A system dynamics model to analyze technology districts' evolution in a knowledge-based perspective

Abstract The current economic scenario is more and more characterised by knowledge as a key element to enhance and foster firms and regions innovation and competitiveness, such as in the case of technology districts. In fact, they represent typical economic systems constituted by economic actors whose success and survival depend on their capability to create new knowledge and, then, innovation. Proximity dimensions (such as geographical, cognitive, and organizational) have been recognized as an important means to increase knowledge creation and diffusion among districts’ actors. In this paper, the complex dynamics generated by knowledge, proximity, and firms agglomeration process inside a technology district are described and formalized adopting a system dynamics model. The model analyses the district evolution according to a knowledge-based perspective ceteris paribus, i.e. given other dimensions such as institutional, economical, and social issues. For each model variable, suitable proxies, mainly based on the notion of patents, are identified. Finally, simulations are provided in order to show how different values of organizational and cognitive proximities can affect the knowledge sharing and the agglomeration process of an actual high-technology district, represented by the aerospace district of Seattle. Results show that as cognitive and organizational proximities increase, district actors can fully exploit the benefits of agglomeration, in terms of knowledge sharing and creation, so favouring the district growth and development.

[1]  R. Boschma.  Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment , 2005 .

[2]  K Galanakis,et al.  Innovation process. Make sense using systems thinking , 2006 .

[3]  Yongtae Park,et al.  On the Measurement of Patent Stock as Knowledge Indicators , 2006 .

[4]  Lynelle Preston,et al.  Sustainability at Hewlett-Packard: From Theory to Practice , 2001 .

[5]  Andrea Bonaccorsi,et al.  Institutional complementarity and inventive performance in nano science and technology , 2007 .

[6]  B. Kogut,et al.  Localization of Knowledge and the Mobility of Engineers in Regional Networks , 1999 .

[7]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  A Dynamic Theory of Expertise and Occupational Boundaries in New Technology Implementation: Building on Barley's Study of CT Scanning , 2004 .

[8]  Chin-Huang Lin,et al.  Elucidating the industrial cluster effect from a system dynamics perspective , 2006 .

[9]  Karen R. Polenske,et al.  The Economic Geography of Innovation: Measuring the geography of innovation: a literature review , 2007 .

[10]  C. Rosen.  Environmental Strategy and Competitive Advantage: An Introduction , 2001 .

[11]  A. Markusen.  Sticky Places in Slippery Space: A Typology of Industrial Districts* , 1996 .

[12]  C. Edquist.  Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations , 1997 .

[13]  R. Boschma,et al.  Evolutionary economics and economic geography , 1999 .

[14]  Yannick Lung,et al.  Innovation and Proximity , 1999 .

[15]  Caroline Hussler,et al.  The impact of cognitive communities on the diffusion of academic knowledge: Evidence from the networks of inventors of a French university , 2007 .

[16]  Paulo Carlos Kaminski,et al.  Knowledge transfer in product development processes: A case study in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) of the metal-mechanic sector from São Paulo, Brazil , 2008 .

[17]  Bart Verspagen,et al.  Knowledge Spillovers in Europe: A Patent Citations Analysis , 2002 .

[18]  Andrea Piccaluga,et al.  Distretti industriali e distretti tecnologici. Modelli possibili per il Mezzogiorno. , 2003 .

[19]  M. Porter.  Clusters and the new economics of competition. , 1998, Harvard business review.

[20]  J. Knoben,et al.  Proximity and Inter-Organizational Collaboration: A Literature Review , 2006 .

[21]  Ulrich Kaiser.  Measuring knowledge spillovers in manufacturing and services: an empirical assessment of alternative approaches , 2002 .

[22]  J.D. Sterman,et al.  Nobody Ever Gets Credit for Fixing Problems That Never Happened: Creating and Sustaining Process Improvement , 2001, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[23]  J.D. Sterman,et al.  System Dynamics Modeling: Tools for Learning in a Complex World , 2001, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[24]  Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli,et al.  Proximity as a communication resource for competitiveness: a rationale for technology clusters , 2007 .

[25]  A. Chandler,et al.  Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128 , 1994 .

[26]  F. Malerba.  Learning by Firms and Incremental Technical Change , 1992 .

[27]  M. Nakagawa,et al.  Changes in the technology spillover structure due to economic paradigm shifts: A driver of the economic revival in Japan's material industry beyond the year 2000 , 2009 .

[28]  P. Saviotti.  On the dynamics of appropriability, of tacit and of codified knowledge , 1998 .

[29]  C. Edquist,et al.  Institutions and Organizations in Systems of Innovation , 2013 .

[30]  Karen R. Polenske,et al.  The Economic Geography of Innovation , 2007 .

[31]  Roberta Capello,et al.  Entrepreneurship and spatial externalities: Theory and measurement , 2002 .

[32]  Rogelio Oliva,et al.  Tradeoffs in Responses to Work Pressure in the Service Industry , 2002, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[33]  W. Diebold,et al.  The Second Industrial Divide , 1985 .

[34]  G. Huber.  Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures , 1991 .

[35]  Z. Griliches,et al.  Citations, Family Size, Opposition and the Value of Patent Rights Have Profited from Comments and Suggestions , 2002 .

[36]  Zvi Griliches,et al.  Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth , 1979 .

[37]  Christophe Sierra,et al.  The Internationalisation of R&D by Multinationals: A Trade-off between External and Internal Proximity , 1999 .

[38]  R. Florida,et al.  Gaining from Green Management: Environmental Management Systems inside and outside the Factory , 2001 .

[39]  Meric S. Gertler,et al.  “Being There”: Proximity, Organization, and Culture in the Development and Adoption of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies , 1995 .

[40]  Eike W. Schamp,et al.  Dimensions of proximity in knowledge-based networks: The cases of investment banking and automobile design , 2004 .

[41]  Corinne Autant-Bernard,et al.  Science and knowledge flows: evidence from the French case , 2001 .

[42]  K. Pavitt,et al.  Patent statistics as indicators of innovative activities: Possibilities and problems , 2005, Scientometrics.

[43]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity , 2007 .

[44]  M. Hosein Fallah,et al.  Drivers of Innovation and Influence of Technological Clusters , 2005 .

[45]  L. Anselin,et al.  Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge , 2002 .

[46]  J. Cantwell,et al.  Recent Location of Foreign-owned Research and Development Activities by Large Multinational Corporations in the European Regions: The Role of Spillovers and Externalities , 2005 .

[47]  Peter Maskell,et al.  Localized Learning and Industrial Competitiveness , 1995 .

[48]  R. Kahn,et al.  The Social Psychology of Organizations , 1966 .

[49]  Jaeyong Song,et al.  Creating new technology through alliances: An empirical investigation of joint patents , 2007 .

[50]  M. Freel,et al.  Sectoral patterns of small firm innovation, networking and proximity , 2003 .

[51]  M. Meeus,et al.  Do Organizational and Spatial Proximity Impact on Firm Performance? , 2005 .

[52]  Maureen McKelvey,et al.  Does co-location matter for formal knowledge collaboration in the Swedish biotechnology-pharmaceutical sector? , 2003 .

[53]  M. Feldman.  The New Economics Of Innovation, Spillovers And Agglomeration: Areview Of Empirical Studies , 1999 .

[54]  John D. Sterman,et al.  System Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World , 2002 .

[55]  M. Storper.  The Limits to Globalization: Technology Districts and International Trade , 1992 .

[56]  Ichiro Sakata,et al.  An analysis of geographical agglomeration and modularized industrial networks in a regional cluster: A case study at Yamagata prefecture in Japan , 2008 .

[57]  A. Burmeister,et al.  Proximity in Production Networks , 1997 .

[58]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[59]  S. Iammarino,et al.  The structure and evolution of industrial clusters: Transactions, technology and knowledge spillovers , 2006 .

[60]  A. Kaasa,et al.  Effects of Different Dimensions of Social Capital on Innovation: Evidence from Europe at the Regional Level , 2007 .

[61]  Stephen Tallman,et al.  Knowledge, clusters, and competitive advantage , 2004 .

[62]  M. Gittelman,et al.  Patent Citations as a Measure of Knowledge Flows: The Influence of Examiner Citations , 2006, The Review of Economics and Statistics.

[63]  Jin-Li Hu,et al.  The more interactive, the more innovative? A case study of South Korean cellular phone manufacturers , 2008 .

[64]  C. Antonelli.  Collective Knowledge Communication and Innovation: The Evidence of Technological Districts , 2000 .

[65]  André Torre,et al.  Proximity and Localization , 2005 .

[66]  Astrid Szogs,et al.  A system of innovation? Biomass digestion technology in Tanzania. , 2008 .

[67]  Fredrick Flyer,et al.  Agglomeration economies, firm heterogeneity, and foreign direct investment in the United States , 2000 .

[68]  Alf Erko Lublinski.  Does Geographic Proximity Matter? Evidence from Clustered and Non-clustered Aeronautic Firms in Germany , 2003 .

[69]  M. V. Glinow,et al.  High technology organizations: Context, organization and people , 1990 .

[70]  Bronwyn H Hall,et al.  Market value and patent citations , 2005 .

[71]  A. Shaw,et al.  On the Analytical Dimension of Proximity Dynamics , 2000 .

[72]  C. Prahalad,et al.  The Core Competence of the Corporation , 1990 .

[73]  S. Breschi,et al.  Knowledge Spillovers And Local Innovation Systems: A Critical Survey , 2001 .

[74]  E. Garnsey,et al.  High‐technology clustering through spin‐out and attraction: The Cambridge case , 2005 .

[75]  Paul Almeida,et al.  Knowledge sourcing by foreign multinationals: Patent citation analysis in the U.S. semiconductor industry , 1996 .

[76]  B. Nooteboom.  Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies , 2000 .

[77]  Wilbur Chung,et al.  Resource-Seeking Agglomeration: A Study of Market Entry in the Lodging Industry , 2004 .

[78]  W. Arthur,et al.  INCREASING RETURNS AND LOCK-IN BY HISTORICAL EVENTS , 1989 .

[79]  M. Feldman,et al.  R&D spillovers and the ge-ography of innovation and production , 1996 .