Cluster Nodes as a Unit for Value Co-creation: The Role of Information Technologies in Competitiveness of the Oil and Gas Industry

  • Vitaly Ambalov
  • Irina HeimEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 527)


Both the national competitiveness paradigm and cluster theory have prompted decision-makers in emerging countries to take a closer look at the cluster approach, and to consider the possibility of using this approach to boost economic growth. However, this has not led to wider use of cluster analysis as a major instrument for studying complex economic processes in these countries. The reason for this is that the majority of the reviewed concepts of cluster development implemented in emerging countries, such as Kazakhstan and Russia, use of the cluster approach based on foreign experience disregarding the importance of initial local conditions. Thus a more formal study of clusters in emerging countries, taking into account the impact of institutional factors and the individual structural uncertainty of economic systems, recurrent crises and market shocks, is required This research fills the gap by proposing a cluster node as a unit of analysis that allows subdivision of any big industrial and commercial groups, of economic sectors, and of multinational enterprises (MNE) and other structures, into interconnected nodes of a smaller scale, and applying this up to the smallest nodes that are of interest to researchers. This concept will create theoretical foundations for the transformation of national economic clusters, which is strategically important for national governments seeking to attract foreign investments (FDI) and increase local content, thus attracting MNEs to invest in national economies. This research demonstrates how the concept of cluster nodes can be applied to the analysis of linkages between oil and gas industry (O&G) and industries responsible for the development of information and communication technology (ICT) in Kazakhstan.


Eclectic paradigm Value co-creation Clusters MNEs ICT Oil and gas industry Local content policy 


  1. 1.
    Atkinson, R.D.: The Competitive Edge: A Policymaker’s Guide to Developing a National Strategy. ITIF. Accessed 15 Apr 2018
  2. 2.
    Castellani, D., Piva, M., Schubert, T., Vivarelli, M.: R&D and Productivity in the US and the EU: Sectoral Specificities and Differences in the Crisis. Henley Business School. Accessed 15 Apr 2018
  3. 3.
    Dunning, J.H.: Toward an eclectic theory of international production: some empirical tests. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 11(1), 9–31 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dunning, J.H.: The eclectic paradigm of international production: a restatement and some possible extensions. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 19(1), 1–31 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dunning, J.H.: Reappraising the eclectic paradigm in an age of alliance capitalism. In: The Eclectic Paradigm. Palgrave Macmillan, London (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dunning, J.H.: The eclectic paradigm as an envelope for economic and business theories of MNE activity. Int. Bus. Rev. 9(2), 163–190 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dunning, J.H.: Location and the multinational enterprise: a neglected factor? J. Int. Bus. Stud. 40(1), 5–19 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunning, J.H.: Regions, Globalization, and the Knowledge-Based Economy. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eden, L.: A critical reflection and some conclusions on OLI. In: Cantwell, J., Narula, R. (eds.) International Business and the Eclectic Paradigm: Developing the OLI Framework. Routledge, London (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heim, I., Tian, T., Ghobadian, A.: Value co-creation in ICT services company: a case study of a cross-border acquisition (2018, in press).
  11. 11.
    Jaakkola, E., Hakanen, T.: Value co-creation in solution networks. Ind. Mark. Manag. 42(1), 47–58 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krugman, P.: Competitiveness: a dangerous obsession. Foreign Aff. 73(2), 28–44 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Narula, R.: The modern MNE as an efficient meta-integrator: emerging market MNEs need to foster internal embeddedness to succeed. Henley Business School Discussion Paper. Henley Business School (2014). Accessed 15 Apr 2018
  14. 14.
    Porter, M.: The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard Bus. Rev. 68(2), 73–93 (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Porter, M.: On Competition. Harvard Business School, Cambridge, Boston (1998)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Psofogiorgos, N.-A., Metaxas, T.: Porter vs Krugman: history, analysis and critique of regional competitiveness, MPRA Paper 68151. University Library of Munich, Germany (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rugman, A.M.: Regional strategy and the demise of globalization. J. Int. Manag. 9(4), 409–417 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rugman, A.M.: Reconciling internalization theory and the eclectic paradigm. Multinatl. Bus. Rev. 18(2), 1–12 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rugman, A.M., Verbeke, A.: Multinational enterprises and clusters: an organizing framework. Manag. Int. Rev. 43(3), 151–169 (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Snowdon, B.: The enduring elixir of economic growth. World Econ. 7(1), 73–130 (2006)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F.: Service-dominant logic: continuing the evolution. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 36(1), 1–10 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    WEF: The Global Information Technology Report 2016. World Economic Forum, Geneva. WEF. Accessed 15 Apr 2018

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Agency for Development of Local ContentAstanaKazakhstan
  2. 2.Henley Business SchoolUniversity of ReadingReadingUK

Personalised recommendations