Lupova-Henri, Evgeniya

2021-4-7, Lupova-Henri, Evgeniya, Blili, Sam, Dal Zotto, Cinzia

How should a cluster be designed to foster the innovativeness of its members? In this article, we view self-aware and organised clusters as “meta-organisations” which can deliberately shape their internal structures through design-based interventions. To formulate interventions for cluster design fostering its innovativeness, we adopt a methodology combining a systematic literature review and a design-oriented synthesis. We distinguish between six cluster business model elements: actors and their roles, resources and capabilities, value flows, governance, value propositions and value-creating activities. To gain insight into the properties of these elements conducive to cluster innovativeness, we review literature at the intersection of cluster, meta-organisation, business model and innovation studies. Our study allows to consolidate the extant research into “organised” clustering and the drivers of the cluster actors’ innovativeness. It also helps identify several important unanswered questions in the literature and to suggest potentially fruitful directions for further work.

2021-2-15, Lupova-Henri, Evgeniya, Blili, Sam, Dal Zotto, Cinzia

In this article, we explore whether organized clusters can act as institutional entrepreneurs to create conditions favorable to innovation in their constituent members. We view self-aware and organized clusters as “context-embedded meta-organizations” which engage in deliberate decision- and strategy-making. As such, clusters are not only shaped by their environments, as “traditional” cluster approaches suggest but can also act upon these. Their ability to act as “change agents” is crucial in countries with high institutional barriers to innovation, such as most transition economies. Focusing on Russia, we conduct two cluster case studies to analyze the strategies these adopt to alter and shape their institutional environments. We find that clusters have a dual role as institutional entrepreneurs. First, these can act collectively to shape their environments due to the power they wield. Second, they can be mechanisms empowering their constituent actors, fostering their reflexivity and creativity, and allowing them to engage in institutional entrepreneurship. Moreover, both collective and individual cluster actors adopt “bricolage” approaches to institutional entrepreneurship to compensate for the lack of resources or institutional frameworks or avoid the pressures of ineffective institutions.

2021-1-21, Lupova-Henri, Evgeniya, Blili, Sam, Dal Zotto, Cinzia

In this paper, we aim at exploring whether and how ‘organised’ clusters can be conceived of as deliberate actors within their contexts. Seeing such clusters as meta-organisations, we suggest that these can make ‘organisationality’ design choices, or decisions regarding full or partial implementation of the five elements constitutive of formal organisations: membership, hierarchy, rules, monitoring, and sanctions. To explore the relationship between clusters’ organisationality and actorhood, we conduct two qualitative case studies of organised clusters in Australia. Our findings suggest that clusters can deliberately ‘construct’ themselves both as organisations and social actors. Furthermore, drawing upon the institutional work perspective, we propose that clusters can engage in deliberate identity, boundary, and practice work. However, in doing so, they address both internal and external legitimating audiences. Finally, our findings suggest that clusters’ organisationality design choices may influence the locus of their actorhood resulting in more or less collaborative approaches to institutional work.