This research analyses whether German Machine Tool Builders headquartered in industrial clusters differ in patent activities from companies outside these regions.
Therefore this paper provides standard references as well as current research activities in the field of cluster processes and examines if the theoretical approaches and characteristics also apply on a sample of 112 German Machine Tool Builders.
Based on the German Patent and Trademark Office database the results show that cluster based and non-cluster based firms´ patent activities differ just insignificantly regarding the patent and utility model applications per year and per 1 Mio. € revenue.
This may come from the decreasing importance of spatial proximity as knowledge seems to be well codified and therefore easily transferable in a mature stage of the industry lifecycle.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Literature Review
3 Research design and method
4 Discussion
5 Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper aims to investigate whether German Machine Tool Builders located in industrial clusters demonstrate superior patent activity compared to firms situated outside these regions, while examining the influence of geographical proximity and tacit knowledge on innovation in a mature industry.
- Analysis of cluster-based versus non-cluster-based company performance.
- Examination of innovation dynamics in the German Machine Tool industry.
- Evaluation of knowledge spillover mechanisms and tacit knowledge transfer.
- Assessment of industry maturity effects on geographical concentration.
- Quantitative comparison using patent and utility model application data.
Excerpt from the Book
3 Research design and method
The underlying research method of this paper considers a case study comprising a sample of 112 firms in order to examine if innovative activity based on clustering also applies on congestions of German Machine Tool Builders. The sample results from the members list of the German Machine Tool Builders´ Association, as this list reflects all major companies in this particular industry comprehensively.
Even if not all innovative activities lead to patent applications, the patent activity represents a quantifiable propensity of innovative activity up to a certain degree. Therefore the amount of patent and utility model applications per year was chosen as the key performance indicator in order to measure and compare patent activity of German Machine Tool Builders. This industrial sector is object of research on the one hand due to its considerable contribution of success to the German economy and on the other hand due to the availability of broad and solid data [German Machine Tool Builders’ Association, 2015].
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter defines the research problem, highlighting the paradox of industrial clusters in an era of globalization, and outlines the methodology for comparing the patent activity of German Machine Tool Builders.
2 Literature Review: The chapter explores the theoretical framework of innovation, tacit knowledge, and spillover mechanisms, emphasizing the role of geographic proximity in fostering competitive advantages within clusters.
3 Research design and method: This section details the case study approach, the selection of the sample of 112 firms, and the use of patent and utility model applications as key performance indicators for measuring innovative output.
4 Discussion: The results of the data analysis are interpreted, revealing that cluster-based and non-cluster-based firms show statistically insignificant differences in patent activity due to the industry's mature lifecycle and the codification of knowledge.
5 Conclusion: The study summarizes that geographical proximity provides no significant advantage for German Machine Tool Builders, suggesting that codified knowledge allows for widespread innovation regardless of firm location.
Keywords
Cluster, Innovation, Knowledge transfer, Patent activity, German Machine Tool Builders, Geographic proximity, Tacit knowledge, Spillover mechanisms, Industrial clusters, Research and Development, Industry maturity, Technology lifecycle, SME, Patent applications, Competitive advantage.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research?
The paper examines whether German Machine Tool Builders headquartered in industrial clusters exhibit different levels of patent activity compared to companies located outside these clusters.
What are the central themes discussed in the paper?
Central themes include the role of industrial clusters in innovation, the importance of tacit versus codified knowledge, mechanisms of knowledge spillovers, and the impact of industry maturity on geographical agglomeration.
What is the main research question?
The research asks if there is a linkage between geographical proximity and patent activity, specifically within the German Machine Tool industry.
Which scientific methods were employed?
The study uses a case study approach, utilizing a sample of 112 firms, and applies quantitative analysis of patent and utility model applications as a performance indicator, filtered for producing status and revenue data.
What topics are covered in the main body of the work?
The main body covers the literature on cluster theory and knowledge spillovers, the research design including data collection from the German Patent and Trademark Office, and a discussion of the empirical findings.
Which keywords characterize this paper?
Key terms include Cluster, Innovation, Knowledge transfer, Patent activity, and German Machine Tool Builders.
Why does the industry maturity level affect the results?
In mature industries, specialized knowledge has become well-codified, making it easily transferable and reducing the competitive necessity for firms to be located in close geographical proximity to one another.
Are there significant differences between cluster-based and non-cluster-based firms?
The study finds that once revenue is accounted for, the differences in patent and utility model applications between the two groups are statistically insignificant.
How did the author ensure robust data for the study?
The author implemented three specific filters: distinguishing between producing and non-producing firms, normalizing patent data against yearly revenue, and excluding data from firms whose patents are handled by parent holding companies.
What suggestion does the author make for future research?
The author identifies a need for further research into the internal innovation processes of low R&D budget SMEs and the social/psychological aspects of privacy and secrecy within conservative industrial clusters.
- Citation du texte
- Tobias Mayer (Auteur), 2015, Do cluster based companies differ in patent activity to non-cluster based ones? A Case study of German Machine Tool Builders, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/307440
