Local technology networks as trust-compensating and trust-transferring external

Similar to publicly coordinated industry-academia R&D programmes, the local professional industry networks examined, namely Technologiekreis Adlershof and OpTecBB at the Ad-lershof science park, and Círculo de Empresarios de Cartuja at the Cartuja science park, have been detected as important platforms facilitating STP resident firms’ interactive rela-tions to academia. This is the case especially for the STP resident businesses categorized as strong knowledge seekers.²³¹ Based on the exclusive focus on the STP scale, the Tech-nologiekreis Adlershof and Círculo de Empresarios de Cartuja primarily promote local in-teraction, for example, intended and unintended informal exchange of information and knowledge among diverse member organizations, also referred to as local buzz: “We’re member of the Technologiekreis Adlershof just to get a feeling.” (ADL_21).²³²

Firstly, the local technology networks examined focus on specific technology areas or in-dustries. The OpTecBB network, for example, represents companies and scientific institu-tions focusing on optical technologies in particular. In contrast, the about 90 and 70 mem-bers of the Technologiekreis Adlershof and Círculo de Empresarios de Cartuja, respective-ly, comprise technology-oriented STP resident companies and scientific institutions, which are specialized in technology and research areas that define the two STPs’ technology pro-files overall (OpTecBB, 2016a; Technologiekreis, 2016a; Círculo de Empresarios de Cartu-ja, 2016a). Thus, a varying cognitive proximity and knowledge diversity characterize the

231 Almost 62% of the 21 businesses, which are specified as strong knowledge seekers, rated the importance of the local professional networks as settings for industry-academia knowledge relations strongly. In con-trast, only ca. 33% and ca. 15% of the firms in the groups of moderate knowledge seekers (n=18) and lame knowledge seekers (n=13), respectively, shared this perception (see Chapter 4.4.1).

232 In contrast, OpTecBB includes members from the entire Berlin-Brandenburg region (see Chapter 3.1.1).

networks examined and specific internal sub-groups, i.e. communities of practice. This re-lates to findings of Lazaric et al. (2004) that have pointed to positive effects of the combina-tion of, on the one hand, very specialized professional networks and, on the other hand, more heterogeneous networks combining complementary areas of technology on localized interaction in the Sophia-Antipolis technolopole.

Secondly, the technology networks examined can be primarily characterized as loosely coupled networks with a lack of hierarchy, in which members enjoy a high degree of inde-pendence. At the same time, members also take advantage of certain organizational coor-dination.²³³ For example, the Technologiekreis Adlershof, the OpTecBB network and the Círculo de Empresarios de Cartuja are represented by boards of management, which are elected by the networks’ members (OpTecBB, 2016b; Technologiekreis, 2016b; Círculo de Empresarios de Cartuja, 2016b). Following Boschma (2005), networks’ non-hierarchical governance, but implicit rules and control mechanisms to penalize and sanction opportun-istic behaviour of network members, for example, through exclusion and loss of reputation, refer to a medium-level of organizational proximity.²³⁴ In the examined cases, in particular collective sanctions and reputation mechanisms are found to deter deceptive behaviour.

In addition, multiple interviewees underlined the enhanced probability of finding potential academic cooperation partners with similar expertise and problems to solve in the STP-related technology networks: “As said earlier, it’s easier to find [partners] with similar inter-ests in the Technologiekreis [Adlershof] and OpTecBB.” (ADL_13). Corresponding to find-ings of Sydow et al. (2011), the rather subtle form of governance and indirect leadership in the local professional networks fosters the development of shared objectives, i.e. institu-tional proximity, and, in turn, facilitates interaction.

Thirdly, a considerable number of businesses interviewed pointed to the important function of networked reputation among network members for the formation of new relations to as-sociated academic institutions, as the literature has also highlighted for knowledge interac-tion in general (e.g. Nooteboom, 2000a; Menzel; 2015). One interviewee illustrated the reduction of uncertainty in new knowledge relations within the Technologiekreis Adlershof network based on mediated trust: “The Technologiekreis Adlershof is a very important

233 Industry and technology networks are often led by a hub organization, network orchestrator or a specifically created network administrative organization (Sydow et al., 2011).

234 Jones et al. (1997) have underlined the concept of network governance in addition to formal rules and au-thority. It stresses social mechanisms, for example, common norms, collective sanctions and reputation mechanisms, that help to overcome problems of adapting, coordinating and safeguarding interaction and knowledge exchange. In particular reputation mechanisms have been found to be very useful in this respect as actors are very concerned about their own and others’ reputation in today’s inter-connected economy.

ganization. (…) There’re always requests for cooperation. (…) There you can get in touch with the specific persons. (…) This works really well. (…) You can also rely on other net-work members’ opinions and judgements.” (ADL_13). An additional firm also emphasized the important role of networked reputation in the OpTecBB network: “The contact was initiated in the OpTecBB network. (…) And there were consultations within the network: We have these problems, which we have to solve. Can you please help us?” (ADL_9).

Moreover, the development of social proximity and trust, but also cognitive proximity is strongly facilitated by repeated personal interaction due to organized geographical co-presence in terms of regular member events, workshops and social activities (see Figure 41). One interviewee underlined the development of personal relationships and also tech-nological reputation in conjunction with intense personal interaction in specialized working groups of the OpTecBB network: “You sit together in the technical committees, and there you get an impression, who has got what kind of capabilities. You also get an impression of scientific institutions once in a while. It’s especially about the contacts and about getting known and to develop a technological reputation.” (ADL_15).²³⁵ Similarly to the publicly coordinated industry-academia R&D projects, several of the interviewees that are strongly involved in the local technology networks stressed that repeated personal interaction and, if applicable, first shared work experiences within the networks have led to the development of trust-based personal linkages. This interviewee highlighted the importance of personal relationships and trust developed among network member organizations: “Sometimes, it’s thru personal contacts in particular, especially within the Technologiekreis Adlershof. (…) There’s an openness, which you don’t find often.” (ADL_19). Again, the postive relation of organizational proximity to social relatedness is demonstrated. Consequently, firms participating in these formal networks take advantage of multiple uncertainty reducing mechanisms in the formation of new knowledge relations to predominantly co-located sci-entific knowledge sources: firstly, network governance, especially reputation mechanisms, secondly, networked reputation and trustworthyness, as well as thirdly, increased personal trust over time.²³⁶

235 As already outlined before, also Kujath (2008) has underlined that organizational arrangements enable the reduction of cognitive distance through more frequent intended communication.

236 Knoben and Oerlemans (2006) have stated that organizational proximity in terms of formal networks is a critical factor for successful knowledge relations over geographical distance as well.

Figure 41: Members’ meeting of Círculo de Empresarios de Cartuja

Source: Círculo de Empresarios de Cartuja (2017)

Overall, the strong influence of local formal networks especially observed for the STP resident businesss with strong multi-faceted linkages to co-located academia in the STP (strong knowledge seekers) is related to the organization of multiple fundamental natures of proximity: 1) pooling of related and complementary knowledge organizations, 2) social governance mechanisms in conjunction with a certain institutional relatedness in terms of shared objectives, as well as 3) trust in terms of networked reputation and the development of personal ties. Also, temporary geographical proximity is utilized explicitly to facilitate per-sonal interaction and, in turn, to increase social as well as cognitive proximity between formerly unconnected STP residents from the private sector and academia. In addition, the technology networks also amplify the local buzz in the STP. Similarly to public support schemes of inter-organizational R&D projects, local technology networks are primarily iden-tified as trust-compensating and trust-transferring external settings.

4.6.3 STP-related networking events and conferences as temporary local and