1 / 36

Oliver Plum Dept. of Geography, University of Kiel, Germany Robert Hassink

Constructing Regional Advantage in Knowledge-based Industries: The case of the Biotechnology Industry in the Technology Region Aachen, Germany. Oliver Plum Dept. of Geography, University of Kiel, Germany Robert Hassink Dept. of Geography, University of Kiel, Germany

oona
Download Presentation

Oliver Plum Dept. of Geography, University of Kiel, Germany Robert Hassink

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Constructing Regional Advantage in Knowledge-based Industries:The case of the Biotechnology Industry in the Technology Region Aachen, Germany Oliver Plum Dept. of Geography, University of Kiel, Germany Robert Hassink Dept. of Geography, University of Kiel, Germany Dept. of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, Norway 7th European Urban & Regional Studies Conference Istanbul, 2008 Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  2. Constructing Regional Advantage Preliminary classification ofcase studies in Germany Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  3. Objective and central questions Objective: Fine-tuning of policy tools to construct regional advantage  Central questions based on theoretical framework: • What are the main characteristics of the RIS in the TR Aachen with focus on biotech? • What type of knowledge base is dominating the knowledge transfer? • Are there links between different complementary sectors? (related variety) • Local buzz and global pipelines? • How intensive is the knowledge transfer within the TR Aachen? • Is the Biotech-RIS well connected with global knowledge resources? Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  4. Outline • Technology Region Aachen • RIS of TR Aachen with focus on biotechnology industry • Social Network Analysis (SNA) of the biotechnology industry in TR Aachen • Conclusions • Open questions and next steps Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  5. Source: Ministerium fuer Bauen und Verkehr NRW 2008 Source: Umweltbundesamt 2008 Technology Region Aachen TR Aachen: Location in Germany and North Rhine-Westphalia Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  6. Source: Agit 2008 Technology Region Aachen TR Aachen – Facts & Figures • area: 3.526 km² • population: 1,3 Mio. • Aachen population: 257.000 • Various technology-oriented industrial fields • Important poles for biotech industry: Aachen and Juelich Juelich Aachen Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  7. …from old-industrial to technology oriented Decline of dominant old industries (coal mining, textile) during second half of 20th century Restructuring Policies since mid of 1980s: Stronger focus on endogenous technological potentials of universities and public research organizations Foundation of AGIT 13 technology parks Today regional strengths in various technology-oriented industrial fields: life sciences, automotive & rail engineering, ICT, innovative production engineering, advanced materials, regenerative energies Technology Region Aachen Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  8. Financial services • S-UBG AG • S-VC GmbH • Seed Fonds Aachen • Network organization • LifeTecAachen-Juelich e.V. • 13 technology parks / incubators • Office of Technology Transfer • (RWTH Aachen) • Business development agencies • Chamber of Industry and Commerce • AGIT mbH • Local and regional governments Thick Supportive infrastructure 28 firms Emerging Knowledge exploitation subsystem RWTH Aachen University (RWTH Aachen) Aachen University of Applied Sciences (FH Aachen) Forschungszentrum Juelich (FZJ) Strong Knowledge generation subsystem Biotech-RIS of TR Aachen Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  9. SNA of the Biotechnology Industry in TR Aachen Input for SNA • Empirical methods: • Interviews • Desktop research • Population: N = 28 • Interviews: 24 • Non-Response: 4 • Response-Rate: 86% Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  10. SNA of the Biotechnology Industry in TR Aachen Characteristics of interviewed firms • Mainly small firms • Many spin-offs of RWTH Aachen University and FZ Juelich • Young industry • Different biotech-fields Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  11. SNA of the Biotechnology Industry in TR Aachen description of relation attributes of firms Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  12. SNA of the Biotechnology Industry in TR Aachen Technology Knowledge Network Market Knowledge Network n=210 n=157 95 Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  13. Contact types – interviewed firms TN Supplier Customer Competitor University / Res.-Org Co-operation partner other Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  14. Contact types – TR Aachen TN Supplier Customer Competitor University / Res.-Org Co-operation partner other Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  15. Contact types – North Rhine-Westphalia TN Supplier Customer Competitor University / Res.-Org Co-operation partner other Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  16. Contact types – Germany TN Supplier Customer Competitor University / Res.-Org Co-operation partner other Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  17. Contact types – Europe TN Supplier Customer Competitor University / Res.-Org Co-operation partner other Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  18. Contact types – global TN Supplier Customer Competitor University / Res.-Org Co-operation partner other Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  19. Three types of organisation TN Knowledge exploiting orgs Knowledge generating orgs Supportive infrastructure Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  20. Contact importance for innovation TN Knowledge exploiting orgs large importance … … small importance Knowledge generating orgs Supportive infrastructure Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  21. Similarity of exchanged technological knowledge TN very similar … … not similar Knowledge exploiting orgs Knowledge generating orgs Supportive infrastructure Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  22. Contact knowledge type TN practical scientific both Knowledge exploiting orgs Knowledge generating orgs Supportive infrastructure Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  23. Variety of sectors TN Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  24. Variety of sectors TN MAIN activity NACE 2.0 R&D on biotechnology 72.11 R&D on natural sciences and engineering excluding biotechnology 72.19 Technical testing and analysis 71.20 Manufacture of basic pharmaceutical products/pharm. preparations 21.10/21.20 Manufacture of chemicals and chemical products 20… Wholesale of pharmaceutical goods 46.46 University institute 85.42 Clinic or Institute belonging to university hospital 86.10.2 Research organisations 94.99.1 Manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products 26.20/26.51/26.60 Manufacture of medico-technical instruments and supplies n.e.c. 32.50 Business membership organisations 94.11 Business development agencies 84.13 Financial service and legal activities 64.99, 69.10 Management consultancy activities 70.22 others Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  25. Variety of sectors TN Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  26. Variety of sectors – Biotech R&D activities TN 50% of all links Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  27. Contact types MN Supplier Customer Competitor University / Res.-Org Co-operation partner other Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  28. Three types of organisation MN Knowledge exploiting orgs Knowledge generating orgs Supportive infrastructure Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  29. Contact importance for innovation MN Knowledge exploiting orgs large importance … … small importance Knowledge generating orgs Supportive infrastructure Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  30. Similarity of exchanged market knowledge MN very similar … … not similar Knowledge exploiting orgs Knowledge generating orgs Supportive infrastructure Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  31. Variety of sectors MN Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  32. Spatial level Technological knowledge network Market knowledge network TR Aachen Links to knowledge generation system dominating Supportive infrastructure partly relevant Extra-regional Links to knowledge exploiting systemdominating Links to knowledge generation organisations also important Results based on SNA (I) Which innovation-subsystem is dominant source for contacts? Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  33. Description of relations Technological knowledge network Market knowledge network Contact types TR Aachen: Research orgs. dominating extra-regional: All contact types extra-regional: Customers dominating Contact importance for innovation TR Aachen + extra-regional: Mixture of contacts with varying importance and similarity Contact similarity Contact knowledge types TR Aachen+extra-regional: Both knowledge types vital - Results based on SNA (II) Description of firm relations Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  34. Conclusions What type of knowledge base is dominating the knowledge transfer? • Analytical as well as synthetic knowledge bases are of importance Are there links between different complementary sectors? (related var.) • High variety of sectors within the Biotech-RIS  potentially complementary? • Related variety only in terms of extra-regional networks Local buzz? • Rich knowledge transfer between knowledge exploiting and knowledge generating sector • Poor knowledge transfer between regional firms Global pipelines? • Strong interactions between regional and extra-regional actors Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  35. Conclusions Classification: Biotech-Industry in the TR Aachen Biotech TR Aachen Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

  36. Open questions and next steps Open questions: • What are the main barriers that explain the weak intraregional knowledge transfer between biotechnology firms? • Are regional innovation policies sufficient and fine tuned to construct regional advantage? Next steps: • Conceptual analysis of policy instruments • Goal orientation • Tools • Process • Further analysis of extensive empirical data based on interviews Oliver Plum, Robert Hassink, 2008

More Related