Embedding Stand-Alone, ‘Local Buzz’ and ‘Global Pipeline’ Firms; a Plea for a Less Traditional Regional Innovation Policy

This paper deals with the policy implications of a research project based on a non-traditional approach to innovation measurement in a Dutch region. This region is characterized by an ‘innovation paradox’, as it lodges large numbers of ‘creative’ people while it also underperforms in traditional innovation measurements. A survey among experts regarding regional innovation yields large numbers of innovative firms in a wide range of industries, which in traditional studies would partly go unnoticed. Further data analysis reveals that innovation in the region has no clear face in terms of firms and sectors. This is due to the embroynic state of clustering in different subsectors, the mostly social and informal nature of network ties between entrepreneurs in the region, the international level at which much innovation-oriented networking takes place, and the lack of connectivity between the latter networks and local informal networks and the embryonic clusters. In terms of their innovation profile, firms in the region are strong in creative, non-technical and combined forms of innovation. So, dynamic capabilities especially show up ‘downstream’, connecting novelty with clients and markets, and translating this into change management and new practices. Next, we found that firms strategically engage in innovation ventures, in the three ways that were explained before by Bathelt et al. (2004), i.e. seeking and combining international knowledge with one’s own (constructing ‘global pipelines’), strengthening regional ties, identity, contact and linkages (‘local buzz’), and relying on one’s own resources for innovation (‘stand alone’ strategy). One challenge for policy is to exploit these three strategies of firms. Such can be done in three ways. One is to use the abundant social capital in the region, with a view to strengthening the economic relevance of existing local networks by constructing and extending ‘global pipelines’. The second is to display leadership and formulate a ‘community argument’ for innovation (dealing with the following sub questions: why must I innovate, why must I interact in networks and clusters, and why should I do so at different spatial scales?), thus strategically reorienting the available ‘local buzz’ and enhancing its economic relevance. Together, these two proposals serve the purpose of stimulating knowledge flows ‘outside-in’ and ‘inside-out’ (cf. Wolfe & Gertler 2005). The third is to correct for the policy myopia on cluster and network initiatives. The price we pay for the Porterian approach to clustering (cf. Martin & Sunley 2003; Hospers 2005) is that a significant number of firms in the region under review that individually engage in innovation processes, are not part of ‘global pipeline’ and ‘local buzz’ processes. Hence, they do not enrich nor benefit from these processes, and may thus relatively easy leave the region. Finally, they may be less effective in innovation, in terms of speed and the market fit of new products and processes. So, both from a regional and firm-level perspective, stand-alone firms merit attention.

Beyond clusters: Fostering innovation through a differentiated and combined network approach

Over the past decades, economic and innovation policy across Europe moved in the direction of creating regional clusters of related firms and institutions. Creating clusters through public policy is risky, complex and costly, however. Moreover, it is not necessary to rely on clusters to stimulate innovation. A differentiated and combined network approach to enhancing innovation and stimulating economic growth may be more efficient and effective, especially though not exclusively in regions lacking clusters. The challenge of such a policy is to mitigate the bottlenecks associated with ‘global pipeline’, ‘local buzz’ and ‘stand alone’ strategies used by innovative firms (cf. Bathelt et al. 2004; Atzema & Visser 2005b), and to combine these strategies with a view to their complementarity in terms of knowledge effects. Private and semi-public brokers will be key in the evolving policy, as timely organizational change is crucial for continued innovation, while brokers also need to mitigate governance problems. This requires region-specific knowledge in terms of sectors, life cycles, institutional and socio-cultural factors, and yields spatially differentiated and differentiating adjustment strategies. The role of public policy is to assist in recruiting, provide start-up funding and monitor brokers. With this, policy moves towards a decentralized, process-based, region-specific, spatially diverging and multi-level system of innovation that is geared towards the evolving innovation strategies of firms.innovation policy, clusters, networks, governance, regionalization

Transaction costs, logistics and the spatial-functional dynamics of supply chains

Whether one takes a manufacturing, logistics or supply chain perspective, three trends appear to drive on continuous and substantial change in the business world. Firstly, the long-term trend in economic policy-making is one of liberalising and deregulating markets as well as privatising state-owned operations, enabling the internationalisation of economies and firms. Secondly, the long-term trend in consumer markets is one of more diversity, change and complexity of products ('mass customisation') along with the globalisation of markets (enhancing the importance of 'global brands'). Thirdly, technological development in the areas of transport, information and communication allow for increased flexibility and specialisation in production logistics and supply chains. This paper discerns several interrelated patterns of strategic adjustment of firms to the above trends in the general business environment. One is to focus on core competences. Businesses specialise in a limited set of operations where their core skills lie, outcontracting those beyond. Inter-firm division of labour in a network context has thus become a major pathway to enhanced productivity and innovation. Supply chains can be conceived as vertical networks of manufacturing, logistics and retail businesses. Here, three additional patterns of change can be observed: the reversal, integration and glocalisation of supply chains. Postponed manufacturing, EDCs and e-logistics are expressions of these patterns. However, the available empirical evidence on postponement applications in Northwest Europe and the Dutch logistics sector suggests that adjustment falls short of expectations. In this paper, we formulate the hypothesis that the observed patterns of adjustment in logistics and supply chains can be explained by looking at three cost types and related constraints that firms face in the adjustment process. These are - the costs of transforming raw materials into final products: the so-called 'transformation' (or production) costs; - the costs of bridging time and space barriers: 'logistics costs'; and - the costs of transfering ownership in market transactions or coordinating an inter-firm division of labour and managing risks (of relying on specialised partners) in a business network context: the so-called 'transaction costs' % cf. Coase and Williamson). Transformation and logistics costs are subject to optimalisation trade-offs; these are taken into account in current theorising on logistics and supply chain developments. Transaction costs, however, are to be reduced by designing adequate 'governance structures' (static perspective), or by relying on various trust-building mechanisms that allow for inter-firm division of labour to proceed across the transformation/logistics interface (dynamic perspective). Clearly, this last influences the location decisions of firms and the prospects for regional development. For a more recent version of this article see Visser, E.J., and Lambooy, J.G. 2005. A dynamic transaction cost perspective on fourth party logistic service development. Geographische Zeitschrift 92 (1+2): 5-2

Embedding Stand-Alone, 'Local Buzz' and 'Global Pipeline' Firms; a Plea for a Less Traditional Regional Innovation Policy

This paper deals with the policy implications of a research project based on a non-traditional approach to innovation measurement in a Dutch region. This region is characterized by an 'innovation paradox', as it lodges large numbers of 'creative' people while it also underperforms in traditional innovation measurements. A survey among experts regarding regional innovation yields large numbers of innovative firms in a wide range of industries, which in traditional studies would partly go unnoticed. Further data analysis reveals that innovation in the region has no clear face in terms of firms and sectors. This is due to the embroynic state of clustering in different subsectors, the mostly social and informal nature of network ties between entrepreneurs in the region, the international level at which much innovation-oriented networking takes place, and the lack of connectivity between the latter networks and local informal networks and the embryonic clusters. In terms of their innovation profile, firms in the region are strong in creative, non-technical and combined forms of innovation. So, dynamic capabilities especially show up 'downstream', connecting novelty with clients and markets, and translating this into change management and new practices. Next, we found that firms strategically engage in innovation ventures, in the three ways that were explained before by Bathelt et al. (2004), i.e. seeking and combining international knowledge with one's own (constructing 'global pipelines'), strengthening regional ties, identity, contact and linkages ('local buzz'), and relying on one's own resources for innovation ('stand alone' strategy). One challenge for policy is to exploit these three strategies of firms. Such can be done in three ways. One is to use the abundant social capital in the region, with a view to strengthening the economic relevance of existing local networks by constructing and extending 'global pipelines'. The second is to display leadership and formulate a 'community argument' for innovation (dealing with the following sub questions: why must I innovate, why must I interact in networks and clusters, and why should I do so at different spatial scales?), thus strategically reorienting the available 'local buzz' and enhancing its economic relevance. Together, these two proposals serve the purpose of stimulating knowledge flows 'outside-in' and 'inside-out' (cf. Wolfe & Gertler 2005). The third is to correct for the policy myopia on cluster and network initiatives. The price we pay for the Porterian approach to clustering (cf. Martin & Sunley 2003; Hospers 2005) is that a significant number of firms in the region under review that individually engage in innovation processes, are not part of 'global pipeline' and 'local buzz' processes. Hence, they do not enrich nor benefit from these processes, and may thus relatively easy leave the region. Finally, they may be less effective in innovation, in terms of speed and the market fit of new products and processes. So, both from a regional and firm-level perspective, stand-alone firms merit attention

From outsourcing logistics towards interactive learning in the supply chain: drivers, bottlenecks, enablers, and spatial effects

This paper focuses on factors driving, hindering and enabling a transformation of arm's length outsourcing linkages in supply chains into strategic partnerships between MNEs and core logistic service providers, and on the effects for logistic product and process innovation, the spatial structure of supply chains, and the location preferences of innovating logistic companies. In a setting of deregulation, globalisation, technological change in transport and communication, and ongoing changes in consumer demand, MNEs and their logistic specialists may engage in strategic partnerships so as to develop the competences required to effectively manage global supply chains with a view to lower costs and enhancing service. This introduces problems of governance and competence, however, and therewith, transaction costs (Coase 1991, Williamson 1985, Nooteboom 1999), power, trust (Nooteboom 2002), learning-by-interaction (Nooteboom 1992, 2000), lock-in and path dependence (Boschma, Frenken & Lambooy 2002). This paper investigates the relevance of these factors in the case of the development of a partnership between a Netherlands-based global logistic service provider and several of its clients. Case-study evidence is thus used for developing an integrated theoretical framework fit to study the commercial, logistic and spatial effects of current developments in the logistic service industry

Comparing the cumulative live birth rate of cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfers between IVF cycles:a study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled superiority trial (the ToF trial)

Introduction In vitro fertilisation (IVF) has evolved as an intervention of choice to help couples with infertility to conceive. In the last decade, a strategy change in the day of embryo transfer has been developed. Many IVF centres choose nowadays to transfer at later stages of embryo development, for example, transferring embryos at blastocyst stage instead of cleavage stage. However, it still is not known which embryo transfer policy in IVF is more efficient in terms of cumulative live birth rate (cLBR), following a fresh and the subsequent frozen-thawed transfers after one oocyte retrieval. Furthermore, studies reporting on obstetric and neonatal outcomes from both transfer policies are limited. Methods and analysis We have set up a multicentre randomised superiority trial in the Netherlands, named the Three or Fivetrial. We plan to include 1200 women with an indication for IVF with at least four embryos available on day 2 after the oocyte retrieval. Women are randomly allocated to either (1) control group: embryo transfer on day 3 and cryopreservation of supernumerary good-quality embryos on day 3 or 4, or (2) intervention group: embryo transfer on day 5 and cryopreservation of supernumerary good-quality embryos on day 5 or 6. The primary outcome is the cLBR per oocyte retrieval. Secondary outcomes include LBR following fresh transfer, multiple pregnancy rate and time until pregnancy leading a live birth. We will also assess the obstetric and neonatal outcomes, costs and patients' treatment burden. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol has been approved by the Central Committee on Research involving Human Subjects in the Netherlands in June 2018 (CCMO NL 64060.000.18). The results of this trial will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed and in open access journals. Trial registration number Netherlands Trial Register (NL 6857)