Universities as Key Actors for Cluster Development: A Case Study of the Glasgow- Edinburgh Corridor Kamarulzaman Ab. Aziz Faculty of Management Multimedia University Malaysia kamarulzaman.aziz@mmu.edu.my Stanley Richardson Faculty of Management Multimedia University Malaysia s.richardson@mmu.edu.my Nor Azlina Ab. Aziz Faculty of Engineering and Technology Multimedia University Malaysia azlina.aziz@mmu.edu.my Abstract—Tremendous changes in technology, political and social frameworks as well as the impacts of globalization have put pressure on countries to become competitive. One strategy for creating an engine of economic growth is the creation of clusters. These clusters, be they naturally or artificially conceived hold the promise of becoming the economic weapons of a country. Many studies have been done to understand the factors behind the success and failures of clusters. Often having the set of actors was identified as being one of key factor, where emphasis was given on the business and government actors. This paper explores the roles of universities as key actors for cluster development. This was done through a case study of a Scottish cluster, namely, the Glasgow-Edinburgh Corridor. Keywords-cluster, universities, corridor. I. INTRODUCTION Clusters is a concept made popular by Michael Porter through his Cluster Diamond Framework (CDF) as a management tool for creating and sustaining competitive advantage. The cluster concept argues for a synergy created by geographically linked actors leading to enhanced productivity which is attractive to both firm managers and governments. The CDF provided a simple and yet seemingly comprehensive method to monitor and manage the various dynamics of a cluster. Porter [26] pointed out that contrary to global development trend of globalisation; location is becoming more important especially in organisation’s efforts to secure competitive advantage. Porter here can be seen as echoing Marshall’s [24] discussion on “the concentration of specialized industries in particular localities.” Economic geographers like Scott [30]; Amin and Thrift [3]; Harrison [15]; Harrison, Kelly and Grant [16]; Markusen [23]; and Asheim [5] also discuss the subject. They came up with concepts such as Local Industrial Specialisation, Spatial Economic Agglomeration, and Regional Development to discuss the trend. Furthermore, numerous terminologies have been suggested to define the concept – “Industrial Districts”, “New Industrial Spaces”, “Territorial Production Complexes”, “Neo-Marshallian Nodes”, “Regional Innovation Milieux”, “Network Regions”, and “Learning Regions.” However, these concepts were received with less wide spread acceptance and application than when compared with those offered by the business managers. The most popular concept to date is the “Cluster” concept proposed by Porter [26]. He defined cluster as “..geographic concentrations of interconnected companies, specialised suppliers, service providers, firms in related industries, and associated institutions (for example, universities, standards agencies, and trade associations) in particular fields that compete but also co-operate” and “a form of network that occurs within a geographic location, in which the proximity of firms and institutions ensures certain forms of commonality and increases the frequency and impact of interactions.” Rosenfeld [29] highlighted the importance of the ability to produce synergy by and among the organizations. Feser [14] suggested that what define a cluster are not only the firms but also the “supporting institutions”. Roelandt and den Hertog [28] described cluster as a value-adding production chain. Simmie and Sennett [32] proposed that clusters could better be analysed by looking at the supply chains. Enright [9] defines clusters based on proximity between the organizations. To sum it up, according to Van der Berg, Braun and van Winden [35] - “The popular term cluster is most closely related to this local or regional dimension of networks … Most definitions share the notion of clusters as localised networks of specialised organisations, whose production processes are closely linked through the exchange of goods, services and/or knowledge.” The number of definitions reviewed clearly demonstrated that there is no single unified definition existed that can be adopted. However, it can be seen that there are groups of definitions that share similarities – spatial-based, industrial sector-based, and measured variables-based definitions. Furthermore, it can be seen that there are a number of recurring or common themes – link to performance, geographical concentration and/or proximity, cluster actors, and linkages and interrelationships – which might be suggesting towards a convergence among the experts on how clusters are being viewed [2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32 & 35]. The convergence seems to centre on the ideas that clusters are sets of actors that gravitate around particular location i.e. geographically proximate, where knowledge intensive activities occur in a knowledge rich environment and ultimately impacts the 297 2010 International Conference on E-business, Management and Economics IPEDR vol.3 (2011) © (2011) IACSIT Press, Hong Kong