tci2013 knowledge-driven entrepreneurship in clusters

Knowledge-driven Entrepreneurship in Clusters: A Comparative Study of Two Information Technology Clusters in Turkey and Finland Murat Akpinar & Melike Mermercioglu

Academic Summit: Innovation and business models in clusters

4 September 2013

Knowledge-driven Entrepreneurship in Clusters:

A Comparative Study of Two Information Technology

Clusters in Turkey and Finland

Murat Akpinar – JAMK University of Applied Sciences (Finland)

Melike Mermercioglu – Koc University (Turkey)

TCI conference 2013: Designing the future – Innovation through strategic

partnerships, September 3-6, 2013, Kolding

Outline

1. Objectives

2. Theoretical framework

3. Methodology

4. Results

5. Implications and future prospects

Objectives

• Assess the knowledge potentials of clusters and identify

dimensions that lead to enhanced entrepreneurial

activity

• Understand how clusters in advanced economies

perform in their knowledge potential vs. clusters in

emerging economies

Theoretical Framework

The emerald model adapted from Sasson and Reve (2012)

Hypotheses

Educational attractiveness

Talent attractiveness

R&D&I attractiveness

Ownership attractiveness

Environmental attractiveness

Cluster attractiveness

Knowledge dynamics

Level of entrepreneurial activity / new

business development

Knowledge potential

++

++

+

++

+

Cluster benchmarking (1)

IT cluster in Sariyer, Istanbul IT cluster in Central Finland

Location and cluster characteristics

Emerging economy, large domestic market, constructed cluster (technopark at university campus), both SMEs and large companies

Advanced economy, small domestic market, evolutionary cluster, mostly small companies

Cluster size No. of companies: 86Total employment: 3,832Annual revenue: 86 million Euro

No. of companies: 410Total employment: 2,913Annual revenue: 527 million Euro


5 universities, admitting 1,049 students per year to IT studies. Graduates per year: 701 (582 bachelor, 102 master, 17 doctoral)

Equally Attractive

2 universities, admitting ca. 400 students per year to IT related studies. Graduates per year: 354 (223 bachelor, 115 master, 16 doctoral)

Equally AttractiveTalent attractiveness PPP adjusted (vs. Finland) average

monthly salary: 6,136 Euro49% more than average salary in Turkey

More Attractive

Average monthly salary: 4,500 Euro42% more than average salary in Finland

Attractive













More Attractive


Attractive











Talent attractiveness PPP adjusted (vs. Finland) average monthly salary: 6,136 Euro49% more than average salary in Turkey

More Attractive


Attractive










Equally Attractive




More Attractive


Attractive










Equally Attractive





Attractive










Equally Attractive














Equally Attractive




More Attractive


Attractive




No. of patents per year: 15Annual R&D spending (Turkey in 2011): USD 839 million

Not Attractive

No. of patents per year: 67Annual R&D spending (Finland in 2011): USD 3,185 million

Very Attractive


FDI in IT sector (Turkey, 2007 – 2011): USD 455 million (0.6% of all FDI)Total of 10 venture capital investments since 2003

Not Attractive

FDI in IT sector (Finland, 2007 – 2011): USD 2,719 million (12.8% of all FDI)Venture capital 4% of all investmentsBetter public funding opportunities

More Attractive Environmental attractiveness

Waste per person per day: 2.58 kgAir pollution (PM10): 66 ug/m3

Constructing renewable energy cluster nearby

Not Directly Relevant


Leading bioenergy cluster nearby







Very Attractive



Not Attractive
















Not Attractive













Not Attractive


Very Attractive



Not Attractive













Not Attractive


Very Attractive















Not Attractive


Very Attractive



Not Attractive












Two-star clusterEmployment: 3,832 (4% of the region)Regional agglomeration (LQ): 15.1National agglomeration: 0.6

Attractive

Two-star clusterEmployment: 2,913 (4.6% of the region)Regional agglomeration (LQ): 7.5National agglomeration: 1.4

AttractiveKnowledge Dynamics

Moderate level of competitionModerate level of cooperation (mostly with customers)Low level of employee turnover

Moderately Attractive

High level of competitionHigh level of cooperation with customers and suppliers, moderate levels with research institutes, governmental organizations and related industries, and lowest level with competitorsModerate level of employee turnover

More Attractive










More Attractive






Knowledge Dynamics




More Attractive





Attractive






More Attractive





Attractive





More Attractive





Attractive









Attractive






More Attractive

Cluster benchmarking (Summary)



Equally attractive Equally attractive

Talent attractiveness

More Attractive Attractive


Not Attractive Very Attractive


Not Attractive More Attractive


Not Directly Relevant Not Directly Relevant


Attractive Attractive

Knowledge Dynamics

Moderately Attractive More Attractive

Main Findings and Suggestions for Policy-makers

• Environmental attractiveness is not necessarily a relevant

dimension for assessing IT cluster’s knowledge potential.

• R&D&I attractiveness, ownership attractiveness, and

knowledge dynamics seem to be the most influential

dimensions to drive entrepreneurial activity and new business

development in a cluster.

• Constructing a cluster is not enough. There must be a

dynamic innovation ecosystem with policies, programs and

institutions in place to support entrepreneurial activities.

Suggestions for Future Research

• More attempts to reveal the connection between clustering and entrepreneurship (e.g., case studies with in-depth interviews)

• Similar studies in other industries and other IT clusters

THANK YOU!

Your ideas, comments and questions

Want to conduct joint research in this area,

please contact us at

[email protected]

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]