Challenges to Bridging Discrepant Knowledge Bases

This article was downloaded by: [Høgskolen i Bergen] On: 02 October 2013, At: 23:13 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Planning Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceps20

Challenges to Bridging Discrepant Knowledge Bases: A Case Study of the Norwegian Centre for Offshore Wind Energy a

a

a

Rune Njøs , Stig-Erik Jakobsen , Jens Kristian Fosse & Christine a

Engelsen a

Centre for Innovation, Bergen University College, Bergen, Norway Published online: 01 Oct 2013.

To cite this article: Rune Njøs, Stig-Erik Jakobsen, Jens Kristian Fosse & Christine Engelsen , European Planning Studies (2013): Challenges to Bridging Discrepant Knowledge Bases: A Case Study of the Norwegian Centre for Offshore Wind Energy, European Planning Studies, DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2013.843651 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.843651

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Downloaded by [Høgskolen i Bergen] at 23:13 02 October 2013

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

European Planning Studies, 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.843651


Challenges to Bridging Discrepant Knowledge Bases: A Case Study of the Norwegian Centre for Offshore Wind Energy RUNE NJØS, STIG-ERIK JAKOBSEN, JENS KRISTIAN FOSSE & CHRISTINE ENGELSEN Centre for Innovation, Bergen University College, Bergen, Norway

(Received February 2013; accepted August 2013)

ABSTRACT From a theoretical perspective, it is possible to enhance the innovation of firms and institutions by combining the analytic (scientific) knowledge base of research and development (R&D) institutions with the synthetic (practical) knowledge base of industries. Such combinations of knowledge are also believed to support regional development. One such initiative to bridge knowledge from the R&D sector and industry is the Norwegian Centre for Offshore Wind Energy (NORCOWE). However, as our case study shows, it is hard to bridge knowledge from these two partner groups. We found that this is mainly because of differences in the partners’ timelines (long versus short), their attitudes toward knowledge (research based versus experience based), application of the knowledge (knowledge per se versus commercialization), and organizational dimensions (linear/closed process versus interactive/open process). These differences show that the knowledge bases of these two groups may not just be different; they can also be seen as discrepant. We also argue that the NORCOWE initiative is influenced by a “policy push” logic. This implies that the initiative was not properly embedded in the industrial or R&D institutions before being launched, but was instead driven by a political will to promote the development of a new renewable energy source.

Introduction In the academic literature, co-operation between research and development (R&D) institutions (i.e. universities, university colleges, public and private research institutions) and regional industries is considered beneficial for both parties (Asheim & Coenen, 2005; To¨dtling & Trippl, 2005; European Commission, 2006; Berg Jensen et al., 2007; Nooteboom et al., 2007; Jakobsen & Onsager, 2008; Isaksen & Karlsen, 2010; Asheim et al., Correspondence Address: Stig-Erik Jakobsen, Centre for Innovation, Bergen University College, PO Box 7030, N-5020 Bergen, Norway. Email: [email protected], [email protected] # 2013 Taylor & Francis


2

R. Njøs et al.

2011a, 2011b; Isaksen & Karlsen, 2013; Jakobsen et al., 2012). This belief has emerged in the context of the increasing importance of regions as territorial innovation models: regions matter for innovation, which gives R&D institutions a central role (Boucher et al., 2003; Pinheiro et al., 2012a). The supporting rationale is that concurrent knowledge found in industry and the R&D sector should be conjoined, generating positive synergies for both groups, such as increased innovation. Thus, the innovative capability of industrial firms and R&D institutions can be enhanced by combining the analytic (scientific) knowledge base of R&D institutions with the synthetic (practical) knowledge base of most industries—that is, by bridging the differentiated knowledge bases (Isaksen & Karlsen, 2010). Knowledge bases are closely linked to the specific modes of innovation practised by organizations. From the perspective of industry, the bridging of knowledge bases also involves mixing the two ideal modes of innovation: the Science, Technology, Innovation (STI) mode and the Doing, Using, Interacting (DUI) mode (Berg Jensen et al., 2007). Bridging these modes is seen as positive for industry, and this mix has been referred to as the Complex, Combined Innovation (CCI) mode (Isaksen & Karlsen, 2013). Closer links between industry and R&D institutions have long been an objective of national innovation policy (Jakobsen & Onsager, 2008), in which such interactions (among other things) are seen to increase industrial firms’ absorptive capacity (Bishop et al., 2011). Such ideas have also proliferated around the world (D’Este & Patel, 2007). For instance, an empirical study conducted in Germany and France has shown that co-operation between public research institutions and industrial firms can increase firms’ production innovation somewhat, but not necessarily their process innovation (Robin & Schubert, 2013). Research/industry linkages in the two countries have intensified in recent years, but this “has not been accompanied by an increase in the effect of cooperation on the intensity of product innovation” (Robin & Schubert, 2013, p. 163). Moreover, studies of research partnerships have been scrutinized by scholars from several theoretical traditions and different empirical perspectives (Hagedoorn et al., 2000). On the practical side, we have also seen a stronger emphasis on innovation and the commercialization of research by R&D institutions. For instance, universities and university colleges have established so-called technology transfer offices to assist in the commercialization of research. Such institutions are increasingly being regarded as actors who should contribute to regional development, i.e. the “third mission” of universities and university colleges (Pinheiro et al., 2012b). In addition, there are several technical – industrial research institutes operating as links between research in universities and other higher education institutions and research in industry (Gulbrandsen & Nerdrum, 2009). Hence, the increasing importance of the knowledge economy has brought R&D to the fore, highlighting (among other things) the importance of collaboration with partners in industry. We assume that R&D institutions have approached the latter task with the linear thinking that is characteristic of the technology push model (Godin, 2006). Also, interaction with industry may be challenging for universities, because it requires a balance between producing scientifically useful knowledge and producing practical knowledge relevant to regional industries (Perry, 2012). And, also, universities are different (Bruneel et al., 2010; Uyarra, 2010). It should be noted that both the linear thinking of R&D institutions and the more interactive approach of the industry have their advantages (see Balconi et al., 2010), and we acknowledge that both linear and interactive processes of innovation can be


Challenges to Bridging Discrepant Knowledge Bases

3

present simultaneously. The intention of this paper, however, is to highlight challenges for combining these models, not to criticize the two modes per se. One initiative to bridge analytic and synthetic knowledge and stimulate co-operation between R&D institutions and industry is the Norwegian Centre for Offshore Wind Energy (NORCOWE). This is 1 of 11 Centres for Environment-friendly Energy Research (CEER) in Norway. The public CEER programme aims to facilitate technology development through interaction between R&D institutions and industry partners in immature sectors that are largely research driven and lack a strong market pull (Harmsen et al., 2000; van den Ende & Dolfsma, 2005). However, as we elaborate, the bridging is also challenged by the fact that the support for offshore wind power in Norway may be too weak and lacking a coherent strategy (Bugge et al., 2010; Hanson et al., 2011). First, we argue that NORCOWE relies heavily on the linear thinking of the technology push logic (Bugge et al., 2010). Technology is developed in research institutions and pushed out into the market. Second, we argue that NORCOWE is also informed by a “policy push” logic. Initiatives for promoting regional growth through co-operation between R&D institutions and industry can lack embedding in local industries and instead be the result of the direct action and strong commitment of government actors (Richardson et al., 2012). However, because of feedback loops and the interweaving of ideas and practice, such initiatives can occasionally promote co-operation between the involved groups of actors and institutions (Fløysand et al., 2012), and trust-building is a time consuming process (Bruneel et al., 2010). This requires time, suggesting that it may be too soon to render an account of the NORCOWE initiative. However, there are reasons to be cautious about the expected outcomes of collaboration initiatives to bridge industry and R&D, especially when they appear to involve policy push logic. Furthermore, our examination adds to the discussion about co-operation between R&D institutions and industry by highlighting challenges to bridging potentially discrepant knowledge bases. In so doing, we also elaborate on the implicit assumption about knowledge base compatibility that is emphasized in the recent CCI concept (Isaksen & Karlsen, 2013). In short, theories of knowledge bases and the modes and drivers of innovation form the conceptual framework of this article, and we contribute to the discussion of these concepts. More generally, we elaborate on challenges for bridging R&D institutions and industry, thus raising policy implications. We address the following research questions: .

.

.

What characterizes the interaction between R&D institutions and industry in the selected case? What are the main bridging challenges to combining R&D knowledge bases with industry knowledge bases? How can these bridging challenges be overcome?

We begin with a presentation of our theoretical and conceptual framework (second section), followed by empirical analyses that allow us to identify and discuss different bridging challenges (third section). The fourth section summarizes our findings, and explains both theoretically and practically the implications of discrepant knowledge bases.

4

R. Njøs et al.

Theoretical Approach


Key Concepts In the system of innovation approach, knowledge and innovation are seen as increasingly important for regional competiveness in the global economy (Lundvall, 1992; Maskell & Malmberg, 1999). Innovation is considered a prerequisite for the development of both industries and regions (Isaksen et al., 2008; Asheim et al., 2011b; Halkier et al., 2012), and it has been claimed that European countries are undergoing a regionalization of innovation policy and economic development (Prange, 2008). In Norway and elsewhere, this is exemplified by policies that encourage cluster programmes and the development of regional innovation systems (Jakobsen et al., 2012). The systems of innovation approach takes as a starting point that innovations and innovative activity can be facilitated and encouraged through directed and endogenously informed means. A central rationale in this literature is the importance of collaboration, cooperation and competition between actors, especially between R&D institutions and firms (Lundvall, 1992; To¨dtling & Trippl, 2005; Lundvall, 2007). This belief found in the systems of innovation literature has led to numerous initiatives for facilitating, e.g. clusters and innovation systems, where approaches aim at encouraging interaction and collaboration between different actors. Recently, and in line with the growing importance of the knowledge economy, it has been acknowledged that regions are containers for different types of knowledge, and that these types of knowledge should be conjoined through interaction. Such interactions are, again, encouraged by top-down initiated systems of innovation through policies and funding. In other words, the bridging of knowledge bases constitutes a central element in innovation systems, and one tool for promoting such linkages are research – industry collaboration initiatives. Such initiatives are seen as an appropriate tool for promoting the intermixing of different kinds of knowledge, which is considered beneficial for regional growth and the firms involved (Asheim & Coenen, 2005; To¨dtling & Trippl, 2005; Charles, 2006; Asheim et al., 2011a). The concept of a “knowledge base” refers to the type of knowledge that is dominant in a sector or industry. As a point of departure, it is common to distinguish between three ideal types of knowledge bases: analytic, synthetic, and symbolic (Asheim & Gertler, 2005; Manniche, 2012). An analytic knowledge base consists mainly of codified (scientific) knowledge developed and tested using scientific methods. Synthetic knowledge refers to knowledge gained through experience and practical work (Asheim & Gertler, 2005). It is context dependent and has a distinct tacit dimension (which is hard to codify). Lastly, the symbolic knowledge base is typical of cultural industries in which learning takes place through creative processes. At the firm level, these types of knowledge bases are linked to different modes of innovation. STI is a linear mode of innovation in which R&D is of critical importance. The STI mode of innovation relies heavily on an analytic (codified) knowledge base. The DUI mode is a systematic process that highlights the importance of interactions between customers and suppliers. This mode is based on the experience and competence gained from everyday work operations, which generate a synthetic knowledge base (Isaksen & Asheim, 2008). The different modes of innovation can be isolated and characterized as follows. The STI mode leads to new products and processes based on internal R&D primarily done by employees with postgraduate qualifications. This mode of innovation is mainly found in R&D institutions and research-intensive sectors and firms. The other mode of innovation emphasized in this paper is the DUI mode,



5

which leads to modifications of existing products and processes according to customer demand and need. DUI innovations are integrated into the daily activities of firms and are primarily developed by skilled workers. The knowledge produced is shared tacitly, as in on-the-job training (Asheim & Coenen, 2005; Asheim, 2007; Isaksen & Karlsen, 2010; Asheim et al., 2011a). The DUI mode of innovation is widespread in Norwegian industries, such as in the petroleum industry (Isaksen & Karlsen, 2010). However, Fitjar and Rodrı´guez-Pose (2013) studied product and process innovation among firms in Norwegian urban regions and found that firms that rely on the STI mode (and are involved in scientific collaborations) are more likely to generate “radical innovations”. Firms that rely on the DUI mode, on the other hand, are much more likely to innovate through relations with suppliers and customers (Fitjar & Rodrı´guez-Pose, 2013). Recently, the CCI concept has been seen as important for industrial innovation. This mode of innovation acknowledges the dual existence of STI and DUI and emphasizes the importance of combining them (Isaksen & Karlsen, 2013) (see also Manniche, 2012). However, we elaborate on the (implicit) notion that the knowledge bases and modes of innovation involved are compatible. As our case study shows, there can be a discrepancy between the R&D and industrial knowledge bases. This discrepancy can be hard to bridge, making it difficult to promote innovation through R&D and industry collaboration. Researchers have distinguished between technology push and market pull as drivers of innovation (Harmsen et al., 2000), with the former concept explaining innovation through R&D activity and the latter focusing on the importance of customer-driven innovation. This distinction echoes the differences between the knowledge bases and modes of innovation just discussed: technology push is associated with analytic knowledge bases and the STI mode of innovation, whereas market pull stresses the importance of firms’ market orientation and is logically consistent with synthetic knowledge bases and the DUI mode of innovation. However, this dichotomy (technology push versus market pull) has been debated (Di Stefano et al., 2012), and a combination of the two is seen as important for innovation in industries and regions (Harmsen et al., 2000; van den Ende & Dolfsma, 2005; Brem & Voigt, 2009; Bishop et al., 2011). Nevertheless, for analytical purposes, we use these archetypal concepts. Promoting Linkages between R&D Institutions and Industry In this paper we refer to universities, university colleges and private and public research organizations as R&D institutions. It has been claimed that “no single formula exists for how [such institutions] can stimulate innovation activity and industrial development in a particular region” (Isaksen & Karlsen, 2010, p. 1993, see also Autant-Bernard et al., 2013). Thus, co-operation between R&D institutions and industry must be embedded in the participants’ dominant knowledge bases. This is seen as important for creating a regional advantage, which (as previously mentioned) is regarded as vital in today’s innovation- and knowledge-driven economy (European Commission, 2006). The creation of regional advantage is regarded as nothing less than “the next evolutionary step in regional economic development” (European Commission, 2006, p. 12). The mode of innovation used by regional industries is pertinent here, because fine-tuned relationships between R&D and industry should be developed based on regional (endogenous) specializations, thus “upgrading” to a CCI mode of innovation by combining the STI and DUI modes. It has been claimed that co-operation between R&D institutions and industry is influenced by the knowledge


6

R. Njøs et al.

base of the latter, implying that in industries characterized by STI innovation, it is easier to benefit from co-operation (Isaksen & Karlsen, 2010) because the relationship between codified and tacit elements of knowledge is “both complex and dynamic” (Asheim, 2007, p. 224). However, it is not a given that industries characterized by DUI need systematic research activity or links to universities to become internationally successful (Isaksen & Karlsen, 2010, p. 2006); “innovating firms use different types of knowledge sources besides networking in terms of formal R&D cooperation, contracted research and selective collaboration among regional actors” (Kra¨tke, 2010, p. 96). Nevertheless, it has been claimed that “the two modes of learning are practiced with different intensities in different firms but also that firms combining them are more innovative” (Berg Jensen et al., 2007, p. 681) (see also Hudson, 1999). It has also been argued that interaction between lowand high-tech (non-research-intensive and highly research intensive, respectively) firms and industries is important, suggesting that low-tech industries are important in today’s knowledge-based economy that is focused on R&D: “a key flaw of the linear model of innovation is the failure to consider the interrelations between high- and low-tech firms for innovation processes” (Hansen & Winther, 2011, p. 324). Seen from another perspective, it may also be hard for universities and other R&D institutions to engage in such collaborations, given their complexity and ambiguity (Boucher et al., 2003; Uyarra, 2010; Pinheiro et al., 2012b). Also, it has been claimed that it is too superficial to “reject” the linear understanding of innovation, as it may indeed be far more complex and multi-faceted than previously acknowledged (Balconi et al., 2010). Thus, we challenge the assumption of the “seamless” incorporation of differentiated knowledge bases. Instead of seeing differentiated knowledge bases as corresponding, we show that (from an analytical perspective) differential knowledge bases can also be regarded as discrepant, implying that compatibility between analytic and synthetic knowledge bases can be hard to achieve. Nevertheless, we do not rule out the importance of such a combination (Berg Jensen et al., 2007). Instead we call for a more nuanced and praxisoriented discussion regarding differential knowledge bases that emphasizes sensitivity to context when implementing bridging initiatives. Nevertheless, bridging initiatives and alliances between R&D institutions and industry are not a new phenomenon, having come to the fore already in the 1980s (Gulbrandsen & Nerdrum, 2009; Hagedoorn et al., 2000). However, lack of experience with collaborative research and low levels of trust have been identified as important barriers to industry – science interaction (Bruneel et al., 2010). Individual characteristics of researchers may be more important than the characteristics of their institution, and researchers and industry interact through several different channels (Perkmann & Walsh, 2007). The drivers for such interactions can be varied and diverse, both for R&D institutions (D’Este & Patel, 2007) and industry (Mansfield & Lee, 1996). Moreover, it is claimed in the literature that geographical proximity is beneficial (Mansfield & Lee, 1996; Deeds et al., 1999; Lindelo¨f & Lo¨fsten, 2004; Slavtchev, 2010). As such, R&D institutions are considered important for regional development, something which has also been acknowledged by policy makers (Charles, 2003, 2006). In other words, proximity between the partners is considered important, and, for instance, an empirical investigation found that agglomerations of high technology employees are advantageous for successful knowledge transfer from academic institutions (Varga, 2000). Recently, we have witnessed a growing emphasis on the importance of policy actors stimulating such linkages (Jakobsen et al., 2012). This is legitimized by observations from



7

the systems of innovation approach, in which the lack of interactions between industrial firms and R&D institutions is the primary failure of the national and regional innovation systems, reducing systems’ ability to innovate (Edquist, 2001; Isaksen & Remøe, 2001; Remøe, 2005). Still, the emphasis on building these linkages makes new initiatives vulnerable to “policy push logic”, wherein initiatives are the result of the direct action and strong commitment of governmental actors rather than being based in industry or among the involved R&D institutions. As others have noted, “public– private cooperation in research should not be encouraged at all costs, as it is not likely to improve all forms of innovation” (Robin and Schubert, 2013, p. 163), and some firms may not be interested in linkages to academics (Bruneel et al., 2010). By contrast, Hendry and Harborne (2011) studied the development of the Danish wind turbine system and reported that what began as a “bricolage” grew into a more intense R&D project in its later phases. They claim that the experience-based knowledge important for development at the early stages was later complemented by science-based R&D, and that different forms of learning were crucial, thus challenging the linear perception of innovation (Hendry & Harborne, 2011). Also, Karnøe and Garud (2012) found that the willingness among Danish regulators to subsidize and give grants to the emerging technology proved to be very important for the development of the wind turbine cluster (though it should also be noted that the Danes have not achieved the same degree of success in biogas and solar panel technologies). These findings may be pertinent to our case, as the NORCOWE project may not have had time to mature into a “successful” bridging initiative. If we made crude predictions based on the assumptions of the theories of knowledge bases and bridging initiatives, we would in our empirical case expect to find a willingness to cooperate among the partners in the NORCOWE initiative, and an especially strong interest in the new knowledge produced by their collaboration. According to theory, this knowledge is formed in the dialectical relationship between the industry partners’ synthetic knowledge and the research partners’ analytic knowledge, and the interaction between the two partner groups should bring competitive advantages to the members of NORCOWE. We would also expect this knowledge to spread and be incorporated in the partners’ organizations. Building on this logic, the industry partners would see the importance of “upgrading” their knowledge base from DUI to CCI (by combining with STI innovation). Following this reasoning, NORCOWE should be a fruitful initiative that incorporates both the research and industrial partners’ views and interests to the benefit of both groups and, inter alia, gives the research partners continual feedback on possible research questions and topics. However, it has also been noted that industrial firms and R&D institutions may have diverging objectives (Robin & Schubert, 2013), which brings us to our empirical investigation, wherein we nuance difficulties of bridging knowledge between these groups. Using an initiative for establishing linkages between R&D institutions and industry as our case, we elaborate on the problems of bridging differential knowledge bases and show how such knowledge bases can be discrepant and thus hinder innovation.

The Offshore Wind Industry in Norway The Development of the Industry Norwegian firms in offshore wind can roughly be sorted in two: Firms operating exclusively in offshore wind and those exploring the possibility for operating in offshore


8

R. Njøs et al.

wind. Most of the firms are found in the latter category, i.e. that offshore wind is a supplement to existing activities (Hopsdal Hansen & Steen, 2011, p. 3). This may be related to arguments that national policies have restricted the development of offshore wind in Norway, where the policies have been claimed to be partial rather than integrated. According to Hanson et al. (2011) and Bugge et al. (2010), the level of support, most notably by policy makers, has been low, and technology policies have emphasized radical research driven innovations. These policies have also supported the development of immature technologies, while there is a lack of support towards the commercialization and market introduction of the technology. More specifically, offshore wind is struggling in an uphill battle in Norway, and, as such, it has been claimed that national policies should be more directed towards supporting the development of a domestic market for offshore wind (see Bugge et al., 2010; Hanson et al., 2011). Wind power has been contested in Norway, and hydro power, another renewable energy source, has a very strong foothold in the socio-economic Norwegian landscape (Bugge et al., 2010). Furthermore, extraction and processing of fossil fuels is indisputably Norway’s dominating industry. This has made the development of other energy industries difficult, mainly due to high cost levels and high earnings in the petroleum industry (Hopsdal Hansen & Steen, 2011). Due to the relatively weak political support, coupled with the fact that the production of offshore wind needs to be heavily subsidized to cover the gap between production cost and market price (Oterhals et al., 2010), a domestic market for offshore wind is missing. Still, R&D on offshore wind is extensive in Norway, but the industry claims that this research is of limited applicable value (Hopsdal Hansen & Steen, 2011), and the firms look to international markets and field developments to implement and sell their products/services. Internationally, and especially in Europe, the offshore wind industry has grown in the last decade, and several countries, such as Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK have built pilot plants for offshore wind. Moreover, the European Union has put renewable energy high up on the agenda, most notably through EU 20-20-20 (Oterhals et al., 2010). For instance, Foxon and colleagues described the importance of strong political commitment to developing the wind industry in the UK (Foxon et al., 2005). This implies that the Norwegian offshore wind industry looks beyond national borders for markets and field development (NORCOWE, 2012). Put together, this leaves the offshore wind industry in Norway in an immature phase, where a home market is likely to be missing in the unforeseeable future. The Selected Case CEER is a public programme in Norway that encourages interactions between research communities and industry. Funding for a project can be granted for up to 8 years (5 years, plus a possible 3-year extension). The aim of the programme is to encourage research-driven technology development in renewable energy and to contribute to industrial development (Research Council of Norway, 2008), and NORCOWE is 1 of 11 centres funded by the CEER programme.1 In NORCOWE, “[t]he user partners must take active part in the centre’s research projects, conduct their own extensive innovation activities, and have the capacity to make use of advanced research” (Research Council of Norway, 2008, p. 3). The centre specializes in offshore wind, an immature industry both technologically and in terms of market development. Hence, the vision of NORCOWE “is to combine Norwegian offshore technology and leading Danish and inter-



9

national communities on wind energy in order to provide innovative and cost efficient solutions and technology for large water depths and harsh offshore environments” (NORCOWE, 2010). NORCOWE is an interdisciplinary centre that aims to build a strong milieu in the field of offshore wind energy, generate new knowledge, and develop a pool of skilled personnel for the industry. The research centre is organized into three committees: the Scientific Committee, the International Scientific Advisory Committee, and the Committee for Innovation and Commercialization (CIC). The Scientific Committee includes the research partners and the CIC consists of all the industry partners. The latter committee is responsible for evaluating the commercial potential of the research. NORCOWE is centred on five work packages: wind and ocean conditions, offshore wind technology and innovative concepts, offshore deployment and operation, wind farm optimization, and common themes. In addition, there are smaller subprojects. The work packages and the smaller subprojects are led by the research partners. The board consists of representatives from the research partners and the industrial partners. NORCOWE was set up in 2009, and has a budget of 240 MNOK over an 8-year period. At the time of data collection, NORCOWE consisted of 15 partners: six research partners (R&D institutions) and nine industry partners. Of NORCOWEs six research partners, four are public universities and two are research organizations. The meta-region of Western/Southern Norway, which consists of the counties Hordaland, Rogaland, VestAgder and Aust-Agder, holds a prime position in the Norwegian energy sector. This is also the core area for the NORCOWE project. With the exception of one Danish partner, all R&D partners are located in Western/Southern Norway (three in Hordaland, one in Rogaland and one Vest-Agder). Of the industry partners, eight are located in Western/Southern Norway (three in Hordaland, two in Rogaland and three in VestAgder), while one is located in the capital region (Eastern Norway). The industry partners in NORCOWE are, for the most, very large companies with international operations. Several of these have the petroleum industry as their main market. The industry partners consists of a producer of renewable energy (app. 3500 employees), a drilling company (app. 60,000 employees), a provider of oilfield products, systems and services (app. 21,500 employees), a package supplier of safety and automation systems (app. 100 employees), a weather services provider (app. 60 employees), an energy producer (app. 23,000 employees), an industrial group in energy, infrastructure and telecommunication (app. 1000 employees), a regional power company (app. 1500 employees), and a strategic grouping of seven regional power companies. For the most, these companies have extensive international orientation, the exception being the industrial group in energy, infrastructure and telecommunication, the regional power company and the grouping of the seven regional power companies. These are national in their operations. In other words, NORCOWE has a distinct regional anchoring in that the partners (both industry and R&D partners) for a large part are located in the energy region of Western/Southern Norway. The centre is hosted in Bergen in Hordaland, and all three committees and all five of the work packages are led by R&D institutions in Western/Southern Norway. NORCOWE is an interesting case. Because offshore wind is a new, immature industry, we can observe the formation of new networks and the reshaping of existing ones. To a large extent, experience-based knowledge in offshore wind has been acquired from the petroleum industry, and some similarities between these industries can be identified. However, this does not offer a “quick fix” for the offshore wind industry; new knowledge

10

R. Njøs et al.

and networks are needed to build a strong offshore wind industry in Norway. The need for new knowledge makes offshore wind an especially interesting object for study. Furthermore, studying a knowledge-generating initiative such as NORCOWE can lead to new insights on the relationship between R&D institutions and industry, and it may explain possible challenges to bridging initiatives more generally.


Methods and Data The CEER programme mainly consists of projects based on immature technologies that lack a well-functioning market. NORCOWE is typical in this regard, and thus it can highlight challenges to co-operation between R&D institutions and industry in developing a new technology platform. As the intention of this empirical study is to inform and nuance existing theory, the selection of a typical case is especially appropriate (George & Bennett, 2005). Thus, we intend to show that NORCOWE is informative on a number of levels and that an examination of this initiative can bring theoretical insights to the bridging of knowledge bases. We feel that NORCOWE has some of the generic features of R&D—industry collaborations and knowledge base bridging. However, this does not mean that the findings are statistically representative. They illustrate what are thought to be the typical characteristics of the phenomenon under study (George & Bennett, 2005). We collected the data with two compatible qualitative methods: participant observation and semi-structured interviews. Participant observation was conducted over a 6-week period, about 6 months before the interviews. The aim of these observations was to monitor activity in the network and to follow the discourse on R&D – industry collaboration among the industry partners. In addition, we examined the relevance of research projects to industry and commercialization strategies. We used purposeful sampling to select the most appropriate interview subjects from among the research and industry partners, with a focus on the latter. Seven semi-structured interviews were conducted: two with research partners and five with industry partners. We developed a broadly structured interview guide according to our main research topics: the organization of NORCOWE, views on knowledge, and knowledge transfer. The interviews, which were conducted during the spring of 2012, lasted approximately 1 hour each, and they were tape-recorded and transcribed. Empirical Analyses When analysing our selected case, we identified several dimensions on which the industry and research partners in NORCOWE differed. This includes the partners’ views on the timeline of knowledge production, the type of knowledge produced, the utility and application of knowledge, and the organization of the innovation process. In our empirical analysis these dimensions are discussed in turn. Long- or Short-Term Perspective? The two partner groups (industry and research) both hope to realize synergies from the NORCOWE initiative, primarily with respect to producing and accessing new knowledge. The research partners are knowledge producers, whereas the industry partners are knowledge utilizers. The industry partners want access to expertise and knowledge, whereas the


11


research partners are interested in project collaboration and feedback from the industry. These discrepancies between the partners’ objectives highlight some of the differences between them, and they have become more apparent since the beginning of the initiative. Both partner groups consider the potential of the initiative to be unfulfilled, especially when it comes to the transfer of knowledge. One explanation for this seems to be that the partners have different expectations regarding the time span for generating new knowledge. The industry partners indicated that they understood the importance of (and the time involved in) conducting basic research. However, they were hoping for a more application-oriented approach than they had experienced thus far. One of the industry partners illustrated this, saying: Of course, basic research is important, and that is financed by the Research Council and the Ministry. But it is the commissioned research and the industrial research that is important, because that is the research we use. And the shorter the time span, the better. Many of the research and co-operative projects in NORCOWE are conducted by Ph.D. candidates for their degrees, which mean that problem formulations and themes anticipate a time span of at least 3 years. In many cases, this is too long for the industry partners, who would like the problem formulations and themes of the research to be more relevant and useful to industry—that is, to be more applied. The industry partners feel that the research partners are adapting too slowly, whereas the research partners feel that the industry partners are not participating enough in the initiative; the researchers would like to see more involvement by their industrial partners. As one of the industry informants said, a lack of will among the industry partners is problematic for the collaboration in NORCOWE: I believe we are too passive for them. The organization is there, so if we wanted a meeting with one of the research partners, I’m sure that would be possible. I think it is more on us, and on how much we wish to participate. This sentiment was echoed by another industry informant: It might be that there’s relevant material for us, but when we see the title [of a research publication], we think “no, I won’t bother to spend time on that.” And that’s a bit unfair from our side. And it’s because we have so little time. There is broad agreement that the flow of knowledge and information is mainly unidirectional, from the research partners to industry, which highlights the challenge of making industry’s shorter timelines work with the longer timelines of R&D. Research- or Experience-Based Knowledge? NORCOWE consists of the Scientific Committee (research institutions and universities) and the CIC (representatives of the industry partners). The CIC is intended to be the commercial component of the initiative that utilizes the new knowledge produced. However, this is not functioning well. According to one of the industry informants, “innovation is to a large degree tacit knowledge, because it is doing-and-failing. To research, it is very

12

R. Njøs et al.

theoretical; to innovate is very tacit”. The research partners have a linear perception of innovation, whereas the industry partners argue for more interactivity. One of the industry informants said: “You cannot commercialize research results unless you innovate”. This was a recurring argument, and the industry partners felt that an “innovation perspective” should be implemented at far earlier stages. It was argued that the way the system currently works is flawed, and the partner groups agreed about the difficulties inherent in partnerships between industry and research. One of the research partners articulated this:


A researcher might think “publication”. That is, in many ways, the product for most researchers. And then you think, “okay, the firm can read the article, and then do business development based on that if they want”. But that’s not the way things work. For the industry partners, the research conducted in NORCOWE is hard to grasp, and thus its relevance to industry is low. We discovered several differences between the partner groups with respect to their knowledge bases and their views about knowledge. For example, the research partners value knowledge for its own sake, whereas the industry partners value knowledge that is applicable. Our informants also indicated that the academic and business worlds have different “ways of thinking” and in many ways speak different “languages”. One of the industry partners was especially clear on this point: We do not know what these researchers are doing, because they can’t even manage to document what they are doing! And documentation, that is a minimum for every entrepreneur in Norway. That he can actually describe to us what he is doing and the idea behind it. And if you, as a researcher, cannot do that, then it is almost guaranteed that what you are doing is not relevant to industry. Those who cannot manage to make at least minimal documentation should have their financing withdrawn. The research partners acknowledge this difference, but argue as follows: Like, when reading a report, it is just a stroke of luck if the reader has the competence required to get the most out of it. That’s just the way it is. If you are to make it so that everyone understands it, then it’s no longer research. It has to be that way. If you are to stay ahead, push things so that you are actually capable of solving basic or important problems, then it actually has to be advanced and difficult. Because you have to be a specialist to get access to that knowledge and make it useful. That’s just the way it is! Differences between the partners hamper innovation, as one industry partner noted: Innovation is to a large degree tacit knowledge, because it is about learning and making mistakes. To researchers it is very theoretical, but innovation is very tacit. [. . .] And NORCOWE does not know anything about this. They do not understand innovation! They use too little tacit knowledge. Theoretically, when analytic knowledge is combined with synthetic knowledge, it can be an impetus to innovation (Berg Jensen et al., 2007, p. 683). This could also be the case in


13

NORCOWE, but our data show that the unidirectional transfer of knowledge and information from the research partners to the industry partners instead hampers innovation. Most of the time, the industry partners found it hard to understand and use the scientific knowledge the researchers produced, and both the research partners and the industry partners emphasized the importance of transferring “know-how” and synthetic knowledge from industry to researchers.


Knowledge Production or Knowledge Utilization? Both the research and industry partners consider knowledge to be important for finding the best solutions and reducing risk when innovating, but the industry partners also focus on using knowledge to decrease costs. However, with respect to the value of the knowledge created, the partners have differing views. For the industry partners, the value of knowledge lies in its utility (i.e. how it can be applied), whereas the research partners value knowledge per se. This can be explained partly by the different roles the partners have in NORCOWE. The research partners are knowledge producers, whereas the industry partners are knowledge utilizers. They also use the knowledge that is produced differently. The industry partners try to develop commercial products or services with the knowledge, whereas the researchers write reports and research articles for peer-reviewed journals. These differing views on the knowledge that is created and how it is used highlight the fundamental differences between the partner groups’ knowledge bases. The research partners have an analytic knowledge base, whereas the industry partners have a synthetic knowledge base. The experience-based knowledge of the firms in the NORCOWE initiative is largely adopted from the oil and gas industry; because offshore wind is a new industry, relatively little of the experience-based knowledge of industry partners is directly related to offshore wind. These differences make co-operation between the partners in the initiative difficult, as the industry partners need “know-how” knowledge to make use of the “know-why” knowledge produced by the research partners. The latter form of knowledge has little utility for the industry partners because scientific knowledge lacks the tacit, experience-based dimension that the industry partners need. Without R&D – industry interaction, industrial firms have little use for this knowledge: in many ways, the two sides speak different “languages”. The research partners communicated the theoretical, scientific knowledge they produced through research reports, but the industry partners found the reports and publications too advanced and extensive. The industry partners also lacked experiencebased knowledge from the offshore wind industry, and the research partners received little feedback from them. Thus, as an immature industry, the offshore wind industry lacks relevant experience-based knowledge, which makes bridging the differential knowledge bases even harder. The industry and research partners have different perceptions of the knowledge needed for such bridging, how to produce it, how long it should take to produce it, and what the outcome of the knowledge should be. Open or Closed Process? Based on the way it is organized, NORCOWE appears to have a linear and closed innovation process. The research partners initiate problem formulations and research questions. When the research is conducted, there is no involvement by industry. The process


14

R. Njøs et al.

only includes internal linkages within the scientific community and lacks linkages to the “outside” world. In other words, it is a closed and inward-oriented process. The industry partners, however, argue for a more open innovation process. They want to incorporate experience from the industry and the potential requirements and demands of future markets into the early phases of the research and innovation processes through different types of feedback loops. However, the research conducted by NORCOWE is driven by the research partners’ questions rather than by the industry partners’ needs, and the practical applications of the work are hard to grasp for the industry partners. In many ways they “haggle” over the true aim of NORCOWE—is it basic research or commercial applications? On the other hand, the research partners want their partners in industry to see the importance of basic research, including how it can reduce risk for the industry partners in the long run (when the end product(s) is introduced to the market). However, although the industry partners acknowledge the importance of such research, they have trouble seeing how this knowledge can be applied in the short run. In the initial phase of the initiative, the research partners directed activities in NORCOWE. This is problematic for the industry partners, who regard the current process as closed. They believe they should have been included in an earlier phase of the initiative, to realize a more “open” process. One of the informants explained it this way: “There is a lot of interesting material there, but it is not directly applicable to us, since we didn’t choose the themes and topics for the research”. Hence, both experience-based and tacit knowledge are critically important in NORCOWE. It is important to communicate tacit knowledge as well as scientific knowledge. The industry partners stress that scientific knowledge is largely ubiquitous, and that when NORCOWE contributes to this knowledge through published articles, the work is not an asset as it does not provide a competitive advantage; it lacks the “tacitness” required to make it unique (Maskell & Malmberg, 1999). In short, the NORCOWE initiative highlights the difficulties of combining a closed, linear innovation model that emphasizes the importance of research with a more shortterm innovation approach focused on interactivity, openness, and the commercialization of technology. In many ways, the core of the “discrepancy difficulties” and the different approaches to innovation, differentiated knowledge bases, and the flawed flow of knowledge resembles a Catch 22, as exemplified by this statement from one of the research partners: What I think is important is that the industry, to a great degree, presents the problems they are facing and the problem formulations they wish to solve. That presupposes, of course, that they have very good insight and understand the problem formulations, something that is not a given. Thus, to improve the relevance and comprehensibility of the research to industry, the research partners first need the industry partners to formulate problems based on scientific insight; however, to obtain this requisite scientific insight, the industry partners first need the research partners to produce relevant and comprehensible results. Building on the theoretical section presented above, the quote—and the Catch 22 it describes—shows how both sets of partners tend to work within the constraints of their respective knowledge bases: linearity, theory, and analysis come to fore for the researchers, whereas the industry partners focus on experience, learning-by-doing, and commercialization. The difficulties


15

these groups have in “thinking outside the knowledge base” are exemplified by a telling quote: what we are struggling with in NORCOWE is the mixture of an academic purpose of competence building and an industrial purpose of gaining something useful that the industry can implement. Because a lot of the things taking place are on the university’s terms—in other words pure academic knowledge building—it’s hard to give us [the industry partners] implementable knowledge. That’s the main problem with how they have organized it. Which is correct: is it applied research to be implemented in the industry? Or is it strategic basic research with a purely academic objective?


Bridging the Troubled Water? Based on our empirical analyses, we believe that several adjustments can be made to increase the efficiency of a policy instrument aiming towards bridging the knowledge bases of R&D institutions and the industry. First, the industry partners in NORCOWE need to participate actively, taking the time and using appropriate resources to follow up on projects. The partners need to interact more, such as in workshops, to encourage dialogue and an open agenda, rather than continuing with the current one-way communication from the researchers to their industry partners. Other scholars have made this same suggestion; see, e.g. Bishop et al. (2011) for an overview of firm benefits in industry– university collaborations and Hagedoorn et al. (2000) for a review of studies on research partnerships. The industry partners have asked for easily understood, summarized documents based on the publications in NORCOWE, and they would like these documents to be exclusive to the NORCOWE partners. Furthermore, the industry partners indicated that they had problems understanding the scientific knowledge, and they argued that it should be supplemented by tacit and experience-based knowledge. The research conducted and the knowledge created must be understandable to the industry partners. It would also be beneficial for the flow of knowledge and the bridging of knowledge bases if the industry partners gave in-kind contributions to the collaboration, not just cash. Only one of the industry partners makes in-kind contributions, and the research partners emphasized the importance of such contributions for the success of the collaboration. More extensive use of in-kind contributions would more fully embed the industry partners in the projects/research and promote interactivity between research and industry partners. One of the industry partners summarizes: It should be driven more by the industry’s needs, not by what the researchers think is interesting. But, of course, this is not black and white. We also understand the importance of basic research, and its long time span, because that forms the foundation of the knowledge that is needed in more short term commissioned research. So there’s interplay. But finding that balance . . . We feel that, today, the balance is too much on the R&D side in NORCOWE. It needs to shift . . . A Policy Push? With the technology push/market pull dichotomy as a point of departure, we have argued that NORCOWE is characterized by a technology push logic (see also Bugge et al., 2010).


16

R. Njøs et al.

In addition, we also think that this initiative is informed by “policy push logic”, in that it lacks real foundation in industry and owes its origin to the direct action and commitment of governmental actors. Thus, NORCOWE can also be regarded a policy push initiative, and we feel that it is fair to elaborate on the motives and underlying assumptions of this bridging initiative. The market for offshore wind technology in Norway is immature (Hopsdal Hansen & Steen, 2012). One reason for this may be that environmentally friendly technology is not an industry or a sector of the economy in its own right; instead, it is found in manifold sectors and industries. Because such technology is cross-sectoral in nature, the relevant firms (and thus the innovation activity) are spread among various existing markets and industries. Consequently, the technology firms’ links to partners and customers in traditional and existing industries are often stronger than their links to related technology developers (in the wind sector, in this case). For example, Norwegian environmental technology firms report that customer-driven technology development is rare, indicating that their commercial links are weak (MENON Business Economics, 2009). This is a clear indication of the importance of technology push in the development of Norwegian environmental technology, as the immature market in the making is being created and shaped by legislation and (national) policy. It is also important to point out that wind turbines are subject to political debate in Norway, and resistance to the technology is prominent (MENON Business Economics, 2009; Hopsdal Hansen & Steen, 2012). Such policy support is important for developing new industries, as has been shown in, e.g. the development of the Danish wind turbine cluster (Karnøe & Garud, 2012). On the other hand, the partners in NORCOWE highlight the importance of market pull, and the industry partners in particular consider themselves to be customers in the offshore wind market. However, from an analytical perspective, innovation activity in Norwegian wind energy appears to be driven by technology push (MENON Business Economics, 2009; Bugge et al., 2010). Still, research on environmentally friendly energy (here offshore wind) has been prioritized by the government and policy makers. Environmentally friendly energy has great symbolic value in the Norwegian public debate, making the CEER initiative (which includes our case study) an instrument that is informed also by a policy push logic in addition to the technology push. It has previously been acknowledged that governments occasionally use public research institutions to shape and implement policy, in many ways conflating science policy and industry policy (Robin & Schubert, 2013). Dealing as it does with environmentally friendly technology, and given the focus on both renewable energy and alternative energy sources in Norway and elsewhere, we feel that the NORCOWE initiative was constructed by policy makers to promote industry– R&D collaboration in offshore wind energy, but that it was not properly embedded in the industry. The initiative has great symbolic value (Edelman, 1967) in promoting a national policy with an emphasis on sustainable development. Elsewhere it has been noted that policy, along with other factors, is important for environmental innovations (Rehfeld et al., 2007). It has also been argued that policy initiatives often are more “myths and ceremony” than real change (Meyer & Rowan, 1977), and NORCOWE may be such a case. NORCOWE clearly lacks a joint understanding between its research and industry partners concerning their motives for participation, and thus it appears that co-operation has been “forced” upon them. Financing and public sector support might represent encouraging “carrots” for the actors, but, as we have seen, bridging initiatives such as



Table 1.

17

Challenges to bridging R&D institutions and industry

Challenge

R&D institutions

Industry

Time perspective Type of knowledge Orientation Organization

Long Research-based Knowledge production Closed (linear)

Short Experience-based Knowledge utilization Open (interactive)

NORCOWE more often than not grow out of policy and public sector initiatives rather than arising endogenously at the point where industry and R&D intersect. Such public sector support is crucial for bridging initiatives, and we do not underestimate the importance of these collaborations per se. However, we do question the grounds for making such policy push instruments work without a proper foundation in both industry and the R&D sector. Hence, the findings we report here add to theory by showing how a collaborative initiative such as NORCOWE does not necessarily just conform to the technology push or market pull dichotomy, but can also be conceived of as resulting from a policy push and thus as having a symbolic dimension (Edelman, 1967). In some cases, such political initiatives can be hollow rather than substantive (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Continuing with such idealized bridging initiatives without a proper R&D and industry foundation might not be the way forward, and, considering the case reported here, there is every reason to be critical. Bridging knowledge bases is indeed a complicated practice (see also Robin & Schubert, 2013). Others have also called for a greater understanding of such policy mechanisms in fostering environmental innovations (Foxon et al., 2005; Taylor, 2008). However, previous research has shown that in some cases policy-driven collaborative initiatives can create representations that feed back on the actors, such as cluster initiatives (which in many ways build on logic that emphasizes collaboration, though not exclusively). Fløysand et al. (2012, p. 951) note: “Cluster formations can also be the source of representations, and through feedback loops such representations can be reconstructed even before the entity has reached the level of a working cluster”. Given NORCOWE’s relatively short history, it may be too early to draw conclusions. Concluding Remarks The differences in the views held by the partners on subjects such as timelines and the value of the knowledge that is created need to be overcome to reap the benefits of collaboration. This is even more apparent if we consider industry’s synthetic knowledge base and DUI mode of innovation versus the researchers’ analytical knowledge base and much more linear perception of how to commercialize research (closed process). Moreover, the research partners’ primary goal is not innovation; their focus is on research and the academic dissemination of knowledge. These differences are a challenge for the initiative, and they are also a challenge to bridging the partners’ respective knowledge bases (see also Hopsdal Hansen & Steen, 2012). From the perspective of industry, this case shows that the seamless combination of the two knowledge bases and the two modes of innovation is not a given, and the case is also pertinent to discussions of the CCI concept (Isaksen & Karlsen, 2013). Today, the innovation process in NORCOWE is linear rather than interactive, which means that innovation (to a certain degree)


18

R. Njøs et al.

follows predefined steps, highly influenced by the researchers’ analytic knowledge base and ways of thinking. This is characterized by a closed, linear perception of innovation in NORCOWE. Hence, it is hard to see how the initiative’s goals can be achieved. In addition, this failure may be partially explained by the political symbolism, or the political push logic, on which the initiative also seems to be based. The main challenges discussed are summarized in Table 1. The research partners have a longer time horizon than the industry partners, and this influences the partners’ views about what knowledge NORCOWE needs, how it should be produced, and what knowledge base(s) should be used. The research partners rely on research-based knowledge, whereas industry is far more familiar with experience-based knowledge. This is further exemplified by the partners’ different orientations to knowledge: researchers are knowledge producers, whereas the industry partners are knowledge utilizers. These challenges can be summarized by the different views the partners have on the organization of the initiative. The current situation is the result of NORCOWE being designed by the research institutions, reflecting the closed process and linear view of innovation characteristic of research. Our study shows that capitalizing on the complementarity of different knowledge bases can be difficult, even though such bridging is seen as beneficial from theoretical and empirical points of view for industry, R&D institutions (Nooteboom et al., 2007; Asheim et al., 2011a; Hansen and Winther, 2011; Parjanen et al., 2011), and regional economies (European Commission, 2006; Isaksen & Karlsen, 2013). In many ways, NORCOWE exemplifies the cultural differences between industrial and academic ways of thinking. Despite our focus on the challenges to bridging R&D institutions and industry in this article, we recognize the importance of interactivity (Bishop et al., 2011; Hopsdal Hansen & Steen, 2012), and see value in combining different types of knowledge bases (Isaksen & Karlsen, 2013) and modes of innovation (Isaksen & Karlsen, 2010)—as exemplified by Hansen and Winther (2011). Theoretically, combining different knowledge bases is both possible and desirable, but as we have shown, it may be harder to bridge discrepant knowledge bases than has been acknowledged in the literature. We have also argued that the difficulties we observed may partly be related to the specific characteristics of the offshore wind industry. A policy push initiative may lack the incentives needed for R&D and industry interactivity, especially in a case such as NORCOWE, which is positioned in the immature market and early development phase of the wind industry. Consequently, a top-down assembly of idealized views about tools to promote R&D – industry collaboration may be hard to implement. This complements the view of technology push in our case, and leads to an understanding of policy push. However, with more time, the results of the initiative may be more fruitful and clear-cut. This understanding may help to explain the partner groups’ different views on core issues, as the lack of embeddedness has been prominent from the beginning. Still, more research on bridging initiatives (both successful and unsuccessful) is needed to gain a deeper understanding of the mechanisms promoting and hampering co-operation between R&D institutions and the industry. The NORCOWE initiative has a strong regional anchoring in Western/Southern Norway, or the core energy region in Norway. Nearly all of the R&D and industry partners are located in this region. Still, the initiative was not properly embedded among the industry partners and the R&D institutions before being launched. In further developing this



19

bridging imitative we believe that a stronger emphasis on the regional dimension is a key factor for success. Collaboration among heterogeneous actors is challenging. In the initial phase, there is a need for trust-building activities and face-to-face communication to overcome the differences between the partners. The development and commercialization of new technology are complicated tasks and there is a need for prolonged discussions and meetings between the involved partners. The geographical proximity between them is an advantage that needs to be utilized in such processes. The anchoring of the initiative in the core energy region of Norway can also permit labour pooling, knowledge spill overs and informal contact between the partners. However, to reap such benefits from regional co-location, there is need for proper network facilitation encouraging an open dialogue between R&D partners and the industry instead of a one-way communication from the researchers to the industry partners. In addition, we also believe that there is a need for a more coherent policy for offshore wind at the national level. A hollow and partial policy push should be replaced by a strong and substantive push. Up to now the Norwegian policy on offshore wind has focused on supporting research and technology development. In a coherent strategy, there is also a need for an emphasis on the commercialization of the technology and on the development of a domestic market. Furthermore, policies must address how to strike the right balance between fossil fuels and renewable energy sources when developing an energy policy for the future. Acknowledgements This research was made possible by grants from the Research Council of Norway and Hordaland County Council. We would like to thank the two anonymous referees for valuable comments. Note 1. There are two CEER projects for offshore wind in Norway: NORCOWE and the Norwegian Research Centre for Offshore Wind Technology (NOWITECH).

References Asheim, B. (2007) Differentiated knowledge bases and varieties of regional innovation systems, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 20(3), pp. 223– 241. Asheim, B. T. & Coenen, L. (2005) Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters, Research Policy, 34(8), pp. 1173–1190. Asheim, B. T. & Gertler, M. S. (2005) The geography of innovation: Regional innovation systems, in: J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery & R. R. Nelson (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, pp. 291– 317 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Asheim, B. T., Boschma, R. & Cooke, P. (2011a) Constructing regional advantage: Platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge bases, Regional Studies, 45(7), pp. 893–904. Asheim, B. T., Moodysson, J. & To¨dtling, F. (2011b) Constructing regional advantage: Towards state-of-the-art regional innovation system policies in Europe? European Planning Studies, 19(7), pp. 1133–1139. Autant-Bernard, C., Fadairo, M. & Massard, N. (2013) Knowledge diffusion and innovation policies within the European regions: Challenges based on recent empirical evidence, Research Policy, 42(1), 196 –210. Balconi, M., Brusoni, S. & Orsenigo, L. (2010) In defence of the linear model: An essay, Research Policy, 39(1), pp. 1 –13.


20

R. Njøs et al.

˚ . (2007) Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation, Berg Jensen, M., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E. & Lundvall, B. A Research Policy, 36(5), pp. 680–693. Bishop, K., D’este, P. & Neely, A. (2011) Gaining from interactions with universities: Multiple methods for nurturing absorptive capacity, Research Policy, 40(1), pp. 30– 40. Boucher, G., Conway, C. & Van Der Meer, E. (2003) Tiers of engagement by universities in their region’s development, Regional Studies, 37(9), pp. 887–897. Brem, A. & Voigt, K.-I. (2009) Integration of market pull and technology push in the corporate front end and innovation management—insights from the German software industry, Technovation, 29(5), pp. 351– 367. Bruneel, J., D’Este, P. & Salter, A. (2010) Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration, Research Policy, 39(7), pp. 858– 868. Bugge, M., Godø, H., Midttun, A., Pedersen, T. E. & Spilling, O. R. (2010) FoU for en grønn energisektor [R&D for a Green Energy Sector] (Oslo: NIFU STEP). Charles, D. (2003) Universities and territorial development: Reshaping the regional role of UK Universities, Local Economy, 18(18), pp. 6 –20. Charles, D. (2006) Universities as key knowledge infrastructures in regional innovation systems, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 19(1), pp. 117– 130. Deeds, D. L., DeCarolis, D. & Coombs, J. (1999) Dynamic capabilities and new product development in high technology ventures: An empirical analysis of new biotechnology firms, Journal of Business Venturing, 15(3), pp. 211–229. D’Este, P. & Patel, P. (2007) University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36(9), pp. 1295– 1313. Di Stefano, G., Gambardella, A. & Verona, G. (2012) Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions, Research Policy, 41(8), pp. 1283–1295. Edelman, M. J. (1967) The Symbolic Uses of Politics (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press). ˚ . Lundvall & D. Archibugi (Eds) The GloEdquist, C. (2001) Innovation policy—a systematic approach, in: B. A balizing Learning Economy: Major Socio-Economic Trends and European Innovation Policy, pp. 219 –238 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). van den Ende, J. & Dolfsma, W. (2005) Technology-push, demand-pull and the shaping of technological paradigms—patterns in the development of computing technology, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 15(1), pp. 83– 99. European Commission (2006) Constructing Regional Advantage: Principles, Perspectives, Policies (Brussels: DG Research). Fitjar, R. D. & Rodrı´guez-Pose, A. (2013) Firm collaboration and modes of innovation in Norway, Research Policy, 42(1), pp. 128– 138. Fløysand, A., Jakobsen, S.-E. & Bjarnar, O. (2012) The dynamism of clustering: Interweaving material and discursive processes, Geoforum, 43(5), pp. 948–958. Foxon, T. J., Gross, R., Chase, A., Howes, J., Arnall, A. & Anderson, D. (2005) UK innovation systems for new and renewable energy technologies: Drivers, barriers and systems failures, Energy Policy, 33(16), pp. 2123– 2137. George, A. L. & Bennett, A. (2005) Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press). Godin, B. (2006) The linear model of innovation, Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(6), pp. 639–667. Gulbrandsen, M. & Nerdrum, L. (2009) University– industry relations in Norway, in: J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery & B. Verspagen (Eds) Innovation, Path Dependency, and Policy, pp. 297–326 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Hagedoorn, J., Link, A. N. & Vonortas, N. S. (2000) Research partnerships, Research Policy, 29(4–5), pp. 567–586. Halkier, H., James, L., Dahlstro¨m, M. & Manniche, J. (2012) Knowledge dynamics, regions and public policy, European Planning Studies, 20(11), pp. 1759–1766. Hansen, T. & Winther, L. (2011) Innovation, regional development and relations between high- and low-tech industries, European Urban and Regional Studies, 18(3), pp. 321–339. Hanson, J., Kasa, S. & Wicken, O. (2011) Energirikdommens paradokser—innovasjon som klimapolitikk og næringsutvikling [The paradoxes of the Energy Wealth—innovation as climate politics and industrial development] (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget). Harmsen, H., Grunert, K. G. & Declerck, F. (2000) Why did we make that cheese? An empirically based framework for understanding what drives innovation activity, R&D Management, 30(2), pp. 151– 166.



21

Hendry, C. & Harborne, P. (2011) Changing the view of wind power development: More than “bricolage”, Research Policy, 40(5), pp. 778–789. Hopsdal Hansen, G. & Steen, M. (2011) Teknologi- og industriutvikling fra et norsk bedriftsperspektiv [Offshore wind. Technological and industrial development from a Norwegian industrial perspective] (Trondheim: NTNU CenCES—Centre for Sustainable Energy Studies). Hopsdal Hansen, G. & Steen, M. (2012) Becoming the next adventure? Divergent expectations and disconnected activities among Norwegian offshore wind actors, Unpublished. Hudson, R. (1999) “The learning economy, the learning firm and the learning region”: A sympathetic critique of the limits to learning, European Urban and Regional Studies, 6(1), pp. 59– 72. Isaksen, A. & Asheim, B. (2008) Den regionale dimensjonen ved innovasjoner [The regional dimension of innovation], in: A. Isaksen, A. Karlsen & B. Sæther (Eds) Innovasjoner i norske næringer—et geografisk perspektiv [Innovation in Norwegian Industries—A Geographical Perspective], pp. 19–40 (Bergen: Fagbokforlaget). Isaksen, A. & Karlsen, J. (2010) Different modes of innovation and the challenge of connecting universities and industry: Case studies of two regional industries in Norway, European Planning Studies, 18(12), pp. 1993– 2008. Isaksen, A. & Karlsen, J. (2013) Can small regions construct regional advantages? The case of four Norwegian regions, European Urban and Regional Studies, 20(2), pp. 243–357. Isaksen, A. & Remøe, S. O. (2001) New approaches to innovation policy: Some Norwegian examples, European Planning Studies, 9(3), pp. 285–302. Isaksen, A., Karlsen, A. & Sæther, B. (Eds) (2008) Innovasjoner i norske næringer—et geografisk perspektiv [Innovation in Norwegian Industries—A Geographic Perspective] (Bergen: Fagbokforlaget). Jakobsen, S.-E. & Onsager, K. (2008) Innovasjonspolitikk for regional næringsutvikling [Innovation policy for regional industry development], in: A. Isaksen, A. Karlsen & B. Sæther (Eds) Innovasjoner i norske næringer—et geografisk perspektiv [Innovations in Norwegian Industries—A Geographic Perspective], pp. 269– 288 (Bergen: Fagbokforlaget). Jakobsen, S.-E., Byrkjeland, M., Ba˚tevik, F. O., Pettersen, I. B., Skogseid, I. & Yttredal, E. R. (2012) Continuity and change in path-dependent regional policy development: The regional implementation of the Norwegian VRI programme, Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift [Norwegian Journal of Geography], 66(3), pp. 133–143. Karnøe, P. & Garud, R. (2012) Path creation: Co-creation of heterogeneous resources in the emergence of the Danish wind turbine cluster, European Planning Studies, 20(5), pp. 733–752. Kra¨tke, S. (2010) Regional knowledge networks: A network analysis approach to the interlinking of knowledge resources, European Urban and Regional Studies, 17(1), pp. 83–97. Lindelo¨f, P. & Lo¨fsten, H. (2004) Proximity as a resource base for competitive advantage: University–industry links for technology transfer, Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), pp. 311– 326. ˚ . (1992) Introduction, in: B. A ˚ . Lundvall (Ed) Systems of Innovation, pp. 1– 19 (London: Pinter Lundvall, B. A Publishers). ˚ . (2007) National innovation systems—analytical concept and development tool, Industry and Lundvall, B. A Innovation, 14(1), pp. 95–119. Manniche, J. (2012) Combinatorial knowledge dynamics: On the usefulness of the differentiated knowledge bases model, European Planning Studies, 20(11), pp. 1823– 1841. Mansfield, E. & Lee, J.-Y. (1996) The modern university: Contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support, Research Policy, 25(7), pp. 1047–1058. Maskell, P. & Malmberg, A. (1999) The competitiveness of firms and regions: “Ubiquitification” and the importance of localized learning, European Urban and Regional Studies, 6(1), pp. 9 –25. Menon Business Economics (2009) Miljøteknologi. Potensial for utvikling av norske konkurransedyktige bedrifter [Environment Technology. Potential and Barriers for Development of Competitive Norwegian Firms] (Oslo: MENON Business Economics). Meyer, J. W. & Rowan, B. (1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), pp. 340– 363. Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V. & Van Den Oord, A. (2007) Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity, Research Policy, 36(7), pp. 1016–1034. NORCOWE (2010) Vision. Available at http://www.norcowe.no/index.cfm?id¼229099 (accessed 2 July 2012). NORCOWE (2012) Annual report. Available at http://issuu.com/cmr.no/docs/_rsrapport_norcowe_2012?e=3198310/ 1797554 (accessed 20 September 2013).


22

R. Njøs et al.

Oterhals, O., Hervik, A., Tobro, R. & Bræin, L. (2010) Markedskarakteristika og logistikkutfordringer ved offshore vindkraftutbygging [Market Characteristics and Logistical Challenges for Developing Offshore Wind] (Molde: Møreforsking Molde, Høgskolen i Molde). Parjanen, S., Melkas, H. & Uotila, T. (2011) Distances, knowledge brokerage and absorptive capacity in enhancing regional Innovativeness: A qualitative case study of Lahti region, Finland, European Planning Studies, 19(6), pp. 921–948. Perkmann, M. & Walsh, K. (2007) University– industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda, International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), pp. 259–280. Perry, B. (2012) Excellence, relevance and the construction of regional science policy. Science frictions and fictions in the North West of England, in: R. Pinheiro, P. Benneworth & G. A. Jones (Eds) Universities and Regional Development. A Critical Assessment of Tensions and Contradictions, pp. 105– 123 (New York: Routledge). Pinheiro, R., Benneworth, P. & Jones, G. A. (2012a) Understanding regions and the institutionalization of universities, in: R. Pinheiro, P. Benneworth & G. A. Jones (Eds) Universities and Regional Development. A Critical Assessment of Tensions and Contradictions, pp. 11– 32 (New York: Routledge). Pinheiro, R., Benneworth, P. & Jones, G. A. (Eds) (2012b) Universities and Regional Development. A Critical Assessment of Tensions and Contradictions (New York: Routledge). Prange, H. (2008) Explaining varieties of regional innovation policies in Europe, European Urban and Regional Studies, 15(1), pp. 39– 52. Rehfeld, K.-M., Rennings, K. & Ziegler, A. (2007) Integrated product policy and environmental product innovations: An empirical analysis, Ecological Economics, 61(1), pp. 91–100. Remøe, S. O. (2005) Governing fragmentation: The case of Norway, in: S. O. Remøe (Eds) Governance of Innovation Systems, Volume 2: Case Studies in Innovation Policy, 217–244 (Paris: OECD Publishing). Research Council of Norway (2008) Centres for Environment-friendly Energy Research (CEER). Description of the CEER scheme. Available at www.forskningsradet.no/servlet/Satellite?blobcol¼urldata&blobheader¼applica tion%2Fpdf&blobheadername1¼Content-Disposition%3A&blobheadervalue1¼+attachment%3B+filename %3D%22CEERFMEeng.pdf%22&blobkey¼id&blobtable¼MungoBlobs&blobwhere¼1274460395912 &ssbinary¼true (accessed 1 October 2012). Richardson, C., Yamin, M. & Sinkovics, R. R. (2012) Policy-driven clusters, interfirm interactions and firm internationalisation: Some insights from Malaysia’s Multimedia Super Corridor, International Business Review, 21(5), pp. 794–805. Robin, S. & Schubert, T. (2013) Cooperation with public research institutions and success in innovation: Evidence from France and Germany, Research Policy, 42(1), pp. 149–166. Slavtchev, V. (2010) Proximity and the transfer of academic knowledge: Evidence from the spatial pattern of industry collaborations of East German professors, Regional Studies, 47(5), pp. 686 –702. Taylor, M. (2008) Beyond technology-push and demand-pull: Lessons from California’s solar policy, Energy Economics, 30(6), pp. 2829–2854. To¨dtling, F. & Trippl, M. (2005) One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach, Research Policy, 34(8), pp. 1203– 1219. Uyarra, E. (2010) Conceptualizing the regional roles of universities, implications and contradictions, European Planning Studies, 18(8), pp. 1227– 1246. Varga, A. (2000) Local academic knowledge transfers and the concentration of economic activity, Journal of Regional Science, 40(2), pp. 289–309.