Unpacking the provision of the industrial commons in Industry 4.0 cluster

Open access


This paper argues that provision of industrial commons (IC), might be considered as a crucial factor of a cluster’s attractiveness in digital transformation, e.g. in Industry 4.0 (I4.0) time. By drawing on the qualitative case study method of Hamburg Aviation cluster (HAv), it aims at exploring the nature of IC in the leading German I4.0 cluster. Proximity emerges, even if sometimes not explicitly, as the recurring topic facilitating the provision of IC, along with the advancement of I4.0. As Industry 4.0 stipulates much uncertainty, the closeness featuring in clusters, seems to bring various benefits, which can help address challenges associated with I4.0, and faced mainly by small and medium firms (SMEs). The vicinity to key actors and the gains of networking, reflect the importance of (un)articulated proximity.3

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 55th HAv Forum. (2019 June). Unpublished materials thanks to the courtesy of organisers 05.06.209 Hamburg.

  • ABL Airbus BizLab. (2017). https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=airbus+bizlab&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

  • Autio E. Nambisan S. Thomas L. D. & Wright M. (2018). Digital affordances spatial affordances and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal12(1) 72-95.

  • Aznar-Sanchez J. A. Carretero-Gómez A. (2016). Multinational corporations and cluster evolution: The case of Cosentino in the Spanish marble cluster. In F. Belussi & J. L. Hervas-Oliver (Eds.) Unfolding cluster evolution. London: Routledge.

  • Bailey C. & De Propis L. (2014). Manufacturing reshoring and its limits: The UK automotive case. Cambridge Journal of Regional Economy and Society7 379-395.

  • Barzotto M. Corò G. & Volpe M. (2017). Sustaining industrial districts by leveraging on global and local value chains: Evidence from manufacturing multinational companies. In G. Gereffi V. De Marchi & E. Di Maria (Eds.) Local clusters in global value chains: Linking actors and territories through manufacturing and innovation. London: Routledge.

  • Bathelt H. & Glückler J. (2018). Relational research design in economic geography. In G. L. Clark M. P. Feldman M. S. Gertler & D. Wójcik (eds.) The New Oxford handbook of economic geography (pp. 179-196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Bathelt H. & Taylor M. (2002). Clusters power and place: Inequality and local growth in time–space. Geografiska Annaler: Series B Human Geography84(2) 93-109.

  • Benbasat I. Goldstein D. K. & Mead M. (1987). The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly11(3) 369-385.

  • Boschma R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies39(1) 61-74.

  • Bradley J. Loucks J. Macaulay J. Noronha A. & Wade M. (2015). Digital vortex: How digital disruption is redefining industries. Global Center for Digital Business Transformation: An IMD and Cisco initiative. Retrieved from https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/solutions/collateral/industry-solutions/digital-vortex-report.pdf.

  • Brinkhoff S. Suwala L. & Kulke E. (2016). Managing innovation in ‘localities of learning’ in Berlin and Seville. In G. Micek (Ed.) Understanding innovation in emerging economic spaces (pp. 11-32). London: Routledge.

  • Buciuni G. & Pisano G. P. (2015). Can Marshall’s clusters survive globalization?. (Harvard Business School Working Paper 15-088).

  • Buxbaum-Conradi S. (2018). Global and local knowledge dynamics in an industry during modular transition: A case study of the Airbus production network and the Aerospace Cluster in Hamburg Northern Germany. PhD Dissertation HSU Hamburg.

  • Cantner U. Graf H. & Töpfer S. (2015). Structural dynamics of innovation networks in German leading-edge clusters. (Jena Economic Research Papers No. 2015-026). Jena: Friedrich Schiller University Jena.

  • Cantwell J. & Salmon J. (2018). The effects of global connectivity on knowledge complexity in the information age. In International business in the information and digital age 123-137. Retrieved November 2 2018 from https://doi.org/10.1108/S1745-886220180000013006

  • Capozza C. Salomone S. & Somma E. (2018). Local industrial structure agglomeration economies and the creation of innovative start-ups: evidence from the Italian case. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development30(7-8) 749-775.

  • Castelo-Branco I. Cruz-Jesus F. & Oliveira T. (2019). Assessing Industry 4.0 readiness in manufacturing: Evidence for the European Union. Computers in Industry107 22-32.

  • Cluster Platform Deutschland. Retrieved October 10 2019 from https://www.cluster-plattform.de/CLUSTER/Navigation/EN/NationalLevel/SpitzenclusterWettbewerb/spitzencluster-wettbewerb.html

  • Cooke P. Uranga M. G. & Etxebarria G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: Institutional and organisational dimensions. Research Policy26(4-5) 475-491.

  • Corbin J. & Strauss A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research.

  • Davids M.& Frenken K. (2018). Proximity knowledge base and the innovation process: Towards an integrated framework Regional Studies52(1) 23-34.

  • Dohse D. Fornahl D. & Vehrke J. (2018). Fostering place-based innovation and internationalization–the new turn in German technology policy. European Planning Studies26(6) 1137-1159.

  • Dominguez N. & Mayrhofer U. (2017). Internationalization stages of traditional SMEs: Increasing decreasing and re-increasing commitment to foreign markets. International Business Review26(6) 1051-1063.

  • Dubé L. & Paré G. (2003). Rigor in information systems positivist case research: Current practices trends and recommendations. MIS Quarterly27(4) 597-635. eFactory. Retrieved June 6 2019 from https://www.efactory-project.eu

  • Eisenhardt K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review14(4) 532-550.

  • Eisenhardt K. M. & Graebner M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal50(1) 25-32.

  • Ferreira J. J. Raposo M. Rutten R. & Varga A. (Eds.). (2013). Cooperation clusters and knowledge transfer universities and firms towards regional competitiveness. Berlin: Springer.

  • Fletcher M. & Plakoyiannaki E. (2011). Case selection in international business: Key issues and common misconceptions. In R. Piekkari C. Welch (Eds.) Rethinking the case study in international business and management research (pp. 171-191). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

  • Fletcher M. Zhao Y. Plakoyiannaki E. & Buck T. (2018). Three pathways to case selection in international business: A twenty–year review analysis and synthesis. International Business Review27(4) 755-766.

  • Fromhold-Eisebith M. (2017). Intra-regional collaborative learning between cluster initiatives–a factor of cluster (policy) dynamics?. The Life Cycle of Clusters: A Policy Perspective95 95-114.

  • Garms F. Jansen C. Schmitz C. Hallerstede S. & Tschiesner A. (2019). Capturing value at scale in discrete manufacturing with Industry 4.0. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/advanced-electronics/our-insights/capturing-value-at-scale-in-discrete-manufacturing-with-industry-4-0?cid=other-eml-alt-mip-mck&hlkid=389d21c6dda647a39245d88e103b1cb7&hctky=10097535&hdpid=883f9ba4-705d-4847-9c94-584d6be5a990

  • Gereffi G. De Marchi V. & Di Maria E. (Eds.). (2017). Local clusters in global value chains: Linking actors and territories through manufacturing and innovation. London: Routledge.

  • Gioia D. A. Corley K. G. & Hamilton A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods16(1) 15-31.

  • Glaser B. & Strauss A. (1967). Grounded theory: The discovery of grounded theory. Sociology – The Journal of The British Sociological Association12(1) 27-49.

  • Gligor D. M. Esmark C. L. & Gölgeci I. (2016). Building international business theory: A grounded theory approach. Journal of International Business Studies47(1) 93-111.

  • Götz M. & Jankowska B. (2017). Clusters and Industry 4.0–do they fit together?. European Planning Studies25(9) 1633-1653.

  • Götz M. & Jankowska B. (2018). On the role of clusters in fostering the Industry 4.0. In R. Van Tulder A. Verbeke L. Piscitello (Eds.) International business in the information and digital age progress in international business research (vol. 13 pp. 379-390). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited Howard House.

  • Hervas-Oliver J. L. (2019). The positive leverage of isomorphism: Endogenous collective action for transition into Industry 4.0 in industrial districts. (Paper to be presented at DRUID19 Copenhagen Business School Copenhagen June 19-21).

  • Hervas-Oliver J. L. Estelles-Miguel S. Mallol-Gasch G. & Boix-Palomero J. (2019). A place-based policy for promoting Industry 4.0: The case of the Castellon ceramic tile district. European Planning Studies27(9) 1838-1856.

  • Hintze A. (2018). Entwicklung und Implementierung einer Cluster-Dachmarke-Konzeptualisierung auf strukturationstheoretischer Basis am Beispiel des Luftfahrtclusters Metropolregion Hamburg. Hamburg.

  • Huggins R. Izushi H. & Prokop D. (2019). Regional advantage and the geography of networks: Explaining global–local knowledge sourcing patterns. Papers in Regional Science98 1567-1584.

  • Jankowska B. Götz M. & Główka C. (2017). Intra-cluster cooperation enhancing SMEs’ competitiveness: The role of cluster organisations in Poland. Investigaciones Regionales — Journal of Regional Research39 195-214.

  • Janssen M. J. & Frenken K. (2019). Cross-specialisation policy: rationales and options for linking unrelated industries. Cambridge Journal of Regions Economy and Society12(2) 195-212.

  • Kagermann H. Wahlster W. & Helbig J. (2013). Umsetzungsempfehlungen für das Zukunftsprojekt Industrie 4.0. Frankfurt am Main: Acatech.

  • Ketels C. (2004 June 2). All together. fDi Magazine (6).

  • Labhard V. McAdam P. Petroulakis F. & Vivian L. (2019). Challenges in the digital age. Retrieved August 27 2019 from https://voxeu.org/article/challenges-digital-age

  • Lafuente E. Vaillant Y. & Vendrell-Herrero F. (2017). Territorial servitization: Exploring the virtuous circle connecting knowledge-intensive services and new manufacturing businesses. International Journal of Production Economics92 19-28.

  • Lagendijk A. & Lorentzen A. (2007). Proximity knowledge and innovation in peripheral regions. On the intersection between geographical and organizational proximity. European Planning Studies15(4) 457-466.

  • Laplume A. O. Petersen B. & Pearce J. M. (2016). Global value chains from a 3D printing perspective. Journal of International Business Studies47(5) 595-609.

  • Laudien S. M. & Daxböck B. (2016). Path dependence as a barrier to business model change in manufacturing firms: Insights from a multiple-case study. Journal of Business Economics86(6) 611-645.

  • Lazerson M. & Lorenzoni G. (2008). Transforming industrial districts: How leading firms are escaping the manufacturing cage. In S. Cropper M. Ebers C. Huxham & P. Smith Ring (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of inter-organizational relations (pp. 31-60). New York NY: Oxford University Press.

  • Lis A. M. (2019). The significance of proximity in cluster initiatives. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal29(3) 287-310.

  • Ludwig A. (2019). From free to fee: A behavioural perspective on why companies avoid paying for cluster services. International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business10(2) 143-162.

  • MAKERS experts–A project funded under the EU Research and Innovation programme Horizon 2020 and a Research and Innovation Staff Exchange project under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions. Retrieved from http://www.makers-rise.org/about/

  • Marschan-Piekkari R. & Welch C. (Eds.). (2011). Rethinking the case study in international business and management research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

  • Martineau C. & Pastoriza D. (2016). International involvement of established SMEs: A systematic review of antecedents outcomes and moderators. International Business Review25(2) 458-470.

  • Maskell P. & Lorenzen M. (2003). The cluster as market organization. (DRUID Working Papers No. 03-14). Copenhagen Business School Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy / Aalborg University Department of Business Studies.

  • Micek G. (2016). Shortcomings and weaknesses in understanding and measuring knowledge interactions. In G. Micek (Ed.) understanding innovation in emerging economic spaces (pp. 55-72). London: Routledge.

  • Morgulis-Yakushev S. & Sölvell Ö. (2017). Enhancing dynamism in clusters. Competitiveness Review27(2) 98-112.

  • Nonaka I. (2008 December 11). The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review Press.

  • Nonaka I. & Takeuchi H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York NY: Oxford University Press.

  • Parrino L. (2015). Coworking: Assessing the role of proximity in knowledge exchange. Knowledge Management Research & Practice13(3) 261-271.

  • Philbeck T. & Davis N. (2019). The fourth industrial revolution: Shaping a new era. Journal of International Affairs 72(1 Fall/Winter).

  • Piekkari R. Welch C. & Paavilainen E. (2009). The case study as disciplinary convention: Evidence from international business journals. Organizational Research Methods12(3) 567-589.

  • Pietrewicz L. (2019 March 21-22). Coordination in the age of Industry 4.0 (38th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development Book of Proceedings pp. 264-274).

  • Pisano G.P. & Shih W. C. (2009). Restoring American competitiveness. Harvard Business Review87(7-8) 114-125.

  • Pisano G. P. & Shih W. C. (2012). Does America really need manufacturing. Harvard Business Review90(3) 94-102.

  • Porter M. (2000). Location competition and economic development: Local clusters in a global economy. Economic Development Quarterly14(1) 15-34.

  • Pratt M. G. (2009). For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal52(5) 856-862.

  • Puig F. (2019). New insights regarding clusters and industrial districts. Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal29(3) 206-210.

  • Putnam L. L. & Nicotera A. M. (2009). Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication. London: Routledge.

  • Redlich T. Moritz M. & Wulfsberg J. P. (Eds.). (2019). Co-creation reshaping business and society in the era of bottom-up economics. Berlin: Springer.

  • 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 Review21(5) 794-805.

  • Rothgang M. Cantner U. Dehio J. Engel D. Fertig M. Graf H. & Töpfer S. (2017). Cluster policy: Insights from the German leading-edge cluster competition. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology Market and Complexity3(3) 1-20.

  • Schmidt R. Möhring M. Härting R. C. Reichstein C. Neumaier P. & Jozinović P. (2015). Industry 4.0–Potentials for creating smart products: Empirical research results. In W. Abramowicz (Ed.) BIS 2015 (pp. 16-27). Springer International Publishing Switzerland. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19027-3_2

  • Schuh G. Potente T. Wesch-Potente C. Weber A. & Prote J. P. (2014). Collaboration mechanisms to increase productivity in the context of Industrie 4.0. (Robust Manufacturing Conference Procedia CIRP 19 pp. 51-56).

  • Sölvell Ö. (2015). Construction of the cluster commons. In D. B. Audretsch A. N. Link & M. Lindenstein Walshok (Eds.) The Oxford handbook of local competitiveness (pp. 84-101). New York NY: Oxford University Press.

  • Strange R. & Zucchella A. (2017). Industry 4.0 global value chains and international business. Multinational Business Review25(3) 174-184.

  • Strauss A. & Corbin J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  • Uzzi B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly42(1) 35-67.

  • Vanninen H. Kuivalainen O. & Ciravegna L. (2016). Rapid multinationalization: Propositions for studying born micromultinationals. International Business Review26(2) 365-379.

  • Verbeke A. (2018) EIBA 2018 Conference Poznan International Business Research in the Information and Digital Age – mimeo.

  • Voigt K. I. (2008). Industrielles Management: Industriebetriebslehre aus prozessorientierter Sicht. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

  • Welch C. & Paavilainen-Mäntymä:ki E. (2014). Putting process (back) in: Research on the internationalization process of the firm. International Journal of Management Reviews16(1) 2-23.

  • Welch C. Piekkari R. Plakoyiannaki E. & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki E. (2011). Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. Journal of International Business Studies42 740-762.

  • Weresa M. A. (2019). Technological competitiveness of the EU member states in the era of the fourth industrial revolution. Economics and Business Review3(19) 50-71.

  • Yamamura S. & Lassalle P. (2019). Proximities and the emergence of regional industry: Evidence of the liability of smallness in Malta. European Planning Studies. doi :10.1080/09654313.2019.1668915

  • Zaefarian R. Eng T. Y. & Tasavori M. (2016). An exploratory study of international opportunity identification among family firms. International Business Review25(1) 333-345.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 31 31 15
PDF Downloads 39 39 17