Organisational competence vs transferability of knowledge in cluster organisations and technology parks
and | Jul 23, 2020
About this article
Published Online: Jul 23, 2020
Page range: 83 - 98
Received: Dec 15, 2019
Accepted: Apr 30, 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/emj-2020-0013
Keywords
© 2020 Anna Maria Lis et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.
Results of the analysis of variance in cluster organisations and technology parks: [CPs] - [AIK] (N=269)
| AIK1 | 3.02 | 1.18 | 3.51 | 0.99 | 3.76 | 0.77 | 3.38 | 1.06 |
| Parameters of ANOVA for variables (AIK1), (CPs1) F=14.82, p=0.000<0.01. The mean difference for the competence groups 1 and 2; 1 and 3 is significant at the 0.01 level | ||||||||
| AIK2 | 2.47 | 0.99 | 3.28 | 0.72 | 3.46 | 0.85 | 2.99 | 1.01 |
| Parameters of ANOVA for variables (AIK2), (CPs1) F=36.63, p=0.000<0.01. The mean difference for the competence groups 1 and 2; 1 and 3 is significant at the 0.01 level | ||||||||
| AIK3 | 2.49 | 1.00 | 3.21 | 0.93 | 3.16 | 0.90 | 2.88 | 1.01 |
| Parameters of ANOVA for variables (AIK3), (CPs1) F=17.35, p=0.000<0.01. The mean difference for the competence groups 1 and 2; 1 and 3 is significant at the 0.01 level | ||||||||
| AIK4 | 2.19 | 0.97 | 3.00 | 1.04 | 2.95 | 1.04 | 2.62 | 1.08 |
| Parameters of ANOVA for variables (AIK4), (CPs1) F=19.73, p=0.000<0.01. The mean difference for the competence groups 1 and 2; 1 and 3 is significant at the 0.01 level | ||||||||
| AIK5 | 2.29 | 1.09 | 3.13 | 1.00 | 3.36 | 1.13 | 2.84 | 1.20 |
| Parameters of ANOVA for variables (AIK5), (CPs1) F=28.12, p=0.000<0.01. The mean difference for the competence groups 1 and 2; 1 and 3 is significant at the 0.01 level | ||||||||
Access to information and knowledge [AIK] in cluster organisations and technology parks (N=132, 137)
| AIK1 | 1 | 5 | 3.52 | 1.11 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 3.26 | 1.00 | 3 | 4 |
| AIK2 | 1 | 5 | 3.09 | 1.10 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 2.89 | 0.90 | 3 | 3 |
| AIK3 | 1 | 5 | 3.02 | 1.06 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 2.74 | 0.94 | 3 | 2 |
| AIK4 | 1 | 5 | 2.76 | 1.04 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 2.49 | 1.10 | 2 | 2 |
| AIK5 | 1 | 5 | 2.95 | 1.20 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 2.74 | 1.18 | 3 | 3 |
Theoretical perspective of organisational competence
| Evolutionary economics (firm-level ontogenetic evolution) | The specific content of economic behaviour addresses the issue of basic behaviour continuity in terms of skills, routines, learning, cognition (elements associated with competence). | |
| Evolutionary economics (dynamic capabilities) | Dynamic capabilities as the source of competitive advantage. “Capabilities emphasise the key role of strategic management in appropriately adapting, integrating, and reconfiguring internal and external organisational skills, resources, and functional competences toward changing environment” ( | |
| Strategic management theory (the core competence approach) | Define core competences as roots of competitiveness. | |
| Strategic management theory (resource-based view of the firm) | Propose an idea to look at a firm as a set of resources rather than products. |
The results of the correlation analysis in cluster organisations and technology parks: [CPl] - [AIK] (N=132, 137)
| AIK1 | 0.324 | p<0.0001 | 0.259 | 0.012 |
| AIK2 | 0.303 | 0.001 | 0.299 | 0.000 |
| AIK3 | 0.322 | p<0.0001 | 0.277 | 0.003 |
| AIK4 | 0.274 | 0.008 | 0.240 | 0.048 |
| AIK5 | 0.301 | 0.001 | 0.214 | 0.197 |
Parameters of the logistic regression models
| AIK1 | 0.254 | 0.207 | 1.289 | 1.004 | 0.031 | 2.729 | 0.094 | 0.703 | 1.099 |
| AIK2 | 0.203 | 0.378 | 1.225 | −0.484 | 0.226 | 0.616 | 0.515 | 0.103 | 1.674 |
| AIK3 | 0.317 | 0.13 | 1.373 | 0.812 | 0.045 | 2.253 | 0.128 | 0.633 | 1.137 |
| AIK4 | 0.612 | 0.001 | 1.844 | 0.905 | 0.026 | 2.473 | 0.534 | 0.015 | 1.705 |
| CPI_1_2_3 | 0.026 | 0.932 | 1.026 | 0.615 | 0.307 | 1.849 | −0.11 | 0.777 | 0.895 |
| CPs1_1_2_3 | 0.711 | 0.001 | 2.037 | 0.755 | 0.04 | 2.127 | 0.771 | 0.004 | 2.162 |
| Constant | −6.466 | 0.000 | 0.002 | −11.107 | 0.000 | 0.000 | −5.825 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Logistic regression results: | |||||||||
| χ2(6), (p) | 73.028, (p<0.01) | 43.95, (p<0.01) | 36.524, (p<0.01) | ||||||
| Nagelkerke R2 | 0.375 | 0.507 | 0.332 | ||||||
| Predicted percentage correct | 76.9 | 78.5 | 77.9 | ||||||
Competence proximity [CPs] in terms of the scope of competences in cluster organisations and technology parks (N=132, 137)
| CPs1 | 1 | 5 | 2.80 | 1.36 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 2.78 | 1.21 | 3 | 2 |
| CPs2 | 1 | 5 | 2.60 | 1.24 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2.85 | 1.21 | 3 | 2 |
| CPs3 | 1 | 5 | 2.27 | 1.16 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2.93 | 1.28 | 3 | 3 |
| CPl | 1 | 6 | 3.88 | 1.42 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 3.26 | 0.83 | 3 | 3 |
The results of the correlation analysis in cluster organisations and technology parks: [CPs] - [AIK] (N=132, 137)
| CPs1 | Cc | 0.323** | 0.416** | 0.333** | 0.405** | 0.359** | 0.157* | 0.415** | 0.211** | 0.258** | 0.408** |
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.028 | 0.000 | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
| CPs2 | Cc | 0.269** | 0.328** | 0.244** | 0.264** | 0.222** | 0.133 | 0.306** | 0.273** | 0.376** | 0.375** |
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.002 | 0.061 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
| CPs3 | Cc | 0.194** | 0.277** | 0.305** | 0.170* | 0.153* | 0.208** | 0.084 | 0.124 | 0.073 | −0.048 |
| 0.008 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.020 | 0.034 | 0.003 | 0.242 | 0.082 | 0.299 | 0.492 | ||
Results of the crosstabs analysis: [CPs] - [AIK6] (N=268)
| AIK6: definitely not, rather not, hard to say | Count | 138 | 44 | 182 |
| % within work with other companies that have/do not have the same competence | 80.70% | 45.40% | 67.90% | |
| % of total | 51.50% | 16.40% | 67.90% | |
| AIK6: rather yes, definitely yes | Count | 33 | 53 | 86 |
| % within work with other companies that have/do not have the same competence | 19.30% | 54.60% | 32.10% | |
| % of total | 12.30% | 19.80% | 32.10% | |
| Total | Count | 171 | 97 | 268 |
| % of total | 63.80% | 36.20% | 100.00% |
Results of the analysis of variance in cluster organisations and technology parks: [CPl] - [AIK] (N=230)
| AIK1 | 2.88 | 1.40 | 3.57 | 0.92 | 3.32 | 1.06 | 3.43 | 1.04 |
| Parameters of ANOVA for variables (AIK1), (CPI) F=5.49, p=0.005<0.01. The mean difference for the competence groups 1 and 2 is significant at the 0.01 level | ||||||||
| AIK2 | 2.46 | 1.17 | 3.28 | 0.92 | 2.85 | 0.91 | 3.07 | 0.99 |
| Parameters of ANOVA for variables (AIK2), (CPI) F=10.35, p=0.000<0.01. The mean difference for the competence groups 1 and 2; 2 and 3 is significant at the 0.01 level | ||||||||
| AIK3 | 2.50 | 1.17 | 2.99 | 0.90 | 3.02 | 1.11 | 2.94 | 1.00 |
| Parameters of ANOVA for variables (AIK3), (CPI) F=2.97, p=0.054>0.05. Mean differences for competence groups are not statistically significant | ||||||||
| AIK4 | 2.23 | 1.37 | 2.71 | 1.04 | 2.76 | 1.09 | 2.67 | 1.10 |
| Parameters of ANOVA for variables (AIK4), (CPI) F=2.39, p=0.094>0.05. Mean differences for competence groups are not statistically significant | ||||||||
| AIK5 | 2.42 | 1.42 | 3.05 | 1.15 | 2.80 | 1.21 | 2.91 | 1.21 |
| Parameters of ANOVA for variables (AIK5), (CPI) F=3.35, p=0.037<0.05. The mean difference for the competence groups 1 and 2 is significant at the 0.05 level | ||||||||
Variables in the study
| CPs1 | Our company works with cluster companies/park tenants that have the same or very similar competence (belong to the same industry, have a similar business profile) | |
| CPs2 | Our company works with cluster companies/park tenants that have expertise in a different field to ours (they belong to the same industry, and their competencies are complementary to ours) | |
| CPs3 | Our company works with cluster companies/park tenants that have completely different competences (they belong to other industries) | |
| Likert scale (1–5): Definitely not (1) Rather not (2) Hard to say (3) Rather yes (4) Definitely yes (5) | ||
| In the cluster/park, we cooperate primarily with companies whose level of development (technology, knowledge, quality of staff) is:
Much lower than the level represented by our company Lower than the level represented by our company Similar to the level represented by our company Higher than the level represented by our company Much higher than the level represented by our company None of the above because we do not cooperate with cluster companies/park tenants | ||
| AIK1 | One of the effects of joining the cluster/location in the park is that my company has gained access to a wide variety of information (albeit general information) | |
| AIK2 | One of the effects of joining the cluster/location in the park is that my company has gained access to selected information, fully tailored to the profile and needs of my business | |
| AIK3 | One of the effects of joining the cluster/location in the park is that my company has gained priority in receiving important information about changes in the external environment | |
| AIK4 | One of the effects of joining the cluster/location in the park is that my company is less worried about sharing certain confidential information with selected cluster companies | |
| AIK5 | One of the effects of joining the cluster/location in the park is that my company, together with other selected cluster companies/park tenants, takes part in processes of creating new knowledge (through working groups, project groups etc.) | |
| Likert scale (1–5): Definitely not (1) Rather not (2) Hard to say (3) Rather yes (4) Definitely yes (5) | ||