Suchergebnisse

This study explores the perceptions of members of 13 competitiveness clusters in Croatia (CCC) towards clusters' objectives, processes, setting and performance. Survey data (n=250) were analysed using descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis and regression analysis. Results indicate that progress of CCCs is not visible in the observed period and they are lagging behind successful cluster initiatives in the world. The most important reasons for underperformance are related to weaknesses inherited in cluster development framework, poor implementation of activities, inadequate resources for pursuing more ambitious objectives, lack of consensus and weaknesses in strategy formulation. The paper contributes to the literature by evaluating the program of competitiveness clusters for the first time. It examines the factors that contribute to performance of clusters, and compares CCCs with best practices of similar associations in the world. Although this research is based on perceptions of members, it has valuable implications for clusters and policy-makers. In order to strengthen existing clusters, changes in the national framework are needed, while clusters should have more resources at their disposal to reach more ambitious objectives in the future.

This study explores the perceptions of members of 13 competitiveness clusters in Croatia (CCC) towards clusters' objectives, processes, setting and performance. Survey data (n=250) were analysed using descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis and regression analysis. Results indicate that progress of CCCs is not visible in the observed period and they are lagging behind successful cluster initiatives in the world. The most important reasons for underperformance are related to weaknesses inherited in cluster development framework, poor implementation of activities, inadequate resources for pursuing more ambitious objectives, lack of consensus and weaknesses in strategy formulation. The paper contributes to the literature by evaluating the program of competitiveness clusters for the first time. It examines the factors that contribute to performance of clusters, and compares CCCs with best practices of similar associations in the world. Although this research is based on perceptions of members, it has valuable implications for clusters and policy-makers. In order to strengthen existing clusters, changes in the national framework are needed, while clusters should have more resources at their disposal to reach more ambitious objectives in the future. ; Rad istražuje percepcije članova 13 klastera konkurentnosti u Hrvatskoj o ciljevima, procesima, okruženju i učincima klastera. Podaci iz uzorka (n=250) analizirani su metodama deskriptivne statistike, eksplorativnom faktorskom analizom i regresijom. Rezultati pokazuju da napredak klastera konkurentnosti nije dovoljno vidljiv u promatranom razdoblju i da klasteri konkurentnosti zaostaju za uspješnim klasterima u svijetu. Među čimbenicima koji objašnjavaju nepovoljne rezultate su neodgovarajući modeli razvoja klastera, neučinkovita implementacija aktivnosti, nedostatak konsenzusa i nedostaci u formuliranim strategijama. Ovo istraživanje pridonosi literaturi tako što analizira program klastera konkurentnosti po prvi puta. Jednako tako, istraživanje istražuje čimbenike koji pridonose rezultatima klastera i uspoređuje prakse klastera konkurentnosti u Hrvatskoj s najboljom praksom sličnih asocijacija u svijetu. Iako se ovo istraživanje temelji na percepcijama članova, ono ima značajne implikacije za klastere i nositelje politike. Da bi ojačali postojeći klasteri, potrebne su promjene u nacionalnom sustavu, dok bi klasteri morali imati više resursa na raspolaganju kako bi u budućnosti ostvarivali ambicioznije ciljeve.

This study explores the perceptions of members of 13 competitiveness clusters in Croatia (CCC) towards clusters' objectives, processes, setting and performance. Survey data (n=250) were analysed using descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis and regression analysis. Results indicate that progress of CCCs is not visible in the observed period and they are lagging behind successful cluster initiatives in the world. The most important reasons for underperformance are related to weaknesses inherited in cluster development framework, poor implementation of activities, inadequate resources for pursuing more ambitious objectives, lack of consensus and weaknesses in strategy formulation. The paper contributes to the literature by evaluating the program of competitiveness clusters for the first time. It examines the factors that contribute to performance of clusters, and compares CCCs with best practices of similar associations in the world. Although this research is based on perceptions of members, it has valuable implications for clusters and policy-makers. In order to strengthen existing clusters, changes in the national framework are needed, while clusters should have more resources at their disposal to reach more ambitious objectives in the future. ; Rad istražuje percepcije članova 13 klastera konkurentnosti u Hrvatskoj o ciljevima, procesima, okruženju i učincima klastera. Podaci iz uzorka (n=250) analizirani su metodama deskriptivne statistike, eksplorativnom faktorskom analizom i regresijom. Rezultati pokazuju da napredak klastera konkurentnosti nije dovoljno vidljiv u promatranom razdoblju i da klasteri konkurentnosti zaostaju za uspješnim klasterima u svijetu. Među čimbenicima koji objašnjavaju nepovoljne rezultate su neodgovarajući modeli razvoja klastera, neučinkovita implementacija aktivnosti, nedostatak konsenzusa i nedostaci u formuliranim strategijama. Ovo istraživanje pridonosi literaturi tako što analizira program klastera konkurentnosti po prvi puta. Jednako tako, istraživanje istražuje čimbenike koji pridonose rezultatima klastera i uspoređuje prakse klastera konkurentnosti u Hrvatskoj s najboljom praksom sličnih asocijacija u svijetu. Iako se ovo istraživanje temelji na percepcijama članova, ono ima značajne implikacije za klastere i nositelje politike. Da bi ojačali postojeći klasteri, potrebne su promjene u nacionalnom sustavu, dok bi klasteri morali imati više resursa na raspolaganju kako bi u budućnosti ostvarivali ambicioznije ciljeve.

Working Paper, n°15-05, octobre 2015 ; In 2005, the French government approved 71 competitiveness clusters (or « pôles de compétitivité »), dedicated to different industries and located indifferent regions. The understanding of the creation of the clusters has gained major attention in the literature, whereas fewer scholars have been interested at analyzing their trajectory on the long-term. What impact do they have on their surrounding region? And what are the contingency factors influencing their trajectory?This working paper offers to answer these specific questions. Our research is based on a comparative study of six clusters. Inspired by the work of sociologist M. Grossetti, we produce an analysis of the processes of embeddedness and decoupling that come into play when an organisation is created. This brings up broader debates around the autonomy of the cluster. ; En 2005, le gouvernement français labellise 71 pôles de compétitivité. Si l'analyse de leur création a fait l'objet de nombreux travaux, plus rares sont ceux qui se sont intéressés à leur devenir, à leur trajectoire. Or, ces pôles existent et fonctionnent depuis maintenant plus de dix ans. Quels impacts ont-ils dans le territoire ? Et quels sont les facteurs de leur contingence ?Ce working paper propose une analyse de la trajectoire des pôles de compétitivité, en tant que méta-organisations particulières. Cette analyse est abordée en termes d'encastrement et de découplage en s'inspirant des travaux de Michel Grossetti. Une approche comparative entre six pôles de compétitivité a permis d'identifier des facteurs de contingence qui influencent leurs trajectoires et d'étudier leur processus d'autonomisation.

Working Paper, n°15-05, octobre 2015 ; In 2005, the French government approved 71 competitiveness clusters (or « pôles de compétitivité »), dedicated to different industries and located indifferent regions. The understanding of the creation of the clusters has gained major attention in the literature, whereas fewer scholars have been interested at analyzing their trajectory on the long-term. What impact do they have on their surrounding region? And what are the contingency factors influencing their trajectory?This working paper offers to answer these specific questions. Our research is based on a comparative study of six clusters. Inspired by the work of sociologist M. Grossetti, we produce an analysis of the processes of embeddedness and decoupling that come into play when an organisation is created. This brings up broader debates around the autonomy of the cluster. ; En 2005, le gouvernement français labellise 71 pôles de compétitivité. Si l'analyse de leur création a fait l'objet de nombreux travaux, plus rares sont ceux qui se sont intéressés à leur devenir, à leur trajectoire. Or, ces pôles existent et fonctionnent depuis maintenant plus de dix ans. Quels impacts ont-ils dans le territoire ? Et quels sont les facteurs de leur contingence ?Ce working paper propose une analyse de la trajectoire des pôles de compétitivité, en tant que méta-organisations particulières. Cette analyse est abordée en termes d'encastrement et de découplage en s'inspirant des travaux de Michel Grossetti. Une approche comparative entre six pôles de compétitivité a permis d'identifier des facteurs de contingence qui influencent leurs trajectoires et d'étudier leur processus d'autonomisation.

Working Paper, n°15-05, octobre 2015 ; In 2005, the French government approved 71 competitiveness clusters (or « pôles de compétitivité »), dedicated to different industries and located indifferent regions. The understanding of the creation of the clusters has gained major attention in the literature, whereas fewer scholars have been interested at analyzing their trajectory on the long-term. What impact do they have on their surrounding region? And what are the contingency factors influencing their trajectory?This working paper offers to answer these specific questions. Our research is based on a comparative study of six clusters. Inspired by the work of sociologist M. Grossetti, we produce an analysis of the processes of embeddedness and decoupling that come into play when an organisation is created. This brings up broader debates around the autonomy of the cluster. ; En 2005, le gouvernement français labellise 71 pôles de compétitivité. Si l'analyse de leur création a fait l'objet de nombreux travaux, plus rares sont ceux qui se sont intéressés à leur devenir, à leur trajectoire. Or, ces pôles existent et fonctionnent depuis maintenant plus de dix ans. Quels impacts ont-ils dans le territoire ? Et quels sont les facteurs de leur contingence ?Ce working paper propose une analyse de la trajectoire des pôles de compétitivité, en tant que méta-organisations particulières. Cette analyse est abordée en termes d'encastrement et de découplage en s'inspirant des travaux de Michel Grossetti. Une approche comparative entre six pôles de compétitivité a permis d'identifier des facteurs de contingence qui influencent leurs trajectoires et d'étudier leur processus d'autonomisation.

Working Paper, n°15-05, octobre 2015 ; In 2005, the French government approved 71 competitiveness clusters (or « pôles de compétitivité »), dedicated to different industries and located indifferent regions. The understanding of the creation of the clusters has gained major attention in the literature, whereas fewer scholars have been interested at analyzing their trajectory on the long-term. What impact do they have on their surrounding region? And what are the contingency factors influencing their trajectory?This working paper offers to answer these specific questions. Our research is based on a comparative study of six clusters. Inspired by the work of sociologist M. Grossetti, we produce an analysis of the processes of embeddedness and decoupling that come into play when an organisation is created. This brings up broader debates around the autonomy of the cluster. ; En 2005, le gouvernement français labellise 71 pôles de compétitivité. Si l'analyse de leur création a fait l'objet de nombreux travaux, plus rares sont ceux qui se sont intéressés à leur devenir, à leur trajectoire. Or, ces pôles existent et fonctionnent depuis maintenant plus de dix ans. Quels impacts ont-ils dans le territoire ? Et quels sont les facteurs de leur contingence ?Ce working paper propose une analyse de la trajectoire des pôles de compétitivité, en tant que méta-organisations particulières. Cette analyse est abordée en termes d'encastrement et de découplage en s'inspirant des travaux de Michel Grossetti. Une approche comparative entre six pôles de compétitivité a permis d'identifier des facteurs de contingence qui influencent leurs trajectoires et d'étudier leur processus d'autonomisation.

Working Paper, n°15-05, octobre 2015 ; In 2005, the French government approved 71 competitiveness clusters (or « pôles de compétitivité »), dedicated to different industries and located indifferent regions. The understanding of the creation of the clusters has gained major attention in the literature, whereas fewer scholars have been interested at analyzing their trajectory on the long-term. What impact do they have on their surrounding region? And what are the contingency factors influencing their trajectory?This working paper offers to answer these specific questions. Our research is based on a comparative study of six clusters. Inspired by the work of sociologist M. Grossetti, we produce an analysis of the processes of embeddedness and decoupling that come into play when an organisation is created. This brings up broader debates around the autonomy of the cluster. ; En 2005, le gouvernement français labellise 71 pôles de compétitivité. Si l'analyse de leur création a fait l'objet de nombreux travaux, plus rares sont ceux qui se sont intéressés à leur devenir, à leur trajectoire. Or, ces pôles existent et fonctionnent depuis maintenant plus de dix ans. Quels impacts ont-ils dans le territoire ? Et quels sont les facteurs de leur contingence ?Ce working paper propose une analyse de la trajectoire des pôles de compétitivité, en tant que méta-organisations particulières. Cette analyse est abordée en termes d'encastrement et de découplage en s'inspirant des travaux de Michel Grossetti. Une approche comparative entre six pôles de compétitivité a permis d'identifier des facteurs de contingence qui influencent leurs trajectoires et d'étudier leur processus d'autonomisation.

Working Paper, n°15-05, octobre 2015 ; In 2005, the French government approved 71 competitiveness clusters (or « pôles de compétitivité »), dedicated to different industries and located indifferent regions. The understanding of the creation of the clusters has gained major attention in the literature, whereas fewer scholars have been interested at analyzing their trajectory on the long-term. What impact do they have on their surrounding region? And what are the contingency factors influencing their trajectory?This working paper offers to answer these specific questions. Our research is based on a comparative study of six clusters. Inspired by the work of sociologist M. Grossetti, we produce an analysis of the processes of embeddedness and decoupling that come into play when an organisation is created. This brings up broader debates around the autonomy of the cluster. ; En 2005, le gouvernement français labellise 71 pôles de compétitivité. Si l'analyse de leur création a fait l'objet de nombreux travaux, plus rares sont ceux qui se sont intéressés à leur devenir, à leur trajectoire. Or, ces pôles existent et fonctionnent depuis maintenant plus de dix ans. Quels impacts ont-ils dans le territoire ? Et quels sont les facteurs de leur contingence ?Ce working paper propose une analyse de la trajectoire des pôles de compétitivité, en tant que méta-organisations particulières. Cette analyse est abordée en termes d'encastrement et de découplage en s'inspirant des travaux de Michel Grossetti. Une approche comparative entre six pôles de compétitivité a permis d'identifier des facteurs de contingence qui influencent leurs trajectoires et d'étudier leur processus d'autonomisation.

The importance of proximity in the field of innovation has been highlighted, notably, in studies which emphasize the growing role of the third mission of the universities, namely, regional economic development. Using an empirical approach, we have attempted to gain an insight into the ways in which networks involving local economic and academic actors are created. This study focuses on France, where the State has recently promoted an aggressive policy designed to develop clusters and reform higher education and research, with a view to bringing together universities, creating centres of excellence, research networks at the local level and promoting connections of both to clusters. The study reveals the existence of a wide variety of configurations and, in spite of globally positive dynamics, highlights areas in which insufficiently well coordinated governmental approaches could be improved. The study also underlines a number of hitherto neglected aspects: a less global approach to institutions should be taken, and analyses of the variety of possible links between science and innovation should be more nuanced. Lastly, the study highlights a profound transformation in the approaches taken by governmental agencies.

The importance of proximity in the field of innovation has been highlighted, notably, in studies which emphasize the growing role of the third mission of the universities, namely, regional economic development. Using an empirical approach, we have attempted to gain an insight into the ways in which networks involving local economic and academic actors are created. This study focuses on France, where the State has recently promoted an aggressive policy designed to develop clusters and reform higher education and research, with a view to bringing together universities, creating centres of excellence, research networks at the local level and promoting connections of both to clusters. The study reveals the existence of a wide variety of configurations and, in spite of globally positive dynamics, highlights areas in which insufficiently well coordinated governmental approaches could be improved. The study also underlines a number of hitherto neglected aspects: a less global approach to institutions should be taken, and analyses of the variety of possible links between science and innovation should be more nuanced. Lastly, the study highlights a profound transformation in the approaches taken by governmental agencies.

The importance of proximity in the field of innovation has been highlighted, notably, in studies on the Triple Helix which emphasize the growing role of the third mission of the universities, namely, regional economic development. Using an empirical approach, we have attempted to gain an insight into the ways in which networks involving local economic and academic actors are created. This study focuses on France, where the State has recently promoted an aggressive policy designed to develop clusters and reform higher education and research by, amongst other things, setting up new regional bodies with a view to bringing together universities and creating centres of excellence networks at the local level. The study reveals the existence of a wide variety of configurations in the regions analyzed and, in spite of globally positive dynamics, highlights areas in which insufficiently well coordinated governmental approaches could be improved. The study also underlines a number of hitherto neglected aspects of the Triple Helix model: the model should take a less global approach to institutions, and analyses of the variety of possible links between science and innovation should be more nuanced. Lastly, the study highlights a profound transformation in the approaches taken by governmental agencies.

The importance of proximity in the field of innovation has been highlighted, notably, in studies on the Triple Helix which emphasize the growing role of the third mission of the universities, namely, regional economic development. Using an empirical approach, we have attempted to gain an insight into the ways in which networks involving local economic and academic actors are created. This study focuses on France, where the State has recently promoted an aggressive policy designed to develop clusters and reform higher education and research by, amongst other things, setting up new regional bodies with a view to bringing together universities and creating centres of excellence networks at the local level. The study reveals the existence of a wide variety of configurations in the regions analyzed and, in spite of globally positive dynamics, highlights areas in which insufficiently well coordinated governmental approaches could be improved. The study also underlines a number of hitherto neglected aspects of the Triple Helix model: the model should take a less global approach to institutions, and analyses of the variety of possible links between science and innovation should be more nuanced. Lastly, the study highlights a profound transformation in the approaches taken by governmental agencies.