The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 401–414 | Cite as

The making of plasma medicine. Strategy driven clusters and the emerging roles of cluster management and government supervision

  • Christiane Gebhardt


In this paper we discuss the new generation of German innovation clusters as a model that reflects the paradigm of a supervising and even entrepreneurial role of government. The model evolves alongside a predominant programmatic design that postulates strategy driven clusters or virtual regional organizations consisting out of research laboratories, university departments, and SME. The cluster design implicates the management of strategic implementation, alignments, and the settlement of conflicts as well as the enabling of trust formation. The findings outlined in this paper draw on action research and expert interviews, carried out at the German cluster Campus PlasmaMed 2008–2011 and with stakeholders. The analyzed cluster is funded by German Ministry of Education and Research, BMBF Innovation und State of the Art Research in the New Bundeslander which stands in the tradition of the Entrepreneurial Regions’ Program. The backbone of our research is the cluster’s strategy to develop the interdisciplinary science plasma medicine, a hybrid of low temperature plasma physics and life sciences and to market innovative PlasmaMed products. Innovation policies, programmatic designs, and evolving cluster management schemes are discussed regarding their significance in fostering the current cluster paradigm in German federal science policy. We outline the relevant factors for a transformation of trust-based scientific networks into strategy driven clusters or virtual organisations and provide new criteria for government intervention.


Plasma medicine Cluster management Science policy Regional innovation Strategy driven cluster Innovation policy Innovation Entrepreneurial government 

JEL Classification

O31 O32 O38 


  1. Astor, M., & Broich, B. (2007). Cluster in der Umsetzung. Prognos: Lösungen für die regionale Innovationspolitik. Basel.Google Scholar
  2. Audretsch, D. B., & Albert, N. L. (2011). Entrepreneurship and innovation: Public policy frameworks. JTT: Springer Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
  3. Audretsch, D. B., Keilbach, M. C., & Lehmann, E. E. (2006). Entrepreneurship and economic growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Audretsch, D. B., Zoltan, A., & Robert, S. (Eds.). (2009). Entrepreneurship, growth, and public policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Auerswald, P. E., & Branscomb, L. M. (2003). Valleys of death and darwinian seas: Financing the invention to innovation transition in the United States. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bower, J. L., & Christensen, C. M. (1995). Disruptive technologies: Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review, 73(1), 43–53.Google Scholar
  7. Breschi, S., & Malerba, F. (2005). Clusters, networks and innovation. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 22, 345–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Casper, S., & Murray, F. (2005). Careers and clusters: Analyzing the career network dynamic of biotechnology clusters. Journal of Engineering and Technological Management, 22, 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clases, C., Räber, R., & Wehner, T. (2003). Zur Entwicklung der wissensorientierten Kooperation bei Sulzer Innotec. Von der Abteilungsstruktur zu Knowledge Clustern. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 5(3), 109–115.Google Scholar
  11. Collins, H. M. (1992). Changing order. Replication and induction in the scientific practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cooke, P. (2009). Regionale Innovationssysteme, Cluster und die Wissensökonomie. S. 87–116 In B. Blättel-Mink & A. Ebner (Hrsg.) (Eds.), Innovationssysteme. Technologie, Institutionen und die Dynamik der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  13. Cooke, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). Regional development in the knowledge-based economy: The construction of advantage. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daellenbach, U., & Davenport, S. (2004). Establishing trust during the formation of technology alliances. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(2), 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy, 11(3), 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dosi, G. (1997). Opportunities, incentives and the collective patterns of technological change. Economic Journal, 107, 1530–1547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: University, industry, government. Innovation in action. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fridman, G., Friedman, G., Gutsol, A., et al. (2008). Applied plasma medicine. Plasma Processes and Polymers, 5(6), 503–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fuller, S. (2009). Interdisciplinarity. The loss of the heroic vision in the marketplace of ideas. Accessed April 28, 2009.
  21. Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of International Political Economy, 12, 78–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Granovetter, M. (2005). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(1), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gross, N., & Martin, W. E. (1952). On group cohesiveness. The American Journal of Sociology, 57(6), 546–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herrigel, G., & Zeitlin, J. (2009). Inter-firm relations in global manufacturing: Disintegrated production and its globalization. In G. Morgan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook in comparative institutional analysis. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ketels, C. H. M. (2006). Michael Porter’s competitiveness framework—Recent learnings and new research priorities. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 6(2), 115–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Link, A. N., & Link, J. L. (2005). Government as an entrepreneur. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Love, J. H., Roper, S., & Mangiarotti, G. (2009). Organizing innovation: Complementarities between cross-functional teams. Technovation, 29(3), 192–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Malik, F. (2007). Das A und O des Handwerks (Management: Komplexität meistern). Campus.Google Scholar
  30. Markusen, A. (1996). Sticky places in slippery SPACE: A typology of industrial districts. Economic Geography, 72(3), 293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2006). Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(4), 395–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miller, W. F. (2004). Fostering and sustaining entrepreneurial regions. International Journal of Technology Management, 28(3–6), 324–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Müller-Stewens, G., & Lechner, C. (2011). Strategisches management. Schäffer-Poeschel: Wie strategische Initiativen zum Wandel führen. Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  34. OECD. (2009). Strengthening entrepreneurship and economic development in East Germany: Lessons from local approaches. Report (March).Google Scholar
  35. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard business review, November–December, 61–78. The value chain.Google Scholar
  37. Reichert, S. (2006). The rise of knowledge regions: Emerging opportunities and challenges for universities. Brussels: European University Association.Google Scholar
  38. Röpke, J. (1998). The Entrepreneurial University innovation, academic knowledge creation and regional development in a globalized economy.Google Scholar
  39. Scott, J. (1987). Social network analysis. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Treado, C. (2010). Pittsburgh’s evolving steel legacy and the steel technology cluster. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2010(3), 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Malik Management InstituteSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations