The evaluation of the extra-cluster knowledge system is carried out along two dimensions: extra-cluster knowledge sources and the interface between the external linkages and the intra-cluster knowledge system. There are two important issues that need to be considered when evaluating the efficiency of the extra-cluster knowledge systems:
1. The collaboration with universities and research institutes concerning extra-cluster knowledge sources.
2. The collaboration between regional science parks, incubators and accelerators, and the national clusters concerning the interface between the external linkages and the intra-cluster knowledge system.
Collaboration with universities and research institutes
In general, all three clusters have a close relationship and good collaboration with the Danish universities, which have scientific and research strengths in different areas. Thus, the three clusters work more with some universities than with others, depending on their areas of strength. The typical hardware or deep tech sectors of energy technology and advanced production typically have closer collaboration with the technical universities, such as the Technical University of Denmark (DTU) and Aalborg University, as well as the University of Southern Denmark in the area of robotics, specifically with relation to the Odense robotic cluster. Meanwhile, Food & Bio Cluster Denmark has the closest collaboration with Aarhus University and the University of Copenhagen.
While the food and bio resources sector has a close co-operation with knowledge-providing institutions that specialise in research relevant to the sector, MADE does not see the same value in research co-operation with universities. This is partly due to the very specialised knowledge coming out of university research. This problem partially stems from the publication pressures faced by researchers, which forces them to focus on new contributions to the scientific literature, rather than on areas that might be more useful or relevant to start-ups and scale-ups in the sector. Another factor inhibiting co-operation between MADE and universities is the IPR laws and regulations in Denmark, which were identified by stakeholders as being a barrier to the smooth diffusion of knowledge from university to industry, especially for start-ups and scale-ups. Partly, the significant diffusion problems from research to start-ups and scale-ups are due to universities wanting to make money from patents and licences, resulting in them becoming too expensive for start-ups and scale-ups to exploit. There is a further problem in that university collaborations can quickly become bureaucratic and difficult, leading to start-ups and scale-ups (and others) walking away from such collaborations.
Research has shown a decreasing tendency for collaboration between industry and university in the biotech sector after the new IPR law – modelled after the 1980 American Bayh-Dole Act – was introduced in Denmark in 2000 (Valentin and Jensen, 2007[6]). One interviewed stakeholder indicated that something could be learned from Sweden, which still operates with professor’s privilege, whereby the professor (inventor) owns the research results and inventions rather than the university. The interviewee also noted that a committee is currently looking into the question of reforming the IPR law in Denmark. In Sweden professor’s privilege results in more professors starting their own companies, which is a useful source of start-ups and scale-ups. It also leads to a smoother collaboration between university professors and industry (Wigren-Kristoferson, Gabrielsson and Kitagawa, 2011[7]). In 2004, Sweden was on course to introducing a similar IPR law to that currently found in Denmark, but halted this partly due to the research results from Denmark referenced above. In fact, when co-operation with Danish universities decreased after the introduction of the IPR law in 2000, collaboration with Swedish Universities, especially Lund University, increased. IPR practices also vary between Danish Universities. The practice adopted by a university is also dependent on the background of the persons running the corresponding technology transfer office. If they have a background in business, the co-operation is more pragmatic than if the technology transfer office (TTO) is run by people with a background in law.
Several interviewees commented that there is a tendency for funding to be too heavily focused on R&D, without enough emphasis on innovation i.e. bringing an invention to the market. In hardware and deep tech, engineering and manufacturing are part of the innovation process. This impacts the funding needed for start-ups in the hardware and deep tech sectors, as the commercialisation process is much longer and more costly. This means that start-ups need significantly larger amounts of patient capital for them to be successful than is the case for, as an example, software start-ups. Finance needs to match lead times.
Interface between the external linkages and the intra-cluster knowledge system: Collaboration between regional science parks and incubators and the national clusters
A final question of interest is what has gone missing by establishing the national cluster organisations. Several interviews emphasised that spatial proximity between stakeholders is especially important to support the development of start-ups and scale-ups, as entrepreneurship is a localised phenomenon (Brown and Mason, 2017[2]). This spatial proximity is found at the regional level but is lost at the national level. An often-mentioned example of a successful regional cluster is Odense Robotics, where a close spatial, organisational, and social proximity between industry, university, municipalities, entrepreneurs and investors helped to turn Denmark into one of the major producers of robotics globally. This does not mean that the national cluster organisations should be abolished. Rather, there should be a drive towards forming systematic channels for co-operation between the national clusters and regional clusters and entrepreneurial ecosystems in order to promote innovation, start-ups and scale-ups.
There is a considerable number of regional ecosystems in Denmark, especially in connection with universities, which usually have incubators, accelerators and science parks related to their respective research strongholds. These regional ecosystems should be able to benefit from a closer, more systematic and long-term collaboration with the national cluster organisations as part of sectoral innovation systems including national and regional levels, in order to maximise the synergy effects of the total ecosystem for start-ups and scale-ups in Denmark.
