Organisational competence vs transferability of knowledge in cluster organisations and technology parks

Results of the analysis of variance in cluster organisations and technology parks: [CPs] - [AIK] (N=269)

AIK	Competence of collaborating organisations
	CPS1(1–2), (N=118) (1)		CPS1(3), (N=53) (2)		CPS1(4–5), (N=98) (3)		TOTAL (N=269)
	Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation
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)

Variables	Cluster organisations						Technology parks
	Min	Max	Mean	Std. Dev.	Median	Mode	Min	Max	Mean	Std. Dev.	Median	Mode
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

Theoretical perspective	Competence content	Reference
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).Competence is built in evolution economics — organisations possess bounded rationality due to the lack of competence. Competence puzzle focuses on the role of learning and practice.Organisational routine is treated as an organisational analogue of individual skill. Routinised behaviour can be complex and effective	Nelson and Winter (2002)
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” (Teece and Pisano, 1994:1).Organisational competences are defined as distinctive routines or processes that are enabled by integrated clusters of firm-specific assets, individuals and groups (Teece et al., 1997:516).Firm's dynamic capabilities are determined by processes, positions and paths	Teece and Pisano (1994), Teece et al. (1997), Winter (2003), Eisenhardt and Martin (2000)
Strategic management theory (the core competence approach)	Define core competences as roots of competitiveness.Provide a competence-based organisation's concept.Identified methods for core-competence building	Prahalad and Hamel (1990)
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.Resources are defined as tangible and intangible assets, such as knowledge, routines (effective procedures) that are difficult to replicate.Capabilities and competences are identified as resources	Wernerfelt (1984), Wernerfelt (1995), Amit and Schoemaker (1993)

The results of the correlation analysis in cluster organisations and technology parks: [CPl] - [AIK] (N=132, 137)

Access to information and knowledge [AIK]	Cluster organisations		Technology parks
	Cramer's V	p	Cramer's V	p
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

Variables	Total sample, N=229			Cluster organisation sample, N=93			Park sample, N=136
	B	Sig.	Exp(B)	B	Sig.	Exp(B)	B	Sig.	Exp (B)
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)

Variables	Cluster organisations						Technology parks
	Min	Max	Mean	Std. Dev.	Median	Mode	Min	Max	Mean	Std. Dev.	Median	Mode
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)

CPS	Cc/p	Cluster organisations					Technology parks
		AIK1	AIK2	AIK3	AIK4	AIK5	AIK1	AIK2	AIK3	AIK4	AIK5
CPs1	Cc	0.323**	0.416**	0.333**	0.405**	0.359**	0.157*	0.415**	0.211**	0.258**	0.408**
	p	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**
	p	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
	p	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)

AIK		CPs1 (1–3)	CPs1 (4–5)	Total
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)

AIK	Competence proximity of collaborating enterprises in terms of the level of development
	CPl(1–2) (N=26) (1)		CPl(3) (N=145) (2)		CPI(4–5) (N=59) (3)		Total (N=230)
	Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation	Mean	Std. Deviation
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

Competence proximity in terms of the scope of competences [CPs]
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)
Competence proximity in terms of the level of competence development [CPl]
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
Access to information and knowledge [AIK]
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)