1. THE CHALLENGES OF MANAGING PARTNERSHIPS
IN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Luís Mota
Artur de Rosa Pires
Departamento de Ciências Sociais, Políticas e do Território
Universidade de Aveiro
Projeto Alianças Territoriais para a Inovação
Territorial Alliances for Innovation

2. I. Theoretical Framing
- Regionally Networked Innovation Systems
- Advantages and Disadvantages of Regional and Local Partnerships
- Critical factors for effective collaboration
II.Empirical Study
- Case Study: Lighting Living Lab (and some more with PATI)
- Reflexions on Problems and Successes according to interviewees
III.Concluding Remarks
- Some clues on the management of Regional Networks of Innovation
- Looking Ahead
Agenda

3. Regionally networked innovation systems
• Based on the promotion of innovation and comparative local advantages as
competitiveness factors (OCDE, 2007; Cooke & Schwartz, 2007; Cooke & Morgan, 1998)
• Regions and regional specialization as a competitiveness factor (Amin, 1999)
• Clear focus on relational dimension (Collinge & Gibney, 2010)
• Spatial proximity and co-specialization promote tacit knowledge (Asheim & Gertler, 2010)
• Essential role of public policies to foster and to plan relationship and learning
processes (Asheim & Gertler, 2010)

4. Advantages of Regional and Local Partnerships
• To share material and information resources
• To have more innovation capacity
• To foster mutual learning
• To have more status and peer recognition
• To share risks and costs
(Powell & Grodal, 2006; Geddes, 2010; Dancin, Reid & Smith Ring, 2010)

5. • Managers do not like to relinquish control to others (Dancin et al, 2010: 91)
• Dependence related with switching costs (hold-up) (Nooteboom, 2010)
• Distinctive knowledge reaching competitors (spill-over) (Nooteboom, 2010)
• Other more generic networks-related problems (McQuaid, 2010; Goldsmith & Eggers, 2004)
• Conflicts regarding mission and goals
• Slow decision-making processes and deadlocks
• Lack of clear responsibilities → accountability issues
Disadvantages of Regional and Local Partnerships

6. 1. History of collaboration of co-operation in the community;
2. Mutual respect, understanding, and trust;
3. Appropriate cross-section of members;
4. Members see collaboration in their self-interest;
5. Multiple layers of participation;
6. Development of clear roles and policy guidelines;
7. Open and frequent communication;
8. Shared vision;
9. Sufficient funds, materials and time;
10. Skilled leadership.
(Hibbert, Huxham & Smith Ring, 2010)
Critical factors for effective collaboration

7. • A joint initiative with several actors from the region of Aveiro, namely Águeda
• UA-ESTGA; C. M. Águeda; Firms (lighting; ICT; others)
• A member of ENoLL since late 2008
• Mission: “to promote innovation and the development of research in new
technologies and applications in the field of lighting”, through a space to collect,
discuss and to apply new ideas under a user-driven innovation approach
• Main strategic expectations:
• To reinforce business innovation capacity in Águeda
• To develop bridges with relevant research from UA
• To reinforce municipal intervention on sustainability (energy efficiency)
• To invest on international networks and markets
• To align local strategies with European Agenda
Case Study: Lighting Living Lab

8. • Funding
o Associate fees (main source, at least initially)
o Expected access to European, national and regional funds
o Eventually self-sustainability through consulting and training activities and project
management services
• Governance Structure
o Director
o Business associates also involved in decision-making boards
o 1 dedicated professional
• Activities
o Projects
Public Lighting: SIGLuzEE; Harmonização Comunicação; PDMIE
Inside Lighting: InLux
Workshops (joining associate-researchers; activities divulgation)
o consulting and training activities
o Research and development; laboratorial infrastructures
Case Study: Lighting Living Lab

9. • Some successes but short of initial goals and currently with reduced dynamism
• Initial Conditions
o Competing associates and a (local) history of ‘rivalry situations’
o Several types of entrepreneurs → different approaches to innovation and
motivations
• Problems within project development
o Application to ENoLL precipitated the project launching → lack of time for working
on project ownership
o Problems in getting access to European and National funds
o Dedicated professional left the project and no one else was hired
o Some associates left the project due to disappointments and disagreements
Reflexions on Problems and Successes
(according to interviewees)

10. • Positive things
o Related variety effect → complementarities between non-competing associates
o Meeting the challenges of network enabling leadership → evolving dynamics
o Some (albeit few) bridging dynamics between firms and university researchers
o Municipal efforts regarding energy efficiency
o National recognition of Águeda as an ‘entrepreneurship space’
Reflexions on Problems and Successes
(according to interviewees)

11. • Clear influence from initial conditions
• Importance of relational dimensions
o Actors knew each other previously due to geographic proximity (+ and - effects)
o Cognitive proximity helped to enable the success of related variety
o ‘Neutral’ facilitating agents helped the process
o Short projects giving room for ‘small wins’
• Be sensitive about:
o Difficulties in creating ‘shared understanding’ built upon different expectations
o Conscious that innovation rarely has immediate returns → holding strategies
o Central importance of funding and a dedicated mission team
Time, Trust and Management of Interdependence (and resources) as key-factors
Concluding remarks: some clues on the
management of Regional Networks of Innovation

12. Concluding remarks
Looking Ahead for
Europe 2020

13. Amin, A. (1999). ‘An Institutionalist Perspective on Regional Economic Development’. International Journal of
Urban and Regional Research, 23(2), 365-378.
Asheim, B., & Gertler, M. (2006). ‘The Geography of Innovation: Regional Innovation Systems’. In J.
Fagerberg, D. Mowery, & R. Nelson, The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (pp. 291-317). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Collinge, C., & Gibney, J. (2010). ‘Connecting place, policy and leadership’. Policy Studies, 31(4), 379-391.
Cooke, P. and Morgan, K. (1998) The Associational Economy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cooke, P. & Schwartz, D. (2007). ‘Creative regions: an introduction’. In P. Cooke & D. Schwartz, Creative
Regions: Technology, culture and knowledge entrepreneurship (pp. 1-20). New York: Routledge.
Dancin, T., Reid, D., & Smith Ring, P. (2010). ‘Alliances and Joint Ventures: The Role of Partner Selection from
an Embeddedness Perspective’. In S. Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham, & P. Smith Ring, The Oxford
Handbook of Inter-organizational Relations (pp. 90-117). New York: Oxford University Press.
Edquist, C. (2006). ‘Systems of Innovation: Perspectives and Challenges’. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, & R.
Nelson, The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (pp. 181-208). New York: Oxford University Press.
Fagerberg, J. (2006). ‘Innovation: A Guide to the Literature’. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, & R. Nelson, The
Oxford Handbook of Innovation (pp. 1-26). New York: Oxford University Press.
References

14. Geddes, M. (2010). ‘Inter-Organizational Relationships in Local and Local Development Partnerships’. In S.
Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham, & P. Smith Ring, The Oxford Handbook of Inter-organizational Relations
(pp. 203-230). New York: Oxford University Press.
Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. (2004). Governing by Network: The New Shape of the Public Sector.
Washington: The Brookings Institution.
Hibbert, P., Huxham, C., & Smith Ring, P. (2010). Managing Collaborative Inter-organizational Relations. In
S. Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham, & P. Smith Ring, The Oxford Handbook of Inter-organizational
Relations (pp. 390-416). New York: Oxford University Press.
Nooteboom, B. (2010). Learning and Innovation in Inter-organizational Relationships. In S. Cropper, M.
Ebers, C. Huxham, & P. Smith Ring, The Oxford Handbook of Inter-organizational Relations (pp. 607-634).
New York: Oxford University Press.
OECD. (2007). Higher Education and Regions: Globally Competitive, Locally Engaged. Paris: Organisation
for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Powell, W., & Grodal, S. (2006). Networks of Innovators. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson, The
Oxford Handbook of Innovation (pp. 56-85). New York: Oxford University Press.
References

15. Projeto Alianças Territoriais para a Inovação
Thank you!
Luís Mota Artur de Rosa Pires
luismota@ua.pt arp@ua.pt