Proximity and Knowledge Sharing in a Wine Tourism Cluster

Proximity and Knowledge Sharing in a Wine Tourism Cluster Importance and Key Findings Industry clustering has been identified and promoted as a policy process to promote regional development, innovation and jobs (OECD,... [ view full abstract ]

Proximity and Knowledge Sharing in a Wine Tourism Cluster


Importance and Key Findings
Industry clustering has been identified and promoted as a policy process to promote regional development, innovation and jobs (OECD, 2001). Clustering of firms results in proximity and through proximity various economies and synergies generate advantages to the cluster and the firms in the cluster (Brown et al, 2007). One important synergy is that of knowledge generation and transmission since proximity allows firms to observe, process, copy and exchange information.

There has been considerable policy interest in the links between clustering, growth and competitive success (OECD, 2001). There remain unresolved issues around how, and through what mechanisms, proximity conveys value to firms in clusters (Bell et al, 2009). Of interest in this research the influence of proximity on knowledge sharing within clusters (Malmberg & Power, 2005). The purpose of this paper is to:
• Assess the contribution of different proximity dimensions to knowledge sharing.
• Evaluate the nature of knowledge sharing in clusters, in particular with respect to organisational, institutional, personal and cognitive proximity.
• Place these questions within the context of a wine cluster where innovation and shared identity is a key to competitive advantage
• Develop an exploratory research protocol to investigate knowledge sharing within an existing wine-tourism cluster

The Swan Valley wine cluster is located north of Perth and is one of the oldest wine producing areas in Australia. It is located with 30 minutes travel time from the CBD and it has evolved from an agricultural region supporting market gardens and vineyards to an integrated wine tourism cluster that includes hotels, restaurants, recreational facilities and gourmet foods. The cluster is a very good example of where diversification and complementarily in the industrial base has created a locality that caters towards a tourist experience. There is policy recognition that agricultural regions can be transformed from agricultural production to diversified industrial regions linked to tourism (Winemakers Federation of Australia, 2012). This context provides a suitable context to examine innovation and knowledge sharing processes within an established cluster.

This is an ongoing study and the purpose is to map and identify the processes that facilitate knowledge exchange and in turn innovation (new products, procedures) within the context of an established cluster. Equally important is the identification of barriers and obstacles to knowledge exchange.

Theoretical Base

Specific spatial arrangements between organisations influences the sharing and creation of knowledge (OECD, 1999), however, little research has been conducted to understand the extent to which, and specific mechanisms through which, cluster membership enhances organisations’ knowledge-based capabilities (Todtling, Lehner, & Trippl, 2006). There remain significant unanswered questions relating to how clustering of firms exerts an influence on knowledge sharing, and relating to unexplained variation in learning and innovative performance in clusters.
As codified knowledge provides little competitive advantage and tacit knowledge is diffused in idiosyncratic personal interaction and personal networks, it is proposed that knowledge sharing requires the geographical co-location of firms inter- and intra-sectorally and with research institutes (Hauser, Tappeiner, & Walde, 2007). However, the mechanisms through which geographical proximity facilitates knowledge sharing remain unexplored ( Feldman, 1999).Geographic proximity has been found to carry the potential for short cognitive distance, trustful relations, common language, easy observation and immediate comparison , which has led to questions about the importance of other types of proximity, their links to knowledge sharing, and relationship to geographic proximity (Torre & Rallet, 2005). This embeddedness accounts for the extent to which actors relate and interact, share the same mental models and knowledge space, and work within the same institutional parameters (Mizruchi & Fein, 1999). Relational proximity is particularly relevant to knowledge-based value as a rich literature in sociology has emphasized that knowledge flow is linked to interpersonal networks ( Burt, 2001), and has been found to be important to the acquisition of codified information as well as to learning and complex problem solving, which necessitate tacit knowledge sharing . In this research we differentiate four dimensions through which proximity supports knowledge sharing: organisational, personal, cognitive, and institutional linkages (Albine, Carbonara, & Giannoccaro, 2007), and investigates their impact on knowledge sharing within an established wine tourism cluster.

Research Questions

How does proximity promote knowledge exchange in the Swan Valley cluster?
What proximity related transfer mechanisms are operational in the cluster?
Can public policy contribute to and support the knowledge transfer process?

Methods

For this exploratory research we will utilise documentary sources including organisational materials (web sites, brochures), tourist material, public documents and materials from peak organisations such as the vignerons association. This research represents the initial stage of a larger research process that will include surveys and interviews.

Findings and Discussion

Proximity facilitates inter-organisational trust, builds knowledge of expertise location, supports firm’s ability to identify and assimilate knowledge, and develops access to knowledge. Relational dimensions and geographic proximity can influence knowledge transfer through these mechanisms. The research suggests a matrix of relational dimensions and proximity mechanism that are identified with a wine tourism cluster. The two important implications that follow are: firstly, it demonstrates the advantage of proximity and clustering for the single firm (Brown et al, 2007) and second it indicates areas of public policy support for local industry development.





References

Albine, V., Carbonara, N. and Giannoccaro, I. (2007) ‘Why proximity matters for industrial district competitiveness: a complexity science-based view’, Regions in Focus. Lisbon, Portugal
Bell, S., Tracey, P. and Heide, J. (2009) ‘The organization of regional clusters’, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp.636–642.
Brown, K., Burgess, J., Festing, M., Royer, S., Steffen, C. and Waterhouse, J. (2007) ‘The value adding web: a conceptual framework of competitive advantage realisation in clusters’, Australia and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference. Sydney, Australia.
Burt, R. (2001) ‘Structural holes versus network closure as social capital’, in N. Lin, K.S. Cook and R. Burt (Eds.), Social Capital: Theory and Research. Aldine de Gruyter.
Feldman, M.P. (1999) ‘The new economics of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration: a review of empirical studies’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 8, pp.5–25.
Hauser, C., Tappeiner, G. and Walde, J. (2007) ‘The learning region: the impact of social capital and weak ties on innovation’, Regional Studies, Vol. 41, No. 1, pp.75–88.
Malmberg, A. and Power, D. (2005) ‘How do firms in clusters create knowledge’, Industry and Innovation, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.409–431.
OECD (1999) Boosting Innovation: The Cluster Approach. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
OECD (2001) Innovative Clusters – Drivers of National Innovation Systems. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Todtling, F., Lehner, P. and Trippl, M. (2006) ‘Innovation in knowledge intensive industries: the nature and geography of knowledge links’, European Planning Studies, Vol. 14, No. 8, pp.1036–1058.
Torre, A. (2008) ‘On the role played by temporary geographical proximity in knowledge transmission’, Regional Studies, Vol. 42, No. 6, pp.869–889.
Wine Makers Federation of Australia (2012), Harnessing the Potential of Wine and Food in Australia. Canberra.

Industry clusters; knowledge sharing; proximity; Australia; wine tourism [ view full abstract ]

Industry clusters; knowledge sharing; proximity; Australia; wine tourism