of elements to build technology intelligencesystems."InternationalJournalofTechnologyManagement47(4):322‐345.

Mortara, L., C. I. V. Kerr, et al. (2009). "Technology intelligence practice in UK technology‐basedcompanies."InternationalJournalofTechnologyManagement48(1):115‐135.

Mortara,L.,R.Thomson,etal.(2010a)."ImplementingaGlobalTechnologySourcingStrategy–scanandtargetatKodakEuropeanResearch."Research‐TechnologyManagement(July‐August).

Mortara, L., R. Thomson, T.Minshall andD.Probert (2010b). The ‘social’ dimensionof technologyintelligence: Approaches to intelligence through intermediary networks. The R&D Managementconference‐Information,imaginationandintelligenceinR&Dmanagement,Manchester,30June‐2July2010.

Nooteboom, B. (2005), Innovation, learning and cluster dynamics. Discussion Paper 44, TilburgUniversity,CenterforEconomicResearch

Owen‐Smith J.& PowellW. (2004), KnowledgeNetwork as Channels and conduits: The Effects ofSpilloversintheBostonBiotechnologyCommunity.OrganizationScience,Vol.15,N°1

PecqueurB.,ZimmermannJ.B. (2004),L'économiedeproximités.Paris :éditionsHermes‐Lavoisier,264pages.

PowellW.W.,KoputK.W.,Smith‐DoerrL.(1996),InterorganizationalCollaborationandtheLocusofInnovation:NetworksofLearninginBiotechnology.AdministrativeScienceQuarterlyVol.41



22

Powell, W. W., Kelley Packalen, and Kjersten Bunker Whittington (2010), Organizational andInstitutionalGenesis:TheEmergenceofHigh‐TechClusters intheLifeSciences.Clusters,Networks,andInnovation,editedbyJohnPadgettandW.W.Powell.Chapter13.PrincetonUniversityPress

RalletA.,TorreA.(2005),Proximityandlocalization.RegionalStudies,vol.39,n°1

Rohrbeck, R. (2010). "Harnessing a network of experts for competitive advantage: technologyscoutingintheICTindustry."R&DManagement40(2):169‐180.

Rychen F., Zimmermann J.B. (2006), Clusters in the global knowledge based economy: knowledgegatekeepersandtemporaryproximity,RegionalStudies,Vol.42,N°26

Savioz, P. (2006). "Technology Intelligence Systems: practices andmodels for large,medium‐sizedand start‐up companies." international Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning 2(6): 360‐379.

Savioz, P. and H. Tschirky (2004). Technology Intelligence Systems: benefits and roles of topmanagement. Bringing technology and innovation into the boardroom. Strategy, Innovation andCompetencesforbusinessvalue.NewYork,PalgraveMacmillan:220‐254.

Savioz, P. andM. Blum (2002). "Strategic forecast tool for SMEs: how the opportunity landscapeinteractswithbusinessstrategytoanticipatetechnologicaltrends."Technovation22(2):91.

Smith J.O., Powell W.W. (2004), Knowledge Network as channels and Conduits: The Effects ofSpilloversintheBostonBiotechnologyCommunity.OrganizationScience,vol15,n°1.

SorensonO., Rivkin J.W., Fleming L. (2006), Complexity, Networks and Knowledge Flow. ResearchPolicy,vol.35,n°7.

Stephenson,K.(1999).Networks.TheTechnologyManagementHandbook.R.C.Dorf.US,CRCPress‐IEEEPress:7‐40to47‐45.

StorperM.,VenablesA.‐J. (2003), Buzz: Face‐To‐FaceContact and theUrbanEconomy,Centre forEconomicPerformance,LondonSchoolofEconomics,Londres.

Uzzi,B.andS.Dunlap(2005),HowtoBuildYourNetwork.HarvardBusinessReview.53‐60.

WaxellA.;MalmbergA.(2007),Whatisglobalandwhatislocalinknowledge‐generatinginteraction?Thecaseofthebiotechcluster inUppsala,Sweden.Entrepreneurship&RegionalDevelopment:AnInternationalJournal,1464‐5114,Vol.19,N°2

WhittingtonB.K.,Owen‐SmithJ.,andPowellW.W.(2009),Networks,PropinquityandInnovationinTechnologicalCommunities.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,vol.54.

Witzeman,S.,G.Slowinski,etal.(2006)."Harnessingexternaltechnologyforinnovation."Research‐TechnologyManagement49(3):19‐27.

developing technology intelligence strategy to access ... · developing technology intelligence...

Documents