Authors: Bjørn Erik Mørk; Synnøve Rubach; Thomas Hoholm
Innovation policies in European contexts have for the last decades focused on inter-organizational relations as the perhaps most important means for enhancing innovation. In particular, the notions of clusters and of innovation systems have had huge impact on European (and other) innovation policies. However, when examining closer these policies we see that these often policies lack a deeper understanding of the substantial aspects of networks: what they consist of, and how they are shaped and maintained. Hence, many policies and policy instruments aiming for the creation and fostering of innovation networks (or clusters or innovation systems) seem to rest on relatively naïve conceptions of networks. In this paper we discuss policy practices for constructing and/or developing networks for innovation and learning. By contrasting this with insights from industrial network studies (IMP) (Cantù & Corsaro, 2011: Håkansson et al., 2009: Shih, 2010: Waluszewski, 2006: Ingemansson & Bygballe, 2011), we are able to shed light on the challenges of policy interventions when aiming for the creation of innovation networks in practice, as well as discussing the role of policy instruments in industrial networks. The empirical basis for our discussion is partly a recent study of a large project with several sub-projects within the Programme for Regional R&D and Innovation (VRI), a support program for regional innovation in the Research Council of Norway (Rubach, 2011), and partly an ongoing study of the follow-up project (VRI II). These projects span several industrial sectors and run over 3-4 years. Data has been gathered through participant observation, interviews and documents throughout the lifetime of the projects. In the process of finishing the first project (VRI I) and seeking funding for a follow-up project (VRI II), some of the sectors from the first project were excluded mainly with the rationale that they had received enough funding, and that it now was time for new sectors to be given the opportunity. Hence, a sector with high impact in the region (recycling) and a couple of other sectors were left out, instead taking in new sectors (construction, energy, healthcare). During the first project period, the recycling network was broadly conceived as a success, leading to a long term business project between the actors. In the first attempt at mobilizing funding for a second project period – which was rejected – a follow up was planned for this network, related to a fraction of the recycling network with a particular need for developing innovative solutions (construction waste handling). It turns out that this network is/was not able to run such innovation network projects without external support because they lack the resources and capacity to manage the activities. Hence, they are now having problems maintaining substance on the network. Another network which was also left out of VRI II is now falling apart, and the participants argue that they lack resources to maintain network activities, and that they need more members to increase activity levels. From these empirical materials we pose a set of research questions: • What is can be achieved via policy practices (political and economic), and how? • To what extent should policy initiated (constructed) networks be sought to be kept alive by ‘external’ resources and for how long? • To what extent should it be a goal that they become self-propelling? Is it a goal for them to become integrated in the core business (i.e.the business network)? Or do they serve their purpose (for instance knowledge-generation) over the time span of the project (such networks are often project-based)? The classic OD text of Cummings (1980) makes a distinction between the exchange approach and the power/dependency approach. In the exchange approach relationships are characterized by a high degree of cooperation and problem solving (Cummings, 1980), where the linkages are symmetrical (Schmidt & Kochan, in Cummings, 1980: 325). Here the foci are on exploring areas of mutual benefit, maximizing joint benefit, and thus on ‘complimentary exchanges’ (Cummings, 1980). In contrast in the power/dependency approach relationships are characterized by a high degree of bargaining and conflict (Cummings, 1980), where the linkages are asymmetrical (Benson: Schmidt & Kochan, in Cummings, 1980: 325). Relationships may be formed even when one organization is motivated to interact while the other is not. The motivated actor is powerful enough to induce the other to interact – so-called power/dependency linkages (Cummings, 1980). This is partly parallel to our comparison of what we call ‘constructed’ and ‘emerging’ organizational networks, where the aims of constructed networks tend to resemble Cummings’ exchange approach, and the dynamic of emergent networks include conflict and friction (Hoholm & Olsen, forthcoming 2012). However, to balance this view, we would argue that (1) there will be conflict in constructed networks, although it is likely to threaten the network and lead to its fragmentation, and (2) there are lots of complementary exchanges in emergent networks, alongside power games, friction and conflict.From the perspective of the innovation networks that were established in VRI I, it seems problematic to remove areas that were funded in the previous round, since these innovation networks may easily lose momentum and fall apart. The networks in our study had not become self-propelling, and one obvious question is whether this should be the aim, or if this kind of networks needs continuous facilitation by designated actors: someone with a plan, a process, a vision, someone mobilizing the interests of the network partners (Haga, 2007). On the other hand, recent studies have emphasized the need for ‘mobilizing relevance’ and developing ‘relevance structures’ in order to give momentum to emerging networks (Koefoed, 2011: Garud & Karnøe, 2001). Particularly small businesses seem to lack the capacity for managing and facilitating innovation networks, even if they acknowledge the value of participating. And without such networks they may lose out on interaction and learning opportunities. On the other hand, from an industrial network perspective, a main reason for such network initiatives being short-lived and sometimes with minimal impact is another side to the same issue: Innovation/learning networks represent activities on the side of core business. The effort to create arenas on the side of daily business is intended because of the need to have time and space for reflecting on different ways of doing things, and perhaps even to explore alternative interaction opportunities together with other network participants. But at the same time, this means that such activities are experienced as being less relevant to business: they happen (partly) with other actors, and they (partly) center on non-core (or not-yet-core) business projects and practices. In this paper we explore how daily activities leave little time and space available for developing new networks, which will often be experienced as ‘disturbing’ core business activities. Moreover, we will emphasize how the lack of internal arenas to absorb and deal with learning in the network – and lack of internal anchoring (Rubach, 2011) may limit the impact innovation networks. To sum up, the main issues at stake here are twofold. First, there seems to be a lack of understanding for the substantial aspects of networks among policy makers and actor-oriented researchers. From an IMP point of view, the substance of networks are to a large extent made of activity links and resource combinations, independent of who are subjectively counted as network actors in social network analyses, innovation systems mappings, or cluster analyses. In related theories, the substance of networks is analysed via concepts like heterogeneous engineering (Law, 1994), path creation (Garud & Karnøe, 2001), or practice (Orlikowski, 2000). From this point of view, networks cannot be made out of nothing: they are socially and historically situated, and are shaped by previous investments and common practices. Second, it is important to discuss what can be achieved via policy interventions and how. Hence, we contrast the two perspectives, and use empirical examples to illustrate our arguments. In particular we emphasize in what way constructed networks and similar policy interventions may have impact, and how policy interventions should relate to established practice (emergent networks) to maximize their benefits and impact.
Journal: n.a. (n.a. – n.a.)
Web Address: n.a.
Publish Year: 2012
Conference: Rome, Italy (2012)