Innovation Cluster Research

8/8/2019 Innovation Cluster Research

1/38

Innovation Cluster Research

Linkages in the New BrunswickICT Innovation Cluster: Where are

the Corners of the Diamond?


2/38

Davis and Schaefer, 2003

About as big astourism sector

High reported rate

of innovation

Export-oriented

Most are small,young, locally-

owned firms

Very high growth

rate


3/38

Definitions ofcluster require

specification of the

nature and scope of

local inter-firm

traded and

untraded

interdependencies,

which may resultfrom co-location of

related firms, co-

located segments of

a value chain, or

inter-firm networks

(Gordon and

McCann, 2000).


4/38

A Porter Cluster? - Goals

?Evaluate New Brunswick IT industry interms of Porters model

?Determine degree and perceivedsignificance of co-location of factors asperceived by the interviewees


5/38

A Porter Cluster? -

Methodology

?Questionnaire

?Open and Closed ended questions

?30 pages in length

?Minimum 1 hour to complete

?Sample size 44

?Selection Criteria


6/38

Customers


7/38

Innovative Customers

Innovative Customers

38 86.4

5 11.4

1 2.3

44 100.0

Yes

No

No Response

Total

Frequency Percent


8/38

Location of Innovative Customers# of Respondents

Indicating InnovativeCustomers in the Region

# of Innovative

Customers

New Brunswick 14 27 (14.7%)

Atlantic CanadaExcept New

Brunswick

4 10 (5.4%)

Rest of Canada 13 20 (10.8%)

USA Only 21 98 (53.3%)

International ExceptUSA

13 29 (15.8%)

Total 184


9/38

Co-location and Competitive

DisadvantageCompetitive Disadvantage - Customer Distance

21 47.719 43.2

2 4.5

2 4.5

44 100.0

YesNo

Not Applicable

No Response

Total

Frequency Percent


10/38

Competitors


11/38

Location of Major Competitors

Location of Major Competitors

10

1

12

34

13

70

New Brunswick

Atlantic Canada Excluding New Brunswick

Canada Excluding Atlantic Canada

USA

International Excluding USA

Total

Frequency


12/38

Importance of Monitoring

CompetitorsImportance of Monitoring Competitors

1 2.3

10 22.7

14 31.8

2 4.5

14 31.8

3 6.8

44 100.0

1.0

3.0

4.0

4.5

5.0

No Response

Total

Frequency Percent


13/38

Difficulty in Monitoring

CompetitorsDifficulty in Monitoring Competitors

9 20.5

7 15.9

8 18.2

4 9.1

10 22.7

1 2.3

5 11.4

44 100.0

Not Applicable

1

2

3

4

5

No Response

Total

Frequency Percent


14/38

Competitor Distance

Competitive Disadvantage - Competitor Distance

7 15.9

25 56.8

6 13.6

6 13.6

44 100.0

Yes

No

Not Applicable

No Response

Total

Frequency Percent


15/38

Suppliers


16/38

Critical Suppliers

Critical Suppliers

16 36.4

27 61.4

1 2.3

44 100.0

Yes

No

No Response

Total

Frequency Percent


17/38

Location of Critical Suppliers

Location of Critical Suppliers

5 17.2

1 3.5

7 24.1

10 34.5

6 20.7

29 100.0

New Brunswick

Atlantic Canada Excluding New Brunsw


USA


Total

requency Percent


18/38

Co-Location and

Competitive Disadvantage

Competitive Disadvantage - Supplier Distance

4 25.0

12 75.0

16 100.0

Yes

No

Total

Frequency Percent


19/38

Research Institutes


20/38

Research Partners

Collaboration with R&D Institutions Other Than NRC

13 29.5

23 52.3

8 18.2

44 100.0

Yes

No

No Response

Total

Frequency Percent


21/38

Location of Research

Institutes

Location of Research Institutes Used (Excluding NRC)

9

3

7

3

1

23

New Brunswick

Atlantic Canada Excluding New Brunswick


USA


Total

Frequency


22/38

Competitive Disadvantage of

Not Co-Locating

Does Geographic Distance Negatively Affect Your

Relationships With Outside Research Institutes?

13 29.5

16 36.4

15 34.1

44 100.0

Yes

No

No Response

Total

Frequency Percent


23/38

Benefits of Moving

Would Your Company Gain A CompetitiveAdvantage by Moving to a Metropolitan Area?

15 34.1

26 59.1

1 2.3

2 4.5

44 100.0

Yes

No

Not Sure

No Response

Total

Frequency Percent


24/38

Research Issues

?Significant differences were foundamong company responses in relationto :? Importance of co-location of customers

? Importance of co-location of competitors

?Can the difference in importance giveguidance where co-location is

necessary, desirable, critical?


25/38

Market linkages, firmperformance, and innovation


26/38


27/38


28/38


29/38


30/38

Quadrant 1:

independent

exporters (65 firms)

Quadrant 2: branches

and subsidiaries that

export (11 firms)

Quadrant 4:

independent firms

that export little or

not at all (84 firms)

Quadrant 3: branches

and subsidiaries that

export little or not at all

(19 firms)


31/38

quadrant

4.003.002.001.00Missing

SumG

rossRevenues

fromI

Tsales(estimat

ed)

200000

100000

0

340.79 138.33 111.88 59.41% change in Reven

past 3 years

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00

quadrant


32/38


33/38


34/38

gazelles

?Firms that experience much higher thanaverage growth rates

?In this study, gazelles are firms that

have grown more than 73% in the threeyears between 1999 and 2001 and haverevenue of at least $100K

?By these criteria, 56 NB IT firms are

gazelles


35/38

quadrant

4.003.002.001.00Missing

Sumgazelle

40

30

20

10

0


36/38


37/38

gazelle

1.00.00Missing

Sum

300000

200000

100000

0

2001 international I

T revenues

2001 US IT revenues

2001 Canada IT reven

ues

2001 Atlantic Canada

IT revenues

2001 New Brunswick I

T revenues


38/38

Innovation Cluster Research

Documents

Transcript of Innovation Cluster Research