Innovation, proximity, and knowledge gatekeepers - is proximity a necessity for learning and innovation?

Organisational desire for innovation and growth can be best achieved when they are in proximity. Geographical or technological proximity represent network structure in which a focal organisation is embedded, which has structural, cognitive and relational dimensions. Proximity influences innovation indirectly by its influence on agents' ability to exchange and combine knowledge in four related ways: by giving access to exchange partners that provide opportunities for learning, increasing the anticipation of value, increasing the motivation to exchange, and by giving access to resources necessary for committing exchanges.

[1]  Roberta Capello,et al.  INDIVISIBILITIES, SYNERGY AND PROXIMITY: THE NEED FOR AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO AGGLOMERATION ECONOMIES , 2009 .

[2]  K. Law,et al.  Interrelationships among knowledge management, organisational learning and innovation , 2011 .

[3]  A. Teixeira,et al.  The ‘de-territorialisation of closeness’ - a typology of international successful R&D projects involving cultural and geographic proximity , 2006 .

[4]  T. Allen.  Managing the flow of technology , 1977 .

[5]  A. Torre,et al.  Geographical Proximity and Circulation of Knowledge through Inter-Firm Cooperation , 2004 .

[6]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits , 1999 .

[7]  David Doloreux,et al.  Regional networks of small and medium sized enterprises: evidence from the Metropolitan Area of Ottawa in Canada1 , 2004 .

[8]  Leon A.G. Oerlemans,et al.  Regional Innovation Networks , 2007 .

[9]  Gareth Rees,et al.  Cities and regions in the new learning economy , 2001 .

[10]  J. March.  Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[11]  Dominic Power,et al.  On the Role of Global Demand in Local Innovation Processes , 2005 .

[12]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Innovation, Learning and Industrial Organisation , 1999 .

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

[14]  Rosalinde Klein Woolthuis,et al.  The Institutional Arrangements of Innovation: Antecedents and Performance Effects of Trust in High‐Tech Alliances , 2008 .

[15]  Stacy Huey-Pyng Shyu,et al.  Establishing interrelationships among organisational learning, innovation and performance , 2012 .

[16]  A. Bonaccorsi,et al.  Why Open Source Software Can Succeed , 2002 .

[17]  S. Sundqvist,et al.  Measuring inter-organizational trust—a critical review of the empirical research in 1990–2003 , 2007 .

[18]  Stefano Breschi,et al.  Localised knowledge spillovers vs. innovative milieux: Knowledge “tacitness” reconsidered , 2001 .

[19]  James G. March,et al.  The Study of Organizations and Organizing Since 1945 , 2007 .

[20]  Sjoerd Beugelsdijk,et al.  'A Far Friend is Worth More than a Good Neighbour': Proximity and Innovation in a Small Country , 2002 .

[21]  N. Alderman.  Mobility versus Embeddedness: the Role of Proximity in Major Capital Projects , 2005 .

[22]  Innovation and organisational trust: study of firms in Poland , 2011 .

[23]  Sergios Dimitriadis,et al.  Learning strategies, behaviours and outputs during the service innovation process , 2011 .

[24]  Nick Henry,et al.  From ‘industrial districts’ to ‘knowledge clusters’: a model of knowledge dissemination and competitive advantage in industrial agglomerations , 2003 .

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

[26]  H. Yeung.  Industrial Clusters and Production Networks in Southeast Asia: A Global Production Networks Approach , 2008 .

[27]  Mark S. Granovetter.  Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

[28]  Agnieszka Leszczyńska,et al.  Entrepreneurship and innovativeness: in search of the interrelationships , 2011 .

[29]  S. Ghoshal,et al.  Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage , 1998 .

[30]  Jan W. Rivkin,et al.  Complexity, Networks and Knowledge Flow , 2002 .

[31]  Andrea Morrison,et al.  Gatekeepers of Knowledge within Industrial Districts: Who They Are, How They Interact , 2008 .

[32]  Wesley Shrum,et al.  Trust, Conflict and Performance in Scientific Collaborations , 2001 .

[33]  J. Howells.  Tacit Knowledge, Innovation and Economic Geography , 2002 .

[34]  Diane H. Sonnenwald,et al.  Contested Collaboration: A Descriptive Model of Intergroup Communication in Information System Design , 1995, Inf. Process. Manag..

[35]  A. Scott.  Geography and economy , 2006 .

[36]  Ely Laureano Paiva,et al.  Organisational knowledge and industry dynamism: an empirical analysis , 2008 .

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

[38]  B. Lundvall.  Dynamics of Industry and Innovation: Organizations, Networks and Systems National Innovation Systems -analytical Concept and Development Tool National Innovation Systems -analytical Concept and Development Tool National Innovation Systems -analytical Concept and Development Tool , 2022 .

[39]  Charles Edquist,et al.  Systems of Innovation Approaches - Their Emergence and Characteristics , 2013 .

[40]  S. Breschi,et al.  Mobility of Skilled Workers and Co-Invention Networks: An Anatomy of Localized Knowledge Flows , 2009 .

[41]  Ángeles Montoro-Sánchez,et al.  Determining factors in the success of R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organizations , 2004 .

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

[43]  Henry Wai-chung Yeung,et al.  Regional Development and the Competitive Dynamics of Global Production Networks: An East Asian Perspective , 2009 .

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