ABSTRACT
Despite works on the innovation capacity of clusters throughout different life cycle stages and their potential cognitive inertia due to over-embeddedness (Pouder and St John, 1996), which insulates cluster firms from external information beyond the cluster (Uzzi, 1997), an important issue that remains unclear is the mechanism by which clusters evolve and create a system of capabilities that drives their competitive advantage. Following Tallman et al. (2004), based on Matusik and Hill’s (1998) idea of component versus architectural knowledge, 1 we use the following definitions: component knowledge refers to specific and individual abilities and knowledge, while architectural knowledge refers to the use of these component competencies and their effective integration into complex systems of organizational routines or capabilities. In order to understand component knowledge in clusters, it is also worthwhile to recognize that a cluster is an environment in which there are frequent and multiple relationships (Brusco, 1982). Specifically, and drawing on Tallman et al. (2004) and their elaboration on component and architectural knowledge on clusters, scholars have not yet disentangled the different types of component knowledge created from differing technological changes, that is, sustaining versus radical discontinuities (in the sense of Christensen, 1997) and the distinct impacts on the cluster combinative capability or architectural knowledge system. Assuming that in clusters inter-firm interaction is the relevant construct (e.g. Powell et al., 1996; Brusco, 1982; Becattini, 1990; Saxenian, 1994), distinguishing those discontinuities and their subsequent types of knowledge created through firms’ interaction may permit us to extend our knowledge on cluster-level systems of capabilities that drive competitive advantage. Our framework serves to enrich agglomeration 2 and cluster literature.
