Date post: | 09-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | federico-fernandez-reigosa |
View: | 5 times |
Download: | 0 times |
This article was downloaded by:[University of Santiago de Compostela]On: 7 April 2008Access Details: [subscription number 776342937]Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Planning StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713417253
Communication and Distance in Collaboration betweenHigh-technology Enterprises in Northern FinlandKatariina Ala-Rämi aa Department of Geography, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
Online Publication Date: 01 September 2007To cite this Article: Ala-Rämi, Katariina (2007) 'Communication and Distance inCollaboration between High-technology Enterprises in Northern Finland', EuropeanPlanning Studies, 15:8, 1047 - 1062To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/09654310701448212URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654310701448212
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Uni
vers
ity o
f San
tiago
de
Com
post
ela]
At:
16:5
0 7
Apr
il 20
08
Communication and Distance inCollaboration between High-technologyEnterprises in Northern Finland
KATARIINA ALA-RAMI
Department of Geography, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
(Recieved February 2005; accepted January 2006)
ABSTRACT New technologies affect economic activities, even to the extent that some claim theyhave lessened the importance of geographical distance. However, collaboration in productinnovation creation involves various elements; therefore the development of technologies doesnot make geographical proximity insignificant. In this paper a study is made of collaborationaiming to create a product innovation between high-technology enterprises in northern Finland,especially the intertwining between communication and geographical distance. The study is basedon interviews with managers of high-technology enterprises. The results indicate that while emailand personal meetings are seen as important, geographical proximity also has an effect oncollaboration.
Introduction
Innovation is rarely brought up by a single enterprise, but as a result of inter-firm collab-
oration (Cooke & Morgan, 2002; Lundvall, 1992, p. 9). Technological innovations have
increased the capability of enterprises to act in collaboration networks with other enter-
prises and organizations (Sitra, 2002, p. 29). However, an increasingly rapid diffusion
of ideas and innovations is escalating competition among enterprises. That leads to
shorter product life cycles, which creates more pressure on companies to innovate more
often (Edquist et al., 2002, p. 566; Maskell & Malmberg, 1999, p. 12). For enterprises col-
laboration is a learning opportunity, but also a way to save money and time (Edquist et al.,
2002; Maskell & Malmberg, 1999).
In this paper, a study is made of communication and geographical distance in the
collaboration between high-technology enterprises in northern Finland from the viewpoint
of the managers. The author has an especial interest in studying the use of modern
Correspondence Address: Katariina Ala-Rami, Department of Geography, University of Oulu, P.O. Box 3000,
FI-90014 Oulu, Finland. Email: [email protected]
ISSN 0965-4313 print/ISSN 1469-5944 online/07/081047–16 # 2007 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/09654310701448212
European Planning Studies Vol. 15, No. 8, September 2007
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Uni
vers
ity o
f San
tiago
de
Com
post
ela]
At:
16:5
0 7
Apr
il 20
08
information and communication technologies and their importance to high-technology
enterprises. Northern Finland—with its large internal distance, sparse population density,
and few social resources outside the functional urban region of Oulu (FUR Oulu)—is a chal-
lenging region for high-technology enterprises. Do information and communication technol-
ogy (ICT) make it easier to survive for these enterprises? Also discussed is the connection
between distance and the use of different modes of communication.
Modern ICT is known to have an impact on regions and geographical distance. The
development of ICT has been seen as a question of time—space compression and econ-
omical growth—since various kind of information can be transferred in a fast and efficient
way (e.g. Castells, 1996; Negroponte, 1995, Kostiainen, 2002, p. 18). Paradoxically, the
high-technology industry is a highly clustered branch of activity, as the best-known
cluster, Silicon Valley, indicates (Brown & Duguid 2000, p. 167; Kostiainen, 2002, p. 20).
The continuing formation and imitation by many other clusters and technology parks
suggest that distance has not died even where distance-cutting technology is at its most
advanced stage (Brown & Duguid, 2000, p. 167). ICT has made the performance of
economic activities smoother, but only in regions that provide an advanced telecommuni-
cation infrastructure, skilled labour and good airport access (Moss, 1998). Thus even for
information technology enterprises, neighbourhoods and regions remain significant
(Brown & Duguid, 2000, p. 169; Graham & Marvin, 2001, pp. 334–335).
Innovation and learning require specific information and continuous updating of this
information. This kind of information and communication is easily received through the
presence of people and enterprises within the same industrial activity, place or region,
and at social events (Bathelt et al., 2004, pp. 38–39). There are terms like “local broad-
casting”, “noise” or “buzz” to denote that there is a lot of useful information and inspiring
things going on in a certain region. Such buzz depends on the networks of communication
and information linkages (see Bathelt et al., 2004, p. 38; Simmie, 2001, p. 37). Different
modes of communication are important tools for becoming connected to those networks
and buzz. Those connections are often established within the same geographical place,
but the communication between actors requires also operational or social proximity.
There is not much use of the geographical proximity if there are not shared interests. In
that case the needed information has to be sought elsewhere.
Background: Northern Finland
In this study northern Finland is defined to cover Multipolis-network’s area of operation,
since it is considered as a cooperation network of technology centres of northern Finland
(Multipolis, 2005). FUR Oulu is a well developed and growing urban region, which has
one of the biggest technology centres in Europe, including 220 enterprises (Jauhiainen
et al., 2004, p. 29). FUR Oulu is often quoted as an example of visionary actors and net-
working in ICT in Finland (Lievonen & Lemola, 2004, p. 90). The rest of northern
Finland, with an area of about 150,000 square kilometres has a population of half a
million. So the area is sparsely populated, with an average of just 4.6 inhabitants per
square kilometre (Statistics Finland, 2004). The majority of the other technology
centres have 20 or less high-technology enterprises (Jauhiainen et al., 2004, p. 44). More-
over, technology centres are specialized in different key technologies and there exists vari-
ation in line of business within a centre. Such a heterogeneous group of enterprises poses
an additional challenge to this peripheral region (Jauhiainen et al., 2004, p. 117).
1048 Katariina Ala-Rami
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Uni
vers
ity o
f San
tiago
de
Com
post
ela]
At:
16:5
0 7
Apr
il 20
08
Research Design and Methods
In this paper the collaboration, aiming to create a product innovation, of high-technology
enterprises in northern Finland from the viewpoint of these enterprises is discussed. In this
study collaboration refers only to collaboration which aims to achieve a product inno-
vation, which is defined here as a new or improved product whose technological properties
or intended fields of application have been significantly altered.
The research questions were:
(1) Which modes of communication are important for high-technology enterprises in
general but also in collaboration aiming to achieve a product innovation?
(2) Where are the collaboration partners located?
(3) How do high-technology enterprises see the meaning of distance to the collaboration
partner?
(4) Is there a difference in the most important mode of communication if the enterprises’
most important collaboration partner is located in the same or different municipality?
The research consisted of semi-structured telephone interviews of 131 high-technology
enterprises in different localities in northern Finland. They were located in municipalities
having a technology centre, either within such a centre or outside of it (Figure 1). The
municipalities of “others” are enterprises considered part of some technology centre,
but physically located outside that technology centre municipality. Interviews were
Figure 1. High-technology enterprises of the study by municipality and the location of themunicipality the county borders are shown in the map)
Communication andDistance in Collaboration betweenHigh-technology Enterprises 1049
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Uni
vers
ity o
f San
tiago
de
Com
post
ela]
At:
16:5
0 7
Apr
il 20
08
conducted between March and April 2004 and they were part of the evaluation of the
Multipolis technology enterprise cooperation programme.
The selected 131 enterprises were taken from a larger sample of 218 high-technology
enterprises that were involved somehow in the Multipolis network. Multipolis is a
cooperation network and activity between technology enterprises and regional develo-
pers in northern Finland whose purpose is to support innovations in high-technology
(Jauhiainen et al., 2004, p. 44). All 131 selected enterprises had engaged in collaboration
in order to create an innovation either in their own enterprise or in their collaboration
enterprise. If they were doing collaboration in both ways, they were asked to answer
these questions twice, considering one of their collaboration partners at a time.
One difficult question in the organization of the research was to define a high-technology
enterprise. It is easy to define a software house as a high-technology enterprise but,
for example, enterprises dealing with data processing or production of instruments form
a very heterogeneous group. There is no explicit information of the number of high-
technology enterprises in northern Finland. In this study the number of enterprises was
based on a classification by Oulutech Ltd, an expert organization for different technol-
ogy-related services. There were a total of 792 high-technology enterprises, picked out
of the statistical data, in northern Finland in 2003.
The interviewed enterprises consisted of some 80% of all high-technology enterprises
in technology centres outside the FUR Oulu, and about 46% were high-technology
enterprises in the municipalities with a technology centre but located outside of it. Of
the high-technology enterprises of FUR Oulu only those who were attending “forums”
which are regarded as the most important and successful form of cooperation in the
region were interviewed. Since FUR Oulu has been successful in high-technologies,
Multipolis-network aims to use FUR Oulu as an engine for the rest of northern Finland.
Enterprises in FUR Oulu are used like a baseline for those high-technology enterprises
which are dispersed around the region.
Very small enterprises and also big international companies that provide some technol-
ogy services, but do not have product development in the localities studied, were left out
on purpose. Therefore the sample consists of more innovative enterprises than average in
northern Finland. The interviewed enterprises were on average larger in terms of employ-
ees and revenue, but otherwise they represented the high-technology enterprises in north-
ern Finland (Table 1) well. The number of enterprises classified as “others” regarding their
principal business activities was higher because one studied technology centre is focused
on media-related production. That is not a very common business activity overall in
northern Finland.
The questions for enterprises concerned the basic background information regarding the
enterprise, the development of product innovation in the enterprise, communication and
collaboration with other enterprises and organizations, including from a territorial view-
point. Each interview by telephone took from 20 to 45 minutes. In addition, technology
centre managers and other experts were also interviewed. This provided additional back-
ground information. All interviews were conducted by a small research group of which the
author took part. After conducting the interviews, the material was analysed first with
Spearman correlation analysis and the differences were studied with cross-tabs. Further-
more, the written answers were compared with the codified classifications. Also an “inter-
view diary” was kept—about tones and extra information—thus to obtain a better
understanding of the numerically codified data. A simplification was made for calculating
1050 Katariina Ala-Rami
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Uni
vers
ity o
f San
tiago
de
Com
post
ela]
At:
16:5
0 7
Apr
il 20
08
the geographical location and proximity between the enterprises. The proximity was codi-
fied based on whether the enterprises were located in the same or different municipality
with their collaboration partner, since one of the ideas of technology centres is to bring
together enterprises and prepare the way for collaboration. Consequently, if the collabor-
ation partner was in a different municipality, the geographical distance was explored more
specifically.
The author of this study is aware of the situation when combining both quantitative and
qualitative methods one cannot go very deep in the phenomenon studied (e.g. Jauhiainen,
1995, p. 10). This study aimed to explore communication and distance more in a general
manner, giving foundation to explore these issues in forthcoming studies in which the
product innovation process is to be studied. The idea of this study was to get an overview
on how prevalent collaboration is aiming to create a product innovation and which issues
have an influence in forming this kind of relationship.
Table 1. Characteristics of high technology enterprises in northern Finland and the study sample
CharacteristicFrequency(sample)
Percentage(sample)
Percentage(enterprises)
Size of firms (employees)1–9 66 51.2 82.110–49 49 37.9 13.650–450 14 10.9 4.3
Principal business activityManufacture of other general use appliances 5 3.8 12.2Software house 42 32.1 44.9Manufacture of computers 3 2.3 4.6Manufacture of circuit boards, etc. 6 4.6 6.6Data processing 7 5.3 4.5Telecommunication 5 3.8 2.9Manufacture of TVs, radios or phones 3 2.3 2.9Manufacture of instruments, etc. 6 4.6 3.2Research 4 3.1 5.1Services 4 3.1 3.1Others (e.g. media-related production) 46 35.1 10.0
Year firm was establishedBefore 1984 16 12.2 6.81984–1992 26 19.8 21.71993–1998 38 29.0 33.11999–2001 31 23.7 29.42002–2004 19 14.5 15.8
Revenue (E)Not known 16 12.2 13.3Less than 200,000 29 22.1 53.4200,000–399,999 21 16.0 8.5400,000–999,999 17 13.0 10.01,000,000–1,999,999 17 13.0 6.32,000,000–9,999,999 23 17.6 5.910,000,000–19,999,999 5 3.8 1.3More than 20,000,000 3 2.3 1.4
Communication andDistance in Collaboration betweenHigh-technology Enterprises 1051
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Uni
vers
ity o
f San
tiago
de
Com
post
ela]
At:
16:5
0 7
Apr
il 20
08
Communication and Collaboration in a Collaboration Aiming to Achieve a Product
Innovation by Enterprises
Development of ICT has increased the general productivity in economic activities. ICT
certainly boosts the innovation process by providing easy and fast access to information.
Nevertheless, innovation involves creativity so there are elements in the innovation
process, like tacit knowledge, which cannot be distributed without face-to-face interaction.
The less codified or more difficult the information is to articulate, the more frequently
face-to-face contacts are needed (Feldman, 2002, p. 54). The innovation process is also
vulnerable in terms of trust. Collaboration includes the exchange of technologies and
ideas, which is challenging in the terms of security. Trust becomes noticeable in the col-
laboration of enterprises in long-term relationships (Edquist et al., 2002, p. 566).
Location has an influence on trust in many ways. Untrustworthy behaviour is easier to
determine in social contacts. Social networks also support the formation of shared
norms in appropriate behaviour as well (Feldman, 2002). A common perspective
assumes that codified knowledge is not space-sensitive, but if the knowledge is
diffuse and tacit, proximity between actors is beneficial for an enterprise (Bathelt
et al., 2004, p. 32; Storper & Vernables, 2003). Tacit knowledge and interactive inno-
vation have been central in discussions about the advantages of geographical proximity
between enterprises in associated industries (Cumbers et al., 2003, p. 1691). Regarding
ICT and its effects on face-to-face contacts, four types of interaction are possible: sub-
stitution, generation, modification and neutrality. Mokharian and Meenakshiundaram
(1999) found that email and face-to-face meetings are the fastest growing mode of com-
munication. The use of one mode of communication increases the use of another—
partly because of the increase of information about meetings, etc. (Miettinen et al.,
1999, p. 214; Moss, 1998; Thrift, 1996).
Proximity, Innovations and Networks
In innovation creation there is a specific kind of dynamic formed between different actors.
Once this dynamics is formed it creates new innovations, which attract innovative people.
Local actors produce this unique event for the region or for the enterprise (Stahle &
Sotarauta, 2003, p. 6). Who those actors are and the strength of their commitment to the
network are crucial. An effective network is formed in relations, seen as trust and positive
dependence between actors. An innovative system is build up with open and flexible
information and intensive communication. It consists of intra-firm organization, relation-
ships between enterprises, the role of the public sector, the financing sector, and the intensity
and organization of R&D-activity. Innovation is also always a question of timing (Cooke,
1998; Lundvall, 1992).
Previous studies suggest (e.g. Bathelt et al., 2004; Cooke & Morgan, 2002; Simmie,
2001) that it is not only concentrated skilled labour, information or suppliers which
make some region or firm innovative. It is more about the communication between indi-
viduals and different institutions in the private and public sector. Many significant inno-
vations are originated in combining capabilities and resources of several enterprises.
Geographical location is important in providing opportunities for inter-firm relationships
(Howells, 2000, p. 57). According to Liebeskind et al. (1995) location may help to create
social contacts but regularly organized meetings are fruitful in forming social networks
1052 Katariina Ala-Rami
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Uni
vers
ity o
f San
tiago
de
Com
post
ela]
At:
16:5
0 7
Apr
il 20
08
(Feldman, 2002; Lorentzon, 2003). Face-to-face meetings are crucial for creating new
contacts (Lorentzon, 2003, p. 106).
Castells (2000, p. 26) suggests that the space of flows is based on the linkage between
places and electronic space through a network of flows. Networks of flows are the spaces
in which important activities operate in society. Municipalities are primarily local ope-
rational environments and meeting places for different networks, and not so much mere
physical territories in which things are just located. The nodes of networks—the highest
level of which are global cities—are centres of power, innovations and social interaction.
At the logic of networks it is important to combine local and global levels (e.g. Castells,
2000, p. 19; Haarni & Vartiainen, 1996, p. 8).
“Local buzz” is important for tacit knowledge and trust. It also creates opportunities for
spontaneous situations to interact. As tacit and informal knowledge are important in inno-
vation, location will continue to be important even in the future (e.g. Howells, 2000, p. 61).
The advantages of “global pipelines”—channels used in distant interactions—are however
essential to create new potentialities and feed local interpretation and usage of knowledge
created elsewhere. The places, which are economically successful, are the places where
actors have active connections with local actors but also with actors in other places
(Bathelt et al., 2004).
Empirical Results: High-technology Enterprises in Northern Finland
Over 90% of the interviewed high-technology enterprises were equipped with broadband
connection, which were also seen as important to the enterprises. Only a few enterprises
did not have a web site on the internet. ICT and fast connections are a customary part of the
enterprises’ activities. From this perspective, a geographically peripheral location does not
limit the use of new technologies in northern Finland. According to Grimes (2003, pp.
174–175), the telecommunications infrastructure in peripheral rural areas is better devel-
oped in the Nordic regions than in many regions of southern Europe, where small enter-
prises have more challenges regarding such infrastructure. Almost one third of the
interviewed enterprises were software houses but otherwise the variation in lines of
business was large (Table 1). However, the line of business did not seem to be a determin-
ing factor in the mode of communication, collaboration or proximity (see Appendix,
Table A1).
There was a significant correlation between the municipality and line of business, which
is pretty obvious because the technology centres are spatial clusters of certain key technol-
ogies. From the viewpoint of this study, more interesting significant correlations were
found between the location of a collaboration partner, the significance of distance, and
the most important mode of communication. There were also some differences between
enterprises in FUR Oulu and outside FUR Oulu. Enterprises in FUR Oulu considered
face-to-face meetings of more importance and had fewer problems with telecommunica-
tions. Most significant difference was that collaboration partner was most likely (74%) in
the same municipality for enterprises in FUR Oulu while outside FUR Oulu less than one-
third (32%) of enterprises were located in same municipality with the collaboration
partner. It can be assumed that accessibility in time distance (see Andersson & Karlsson,
2004) explains pretty much why enterprises in FUR Oulu regard face-to-face meetings as
more important.
Communication andDistance in Collaboration betweenHigh-technology Enterprises 1053
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Uni
vers
ity o
f San
tiago
de
Com
post
ela]
At:
16:5
0 7
Apr
il 20
08
Modes of Communication
In the interviews, businesses were asked about the importance of different modes of com-
munication, first in general in the enterprise’s activities, and—more specifically—with the
partner which they collaborate to achieve a product innovation. All modes of communi-
cation were at least of some importance (Figure 2). Fax and fixed-line phones were the
least important, and one-third of the interviewed enterprises argued that they are not
important. Email with attachments and mobile phones have substituted them to a great
extent (see also Lorentzon, 2003, p. 100).
Respondents felt that new technologies like mobile phones, email and internet were
very important. Furthermore, more than 90% of the enterprises saw face-to-face meetings
as at least rather important.
When asked the importance of different modes of communication with collaboration
partner, the proportion of those who considered email and mobile phone important was
very high, but meetings were also still seen as important (Figure 3). Face-to-face contacts,
both formal and informal, were not important for only some 10% of the cooperating enter-
prises. Other more traditional modes of communication were considered notably less
important.
Besides the importance of all the different modes of communication, respondents were
asked to point out which of these was the most important. The result was rather predict-
able: email (41%) was mentioned most frequently, but informal (17%) and formal meet-
ings (18%) together were almost as important as email while mobile phone was most
important for 15% of the respondents. From the viewpoint of the innovation creation, it
was interesting that in the creation of an enterprise’s own product innovation, informal
face-to-face contacts were more often regarded more often as the most important mode
of communication than formal face-to-face contacts. However, in the creation of
another enterprise’s product innovation formal meetings were thought to be more often
the most important mode of communication than informal meetings. Maybe when it is
a question about own learning, receiving tacit knowledge and trust, meaning of the infor-
mal dealings are recognized better.
Figure 2. Importance of different modes of communication for the high-technology enterprises innorthern Finland (N ¼ 131)
1054 Katariina Ala-Rami
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Uni
vers
ity o
f San
tiago
de
Com
post
ela]
At:
16:5
0 7
Apr
il 20
08
Several interviewed enterprises argued that it is not possible to determine what the most
important mode of communication is since they saw face-to-face-contacts equally import-
ant as email. It seems that the modes of communication are not substitutive to each other
(see Kwan, 2002, pp. 477–489). More than three out of four of those who said that email
or mobile phones are important also saw face-to-face meetings as important. Over 80% of
the enterprises that felt that face-to-face meetings were important said that email and
mobile phone are also important. New technologies are used for fast and more routine
communication and transfer, but new ideas, creation of contacts and trust require personal
contacts (see Jonsson, 2002, p. 711; Lorentzon, 2003). Other studies (e.g. Lorentzon, 2003,
p. 97) have also discovered that the function of ICT between new technologies and tra-
ditional forms of communication is more complementary than substitutive.
Significance of Geographical Distance in Collaboration
The interviewed enterprises were asked where their most important collaboration partner
is located. They were also asked whether the distance to this other enterprise is significant.
There was a clear duality: about a half of the enterprises (53%) argued that the distance has
no significance while a third (32%) declared it to be of great importance. The rest (15%)
thought proximity has some importance. A closer look at the answers gave the impression
that proximity is more important than is admitted in such simple answers:
The nearest enterprise in this sector of business. Distance is no advantage or disad-
vantage.
No essential significance. It is at the right distance.
No significance. We have managed to create a contact from the start—at that time
proximity had an effect.
As most of the enterprises studied are located in municipalities that have a technology
centre, in these few cities in particular, it is clear that a collaboration partner was often
Figure 3. Importance of different modes of communication with the existing collaboration partner(N ¼ 176)
Communication andDistance in Collaboration betweenHigh-technology Enterprises 1055
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Uni
vers
ity o
f San
tiago
de
Com
post
ela]
At:
16:5
0 7
Apr
il 20
08
(42%) found in the same municipality. There was also the idea to study if the technology
centres have managed to get potential collaboration partners together. Very seldom the
same premise was seen as an influential factor for collaboration. The most important
issue is that the collaboration partner has to offer resources that the own enterprise do
not have, that is most often the complementary know-how (Ala-Rami, 2005).
According to Lorenzen (1998), there is a connection between geographical proxi-
mity between the partners and the amount of their formal contracts. When two enter-
prises are located close to each other, information about other enterprises as
collaborative partners is transmitted easily though conversation and advice from
other entrepreneurs (Edquist et al., 2002, p. 566). This is understandable also in
localities studied where the actors are few in numbers—like one of the interviewees
argued “here everybody knows everybody so we know who has the right kind of
know-how”. The enterprises might not consider this as a question of distance,
because it was understood strictly as a physical distance. After all, most enterprises
interact within the same operational space—utilizing the “local buzz”. Other studies
have shown that when collaboration involves an exchange of information through
more informal modes, geographical proximity favours collaboration (Doloreux, 2004,
p. 184). The knowledge needed in a high-technology enterprise is increased best
through interpersonal contacts, which most easily take place in geographical proximity
(Malecki, 2000, pp. 108, 111).
Only 7% of the enterprises collaborated remotely and argued that distance is a
problem. However, cooperation at a distance was necessary because of the branch of
business or existing contacts (Ala-Rami, 2007). Some reported that distance or their
location causes problems of credibility for the activities of the enterprise, which demon-
strates that it is difficult to earn trust and get into “local buzz” from a distance (Malecki,
2000, p. 112). Respondents outside FUR Oulu often expressed that administrative or
regional borders limited collaboration activities, at least in projects that have some
public financing.
As it was felt that distance mattered more than it was recognized, those 68 enterprises
that were cooperating with an enterprise from a different municipality and argued that dis-
tance did not matter were studied in more detail. The collaboration partner was found in
the neighbouring municipality in 15 cases (22%) and in 28 cases (41%) the enterprises’
collaboration partner was located over 400 kilometres away. The majority of them were
in the metropolitan area in southern Finland but some were also abroad (Figure 4).
Helsinki and Espoo were most frequently mentioned as locations of distant collaboration
partners, which is logical because most high-technology enterprises in Finland are located
there. The rest 25 (37%) enterprises were collaborating mostly within the study area and
mostly were geared towards FUR Oulu.
The connections to southern Finland and other countries serve as “global pipelines”.
Some enterprises reported that they were aiming to create more international contacts
since it is the only way to be competitive in the future. For other enterprises it is beneficial
to collaborate with enterprises with already existing international or national linkages,
which is seen in contacts with FUR Oulu and southern Finland. Previous studies
suggest that long distance connections are important also for “local buzz”; the more infor-
mation about markets and technologies that is received through these pipelines the more
local actors benefit, since the amount of information strengthens the “local buzz” (Bathelt
et al., 2004, p. 41).
1056 Katariina Ala-Rami
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Uni
vers
ity o
f San
tiago
de
Com
post
ela]
At:
16:5
0 7
Apr
il 20
08
Geographical Distance in Collaboration and Modes of Communication
The correlation analysis suggested a connection between geographical proximity and the
most important mode of communication (see Appendix, Table A1). The most important
mode of communication can be expected to be related to the physical distance the enter-
prise has to overcome. The most important modes of communication were separated into
two groups; email and mobile phone (new technology) and face-to-face meetings. New
technologies were more often (78%) the most important mode of communication for
those enterprises that cooperated with enterprises in other municipalities, and face-to-
face meetings were more important between partners in the same municipality (62%).
Those who had their collaboration partner in the same municipality thought that distance
had some importance in most cases (72%), while less than a third (31%) of those enter-
prises which had their collaboration partner in different municipality thought so.
However, face-to-face contacts were important in general. Thus, the new technologies
are not substituting face-to-face contacts, but they are helpful in transferring information,
particularly when there is an extended geographical distance between the collaborating
high-technology enterprises (Massard & Mehier, 2005). Other studies have discovered
that new technologies are used frequently especially in those cases in which a long geo-
graphical distance between collaboration enterprise partners exist (Lorentzon, 2003,
p. 97). Innovation creation is not merely a technical, but a much more complicated
issue, where geographical proximity is widely admitted to be an advantage—as social
Figure 4. Location of collaboration partner for high technology enterprises in northern Finland
Communication andDistance in Collaboration betweenHigh-technology Enterprises 1057
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Uni
vers
ity o
f San
tiago
de
Com
post
ela]
At:
16:5
0 7
Apr
il 20
08
interaction is still mostly organized around geographical places (Castells, 2000, p. 20;
Cooke & Morgan, 2002, p. 34; Feldman, 2002, p. 51; Edquist et al., 2002, p. 565;
Graham & Marvin, 2000, p. 72; Tuomi, 2001, p. 29).
There were slight differences in the portraits of enterprises. Software houses seldom
experienced distance to be of some importance. As mentioned, new technology was
more important than face-to-face meetings for those enterprises which collaborate with
a partner in another municipality. Also, while there were only slight differences
between enterprises in FUR Oulu and outside FUR Oulu when it was a question of differ-
ent modes of communication in general, in collaboration the differences were more signifi-
cant. As noted earlier, that is the question of time-space accessibility (see Massard &
Mehier, 2005). The modes of communication do not determine the choice of collaboration
partner, but the location of an existing collaboration partner has an influence on the use of
modes of communication.
Discussion
Technology brings enterprises many new possibilities, such as exchanging information
remotely, which is particularly important in large, sparsely populated areas like northern
Finland, the case study area. In this study the empirical evidence suggests that face-to-face
contacts and geographical proximity do matter in the collaboration aiming to create a
product innovation between high-technology enterprises. Even though new technology
was considered to be very important, it did not seem to make face-to-face contacts less
important with the collaboration partner. As modes of communications, email and per-
sonal meetings were regarded almost as important.
New technology and face-to-face contacts were more complementary than substitutive
to each other. Many enterprises claimed that they cannot really name the most important
mode of communication, since they need both new technologies and face-to-face contacts
in their activities (Table 2).
Innovation requires human and social processes. ICT aids the innovation process by
providing easy and fast access to information that can easily be digitized. However, inno-
vation involves elements such as tacit knowledge, which cannot be transferred without
face-to-face interaction.
Table 2. A summarizing table of the conclusions, observations and insights
† New technology but also face-to-face contacts are important in cooperation with existingcollaboration partner
† Most collaboration partners are located close to each other† Long-distance collaboration contacts are mostly to metropolitan area of Finland or abroad† A half of the firms argued that distance has importance† Even most of those who said distance did not matter thought that face-to-face contacts are
important† Face-to-face contacts are most important if the collaboration partner is located in the same
municipality† New technologies are most important if the collaboration partner is located in the different
municipality† Different modes of communication are complementary to each other† ICT is a good aid to overcome some of the (space-time) challenges of territorial characteristic of
northern Finland but it does not make location insignificant
1058 Katariina Ala-Rami
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Uni
vers
ity o
f San
tiago
de
Com
post
ela]
At:
16:5
0 7
Apr
il 20
08
Also, the increase of information has accelerated competition and shortened product life
cycles, which creates pressures to achieve new innovations through collaboration. More-
over, the more easily codified knowledge is available to everyone, the more important tacit
knowledge is to an enterprise. The knowledge needed in high-technology enterprises is
increased best through interpersonal contacts, which most easily takes place in geographi-
cal proximity.
Geographical proximity to the collaboration partner was seen as important in this
study too. Half of the interviewed high-technology enterprises claimed it has an effect
on collaboration. Even though the other half of the enterprises argued that distance is of
no importance, most of them reported that face-to-face contacts are of some importance.
Face-to-face meetings are crucial for creating new contacts. Locally generated and
expressed tacit and informal knowledge are important in innovation.
Many studies suggest that enterprises need a mixture of local, regional, national and
international connections to maintain their competitiveness and innovativeness (see
Bathelt et al., 2004; Doloreux, 2004, p. 186). It is important to manage the action of
“local buzz” but also “global pipelines” so that new information and new potential are
attainable for local actors and networks of enterprises. This is especially crucial for
high-technology enterprises located in more peripheral regions such as northern
Finland, at least in geographical terms.
The region of northern Finland, with its challenging characteristics—long distances,
sparse population density and few social resources (especially outside FUR Oulu)—
would gain in terms of economic activity and innovation if the physical distance could
be made less important. Physical distance may not lose its importance, but with the appro-
priate use of new technologies enterprises have a chance to tackle the geographical disad-
vantages. Most of the high-technology enterprises studied have already found the means to
get along with physical distance and accepted the limitations it may cause.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to acknowledge the financial support from the Academy of Finland
research project 200771. Also the author would like to thank other members of the
research group, especially Professor Jussi S. Jauhiainen, for their comments and sugges-
tions for the article as well as two anonymous referees for their helpful recommendations
for improvements to the article.
References
Ala-Rami, K. (2007) Collaboration between innovative high-technology enterprises in Peripheral Northern
Finland: Submitted manuscript (in review process).
Andersson, M. & Karlsson, C. (2004) The role of accessibility for regional innovation systems, in: C. Karlsson,
P. Fensburg & S.-A. Horte (Eds) Knowledge Spillovers and Knowledge Management (Cheltenham: Edward
Edgar).
Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A. & Maskell, P. (2004) Clusters and knowledge: Local buzz, global pipelines and the
process of knowledge creation, Progress in Human Geography, 28(1), pp. 31–56.
Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. (2000) The Social Life of Information (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).
Castells, M. (1996) The Information Age, Economy, Society and Culture. Volume 1, The Rise of Network City
(Oxford: Blackwell).
Castells, M. (2000) Grassrooting the space of flows, in: J. O. Wheeler, Y. Ayoama & B. Warf (Eds) Cities in
Telecommunications Age: The Fracturing of Geographies, pp. 18–30 (London: Routledge).
Communication andDistance in Collaboration betweenHigh-technology Enterprises 1059
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Uni
vers
ity o
f San
tiago
de
Com
post
ela]
At:
16:5
0 7
Apr
il 20
08
Castells, M. (2002) Conclusion, urban sociology in the twenty-first century, in: I. Susser (Ed.) The Castells
Reader on Cities and Social Theory, pp. 390–407 (Oxford: Blackwell).
Cooke, P. (1998) Introduction, origins of the concept, in: H.-J. Braczyk, P. Cooke & M. Heidenreich (Eds)
Regional Innovation Systems, pp. 2–27 (London: UCL Press).
Cooke, P. & Morgan, K. (2002) The Associational Economy. Firms, Regions, and Innovation (Oxford: Oxford
University Press).
Cumbers, A., MacKinnon, D. & Chapman, K. (2003) Innovation, collaboration, and learning in regional clusters:
A study of SMEs in the Aberdeen oil complex, Environment and Planning A, 35, pp. 1689–1706.
Edquist, C., Eriksson, M.-L. & Sjogren, H. (2002) Characteristics of collaboration in product innovation in the
regional system of innovation of East Gothia, European Planning Studies, 10(5), pp. 563–581.
Doloreux, D. (2004) Regional networks of small and medium sized enterprises: Evidence from the metropolitan
area of Ottawa in Canada, European Planning Studies, 12(2), pp. 174–189.
Feldman, M. P. (2002) The internet revolution and the geography of innovation, International Social Sciences
Review Journal, 54, pp. 47–56.
Graham, S. & Marvin, S (2000) Urban planning and the technological future of cities, in: J. O. Wheeler,
Y. Ayoama & B. Warf (Eds) Cities in Telecommunications Age: The Fracturing of Geographies,
pp. 71–96 (London: Routledge).
Graham, S. & Marvin, S. (2001) Splintering Urbanism—Network Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and
the Urban Condition (London: Routledge).
Grimes, S. (2003) The digital economy challenge facing peripheral rural areas, Progress in Human Geography,
27(2), pp. 174–193.
Haarni, T. & Vartiainen, P. (1996) Kaupunkiverkoistoituminen Suomessa, Suomen Ymparisto 64, Ymparistomi-
nisterio, Alueidenkayton osasto (Helsinki: Edita).
Howells, J. (2000) Knowledge, innovation and location, in: J. R. Bryson, P. W. Daniels, N. Henry & J. Pollard
(Eds) Knowledge Space Economy, pp. 50–62 (London: Routledge).
Jauhiainen, J. S. (1995) Kaupunkisuunnittelu, kaupunkiuudistus ja kaupunkipolitiikka. Kolme eurooppalaista
esimerkkia (Turku: Turun yliopiston maantieteen laitoksen julkaisuja 146).
Jauhiainen, J. S., Ala-Rami, K. & Suorsa, K. (2004) Multipolis –teknologian, osaamisen ja kehittamisen
yhteistyoverkosto. Arviointi Multipolis-toiminnasta 2000–2004, Sisaministerio (Helsinki: Alueiden
kehittaminen).
Jonsson, O. (2002) Innovation processes and proximity, the Case of IDEON in Lund, Sweden, European
Planning Studies, 10(6), pp. 705–722.
Kostiainen, J. (2002) Urban Economic Development Policy in the Network Society, Acta Electronica
Universitatis Tamperensis 197 (Tampere: Tampere University Press).
Kwan, M.-P. (2002) Time, information technologies, and the geographies of everyday life, Urban Geography,
23(5), pp. 471–482.
Liebeskind, J., Oliver, A. L., Zucker, L. G. & Brewer, A. M. (1995) Social networks, learning, and flexibility,
sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms, Organizational Science, 7(4), pp. 428–443.
Lievonen, J. & Lemola, T. (2004) Alueellisen innovaatiopolitiikan haasteita – tutkimustulosten tulkintaa,
Sisaministerio (Helsinki: Alueiden kehittaminen).
Lorenzen, M. (1998) Information Cost, Learning, and Trust, Lessons from Co-operation and Higher-order
Capabilities amongst Geographically Proximate Firms, DRUID Working Paper No. 98–21 (Danish
Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics (DRUID): Copenhagen).
Lorentzon, S. (2003) Chances in the flows and means of information exchange: Business uses of ICT in Sweden in
the 1990s, Urban Technology, 10(1), pp. 89–110.
Lundvall, B. A. (1992) Introduction, in: B. A. Lundvall (Ed.) National Systems of Innovation, Towards a Theory
of Innovation and Interactive Learning, pp. 1–22 (London: Pinter).
Malecki, E. J. (2000) Creating and sustaining competitiveness: Local knowledge and economic geography,
in: J. R. Bryson, P. W. Daniels, N. Henry & J. Pollard (Eds) Knowledge Space Economy, pp. 103–119
(London: Routledge).
Maskell, P. & Malmberg, A. (1999) The competiveness of firms and regions, “ubiquitification” and the
importance of localized learning, European Urban and Regional Studies, 6(1), pp. 9–25.
Massard, N. & Mehier, C. (2005) Proximity, accessibility to knowledge and innovation. Regional Studies
Association Conference draft (Seaford: Regional Studies Association).
Miettinen, R., Lehenkari, J., Husu, M. & Hyvonen, J. (1999)Osaaminen ja uuden luominen innovaatioverkoissa –
tutkimus kuudesta suomalaisesta innovaatiosta (Vantaa: SITRA 226).
1060 Katariina Ala-Rami
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Uni
vers
ity o
f San
tiago
de
Com
post
ela]
At:
16:5
0 7
Apr
il 20
08
Mokharian, P. L. & Meenakshiundaram, R. (1999) Beyond tele-substitution, disaggregate longitudinal structural
equations modelling of communication impacts, Transportation Research Part C, 7, pp. 31–52.
Moss, M. (1998) Technology and cities, Cityscape, A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 3(3),
pp. 107–127.
Multipolis. (2005) Multipolis Network in the Oulu Region Centre of Expertice, Final Report. Available at http://www.multipolis.com/docs/multipolis/graf/Final_Report.pdf (accessed 5 November 2005).
Negroponte, N. (1995) Digitaalinen Todellisuus (Keuruu: Otava).
Simmie, J. (2001) Introduction, in: J. Simmie (Ed.) Innovative Cities, pp. 1–8 (London: Spon Press).
Sitra. (2002) Innovaatiojarjestelman Uudistumishaasteet—Kansallisen Innovaatio-jarjestelman Tutkimusohjel-
man Tuloksia ja Johtopaatoksia, Sitran raportteja 25 (Helsinki: Edita).
Statistics Finland (2004) Finland in numbers. Available at http://www.tilastokeskus.fi/tup/suoluk/taskue_vaes-
to.html#region (accessed 9 August 2004).
Storper, M. & Vernables, A. J. (2003) Buzz: Face-To-Face Contact and the Urban Economy (London: Centre
for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science).
Stahle, P. & Sotarauta, M. (2003) Alueellisen innovaatiotoiminnan tila, merkitys ja kehityshaasteet Suomessa,
Loppuraportti, Eduskunnan kanslian julkaisu 3/2003 (Helsinki: Tulevaisuusvaliokunta, teknologian
arviointeja 15).
Thrift, N. (1996) New urban eras and old technological fears, reconfiguring the goodwill of electronic things,
Urban Studies, 33(8), pp. 1463–1493.
Tuomi, I. (2001) From Periphery to Center: Emerging Reseach Topics on Knowledge Society, Technology
Review 116/2001 (Helsinki: Tekes).
Communication andDistance in Collaboration betweenHigh-technology Enterprises 1061
Dow
nloa
ded
By:
[Uni
vers
ity o
f San
tiago
de
Com
post
ela]
At:
16:5
0 7
Apr
il 20
08
Appendix
Table A1. Correlations
Polisor not
Line ofbusiness
Yearestablished
Location ofcollaboratorion
partner
Meaningof
distance
Mostimportantmode of
communication
Spearman’srho
Polis or not Correlation Coefficient 1 0.282 20.008 20.283 0.088 20.003
Significance (two-tailed) . 0.001a 0.924 0.005b 0.388 0.975N 131 131 130 96 99 98
Line of business Correlation Coefficient 1 0.119 0.073 20.067 20.033Significance (two-tailed) — 0.177 0.479 0.511 0.745
Year established Correlation Coefficient 1 20.038 20.074 0.066Significance (two-tailed) — 0.718 0.467 0.519N 130 95 98 97
Location of collabora-torion partner
Correlation Coefficient 1 20.452 20.352
Significance (two-tailed) — 0.000a 0.000a
N 96 96 95Meaning of distance Correlation Coefficient 1 0.417
Significance (two-tailed) — 0.000a
N 99 98Most important mode
of communi-cationCorrelation Coefficient 1
Significance (two-tailed) —N 98
aHighly significant.bSignificant.
Italics represent essential correlations used in this study.
10
62
Katariin
aAla-Rami