Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can a governance structure foster cluster ambidexterity through knowledge management? An empirical study of two French SME clusters

  • Article
  • Published:
Knowledge Management Research & Practice

Abstract

To identify how a governance structure leads to ambidexterity at the cluster level, in terms of knowledge management, this study draws on the knowledge -based view of clusters and on ambidexterity literature, thereby exploring an ‘intermediated’ cluster model of ambidexterity. Our aim is to explore the governance structure’s role and priorities in terms of knowledge management, as well as the underlying operational actions and programmes implemented to achieve cluster ambidexterity. Qualitative research, based on interviews with members of two French clusters, reveals that their governance structure is a crucial intermediary organisation that supports cluster ambidexterity. The results emphasise the role of governance structures for two types of ambidexterity in small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) clusters: First, SMEs may specialise in exploitative or exploratory knowledge, and the governance structure provides the missing knowledge (intermediated specialised model). Second, cluster governance may help each firm become ambidextrous (intermediated dual model). This study outlines the specificities of the two models and their contingency factors, which offer interesting implications, especially for policymakers devoted to innovation and clusters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alberti F (2001) The governance of industrial districts: a theoretical footing proposal. LIUC Papers 82, Serie Piccola e Media Impresa 5, January, [WWW document] http://www.biblio.liuc.it/liucpap/pdf/82.pdf (accessed 7 April 2012).

  • Antonelli C (2006) The business governance of localized knowledge: an information economics approach for the economics of knowledge. Industry and Innovation 13 (3), 227–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arikan AT (2009) Inter-firm knowledge exchanges and the knowledge creation capability of clusters. Academy of Management Review 34 (4), 658–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arve-Industries (2012) Strategic Business Units. [WWW document] http://www.arve-industries.fr/coupe___usinage-fr906.html (accessed 7 April 2012).

  • Bahlmann MD and Huysman MH (2008) The emergence of a knowledge-based view of clusters and its implications for cluster governance. Information Society 24 (5), 204–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bathelt H, Malmberg A and Maskell P (2004) Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography 28 (1), 31–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bierly PE and Daly PS (2007) Alternative knowledge strategies, competitive environment, and organisational performance in small manufacturing firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31 (4), 493–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bocquet R and Mothe C (2010) Knowledge governance within clusters: the case of small firms. Knowledge Management Research and Practice 8 (3), 229–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boschma RA (2005) Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Regional Studies 39 (1), 61–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camison C and Villar-Lopez A (2012) On how firms located in an industrial district profit from knowledge spillovers: adoption of an organic structure and innovation capabilities. British Journal of Management 23 (3), 361–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen WM and Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35 (1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Datta A (2011) Review and extension on ambidexterity: a theoretical model integrating networks and absorptive capacity. Journal of Management and Strategy 2 (1), 2–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan R. (1976) The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation. In The Management of Organization (Killman RH, Pondy LR and Sleven D, Eds), pp 167–188, North Holland, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrary M (2011) Specialised organisations and ambidextrous clusters in the open innovation paradigm. European Management Journal 29 (3), 181–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson CB and Birkinshaw J (2004) The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal 47 (2), 209–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilsing V (2000) Cluster governance: how clusters can adapt and renew over time. DRUID PhD-conference, January, pp 18–27, Copenhagen, Denmark, http://www.druid.dk/conferences/winter2000/gilsing.

  • Grant R (1996) Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science 7 (4), 375–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta AK, Smith KG and Shalley CE (2006) The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal 49 (4), 693–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hine DC, Parker R and Ireland D (2010) The knowledge exchange intermediary as service provider: a discussion and an Australian case. The Service Industries Journal 30 (5), 713–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howells J (2006) Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy 35 (5), 715–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imaginove (2013) List of member firms. [WWW document] http://www.imaginove.fr/front/47-14-1-Annuaire-public-des-adherents.

  • Inkinen T and Suorsa K (2010) Intermediaries in regional innovation systems: high-technology enterprise survey from northern Finland. European Planning Studies 18 (2), 169–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones C, Hesterly WS and Borgatti SP (1997) A general theory of network governance: exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Academy of Management Review 22 (4), 911–945.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauppila OP (2007) Towards a network model of ambidexterity. Working Paper 429, Helsinki School of Economics, May. Paper presented at the 17th Nordic Workshop on Interorganisational Research, 16–18 August.

  • Kraaijenbrink J and Wijnhoven F (2008) Managing heterogeneous knowledge: a theory of external knowledge integration. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 6 (4), 274–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazaric N, Longhi C and Thomas C (2008) Gatekeepers of knowledge versus platforms of knowledge: from potential to realized absorptive capacity. Regional Studies 42 (6), 837–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee S, Park G, Yoon B and Park J (2010) Open innovation in SMEs – an intermediated network model. Research Policy 39 (2), 290–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin Z, Yang H and Demirkan I (2007) The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Management Science 53 (10), 1645–1658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubatkin MK, Sinsek Z, Linz Y and Veiga JF (2006) Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management 32 (5), 646–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynn LH, Reddy NM and Aram JD (1996) Linking technology and institutions: the innovation community framework. Research Policy 25 (1), 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malmberg A and Maskell P (1997) Towards an explanation of regional specialization and industry agglomeration. European Planning Studies 5 (1), 25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malmberg A and Maskell P (2002) The elusive concept of localization economies: towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. Environment and Planning 34 (3), 429–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organisational learning. Organization Science 2 (1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall A (1920) Principles of Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin-de-Castro G, Lopez-Saez P and Navas-Lopez JE (2008) Processes of knowledge creation in knowledge-intensive firms: empirical evidence from Boston’s Route 128 and Spain. Technovation 28 (4), 222–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maskell P (2001) Towards a knowledge-based theory of the geographical cluster. Industrial and Corporate Change 10 (4), 921–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB and Huberman AM (1984) Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB and Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis 2nd edn Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I (1994) A dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation. Organization Science 5 (1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I and Takeuchi H (1995) The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I, Von Krogh G and Voelpel S (2006) Organisational knowledge creation theory, evolutionary paths and future advances. Organization Studies 27 (8), 1179–1208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly CA and Tushman ML (2004) The ambidextrous organisation. Harvard Business Review 82 (4), 74–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oshri I, Pan SL and Newell S (2005) Trade-offs between knowledge exploitation and exploration activities. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 3 (1), 10–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pillania R (2008) Creation and categorization of knowledge in automotive components SMEs in India. Management Decision 46 (10), 1452–1463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ponds R, Van Oort F and Frenken K (2007) The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Papers in Regional Science 86 (3), 423–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME (1998) Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review 76 (6), 77–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel FT and Deeds DL (2004) Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal 25 (3), 201–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sammarra A and Biggiero L (2008) Heterogeneity and specificity of inter-firm knowledge flows in innovation networks. Journal of Management Studies 45 (4), 800–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spithoven A, Clarysse B and Knockaert M (2011) Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation 31 (1), 10–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torre A and Rallet A (2005) Proximity and localization. Regional Studies 39 (1), 37–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML and O’Reilly CA (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review 38 (4), 8–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waxell A (2009) Guilty by association: a crossindustrial approach to sourcing complementary knowledge in the Uppsala biotechnology cluster. European Planning Studies 17 (11), 1605–1624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zack MH (2003) Rethinking the knowledge-based organization. Sloan Management Review 44 (4), 67–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra S and George G (2002) Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization and extension. Academy of Management Review 27 (2), 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IREGE, University of Savoie, France

    Rachel Bocquet & Caroline Mothe

Authors
  1. Rachel Bocquet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caroline Mothe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Appendices

Appendix A

Table A1

Table A1 Composition of the two governance structures
Full size table

Appendix B

Interview guide structure and data triangulation

Emergence and history of the cluster

Interview data triangulated with articles in newspapers and academic journals on Technic Valley and with websites on industrial districts.

 1. Context of emergence

 2. Pre-conditions, description of industrial structure and firms’ characteristics

 3. Pre-existence of inter-organisational collaborations

Structure of the cluster

Interview data triangulated with articles in academic journals and with the website of the French government pertaining to clusters.

 4. Evolution of firms’ characteristics since 2005

 5. Evolution of relational modes and collaboration since 2005

 6. Evolution of firms’ performance (innovation) since 2005

Characteristics of the governance structure

Interview data triangulated with articles in conferences, with the websites of the French government pertaining to clusters and with the websites of the two clusters

 7. Composition of governance structure and membership

 8. Description of strategic and operational governance

 9. Main roles devoted to governance

10. Main direct and indirect implication

Main objectives of governance

11. Interest of governance in knowledge management.

12. If yes: types of knowledge and what type of management.

13. Types of innovation within the cluster.

14. Implication of governance to foster innovation.

15. If yes: how and for what kind of innovation?

Typology of developed projects/actions to reach such objectives

Interview data triangulated with articles in conferences, with the websites of the French government pertaining to clusters, and with the websites of the two clusters

16. Description of projects, programmes and actions developed by governance

17. Type of implication by governance members (initiator, financing, pilot, control, follow-up, intermediary, etc.)

Results of these projects/actions

18. Main indicators of inputs and outputs at the cluster level? At the firm level?

19. Causal relationship between governance implication and results

Appendix C

Table C1

Table C1 Extract from the coding grid for the item exploration/exploitation
Full size table

Appendix D

Table D1

Table D1 Descriptive statistics for the two clusters
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bocquet, R., Mothe, C. Can a governance structure foster cluster ambidexterity through knowledge management? An empirical study of two French SME clusters. Knowl Manage Res Pract 13, 329–343 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.53

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.53

Keywords

Search

Navigation