Building a nanodistrict: technology platforms and institutional entrepreneurship

1
Building a nanodistrict technology platforms
and institutional entrepreneurship

• Aurélie Delemarle, Douglas Robinson, Vincent
  Mangematin, Arie Rip

2
Nano-districts?

• Original idea Science-intensive regions picking
  up on nanotechnology Cambridge, Oeresund coming
  from life sciences, Grenoble from
  micro-electronics (with some bio), Twente from
  microsystems (for Netherlands as a whole mixed
  roots)
• Comparative case studies of Grenoble and Twente
  similarities (loose coupling, regionality, mix of
  technical facilities) and role of institutional
  entrepreneurs against a backdrop of (emerging)
  patterns
• Too early to see nanodistricts

3
Present themes (indirectly linked to the
question about nanodistricts)

• Explore agglomeration mechanisms in action
  including roles of technological infrastructures
• Trace roles of institutional entrepreneurs (in
  region and more widely) (paper submitted to
  Organization Studies)
• Technology platforms and emerging networks in the
  domain of nanotechnology (paper to be submitted
  to Research Policy)
• Further dynamics of emergence (actors,
  interactions, patterns, wider structures and
  their articulation stabilisation)

4
Vincent Mangematins claim

• Developments and patterns also depend on
  characteristics of the evolving technologies
• Not only because these may be expensive (as in
  micro-nano-electronics, cf. Jean Therme on
  Minatec)
• But also because they structure interactions,
  shift filières and industry structures

5
Technical infrastructures

• Key aspect, esp. for nano
• cf. atomic force microscopy etc, ultra-clean
  rooms, lithography, surface analysis
• Technical facilities, skilled manpower,
  organisation access
• Generic technology platforms and their
  co-location -- so central facilities?
• Will remain in the background in this paper

6
Institutional entrepreneurship

• More than building a new organization
• Mobilizing resources, including legitimation (cf.
  moral entrepreneurs)
• Alliances are formed, patterns emerge
• Transforming organizational fields, in a
  multi-level context
• Successful? What counts as success?

7
Czarniawska on institutional entrepreneurship

• Three phases(1) articulation of goals and
  ideas, core group and shift to determined
  action(2) mobilization of resources and
  visibility, decisions to go further(3)
  materialization, implementation, further
  negotiation
• With concurrent changes in institutional contexts

8
Twente and the NanoNed consortium

• MESA (Twente) research centre (400 staff) with
  high-level facilities
• David Reinhoudt (and his small group) as
  institutional entrepreneur expansion beyond
  Twente
• 2000/2001 Masterplan NanoNed, with Delft and
  Groningen. Ministry of Economic Affairswas
  willing to help, but broadening (more partners)
  was necessary

9
The emergence and evolution of NanoNed (1)
Groningen
2000 Groningen and Delft agree to join Twente to
mobilise big money for nano (cf. KNAW advice)
Delft
Twente
10
NanoNed proposal 2003
11 Flagship projects (175 M)

• Advanced Nanoprobing (Rasing, Nijmegen)
• Bottom-up Nano Electronics (Hadley, Delft)
• Chemistry and Physics of Individual Molecules
  (Feringa, Groningen)
• Communication with and Actuation of Nanosystems
  (Meijberg, Groningen)
• NanoElectronic Materials (Blank, Twente)
• NanoFabrication (Huskens, Twente)
• NanoFluidics (van den Berg, Twente)
• NanoInstrumentation (Bastein, TNO)
• NanoPhotonics (Polman, Amsterdam)
• NanoSpintronics (Koopmans, Eindhoven)
• Quantum Computation (Grifoni, Delft)

11
The emergence and evolution of NanoNed (2)
Groningen
Twente
At a late stage, Philips wanted to be
involved Coordination in the cross-cutting
flagships and through NanoLab (three centres)
Delft
TNO-TPD
Eindhoven
12
NanoLab
Within NanoNed, an important part of the funding
is intended for the investment in the
experimental infrastructure on behalf of the
nanotechnology in the Netherlands. For
state-of-the-art laboratory-provisions are
limiting conditions for the execution of
nanotechnological research.
45 45 Million Euros
NanoNed partners have agreed to allocate funding
between three locations in the Netherlands, where
large nanotechnological facilities are already in
place Groningen (BioMaDe), Twente (MESA) and
Delft (DIMES and TNO/TPD).
13
(No Transcript)
14
Not a linear development twists and shifts since
2000

• While the Masterplan Micro/Nano was prepared, in
  collaboration with Dreamstart (a funding program
  set up by MinEZ to support innovation and
  high-tech start-ups), Dreamstart fell out of
  favour with the Minister, and its budget and thus
  funding possibilities, almost disappeared.
• MinEZ wanted the initiative to continue, and
  suggested submission to ICES/KIS-3 (program to
  fund knowledge infrastructure, with money from
  government income from natural gas). Eventually,
  the Expression of Interest (containing the
  Masterplan as an appendix) was submitted on 30
  August 2001, titled NanoNed

15
Twists and shifts, continued

• MinEZ Kees Vijlbrief wanted to push
  nanotechnology (and did so, indirectly, for
  example by making sure that there would be a
  relevant theme in ICES/KIS-3), brought actors
  together (the three universities and TNO), but
  needed legitimation.
• Asked a trusted consultant to talk with all
  universities about their interest in joining a
  nano program. Four came in.
• Difficult meetings ensued, resolved with the help
  of independent mediators.

16
Articulation of plans, partial stabilization,
emerging identity

• Basic structure of flagships (thematic, across
  universities and other partners)
• Regular consultation meetings of the
  co-ordinators representing the participants
  STW (funding agency for technical sciences)
  provided (informal) secretariat and neutral
  space. David Reinhoudt was natural leader, and
  started to spend a lot of time on NanoNed
• MinEZ offered advance funding, if there was a
  plan by March 2002 (Nano-Impuls)

17
First appropriation and further negotations

• Nano-Impuls was awarded (after internal checks
  only), work on ICES/KIS-3 proposal with
  professional support (deadline March 2003).
• Big companies had been asked to participate, but
  declined (time-horizon too long). Four weeks
  before deadline, Philips changed tacks and
  decided to participate. This was important for
  NanoNed, so was accommodated.Eventually, when
  the NanoNed proposal was awarded it had to be
  checked in Brussels because government funding
  also for a private company which led to
  negotiations and delays
• A Board and procedures were established, while
  NanoImpuls helped to create a presence.
  Identity building

18
Ironies

• The expansion to a national consortium NanoNed
  was forced on the gang of three, but David
  Reinhoudt now emphasizes how important it is to
  have a national consortium.
• Strong distinction between nano and micro was
  effect of local Delft situation. NanoNed wanted
  to be the only proposal under ICES/KIS-3 Theme 8,
  but MicroNed was also submitted.
• Philips, while member of NanoNed, has own
  interests, including the triangle Eindhoven,
  Louvain and Aachen.

19
Unstable situation
Limited coordinative power of NanoNedRole of
distributed facilities and their access
Aachen
Louvain (IMEC)
20
Grenoble and Minatec

• Grenoble Long history of excellence in science,
  technology and knowledge-based industry
• CEA and its start-up zone ZHT can link up with
  INPG Jean Therme grasps the opportunity (1999)
• Infrastructures in micro existed, new building
  (Minatec) to be constructed

Cf. Jean Thermes presentation on the Wednesday
morning
21
Building walls, building alliances

• An additional 150M was mobilized from local
  authorities, in addition to existing buildings
  and infrastructures
• Jean Therme mobilized necessary agreements,
  national support and international recognition --
  Minatec existed (2002) but as a concept, to
  connect research, training and valorisation.
  Building to be finished in 2006, intended for
  3500 researchers.

22
Mobilisation of resources, materialisation on
paper
Aurelie Delemarles analysis
Intense meeting period in his agenda. From June
01 on, there are 2 to 3 meetings per week
directly in relation to MiNaTec (it is also the
time when a MiNaTec team appears (JFV, JFC, LN)
Convention version. The sept/oct activity is
linked to the presentation of the project to A
Costes from the French ministry of research early
October
23

• Journey of ideas, and how J. Terme convinced his
  partners to climb aboard, even if the vessel does
  not exist.
• to react and create a sort of emergency we cant
  continue to compete otherwise
• Presentation of the main concepts of MiNaTec,
  which evolved from a fuzzy picture to a more
  precise definition, with name, image and
  architectural plans.
• When anticipations converge on the necessity of
  action,
• scientific and technological contents discussed
• impacts of MiNaTec on CEA/LETI evaluated
• When anticipations are stabilised,
• contents defined, legitimacy enhanced by EC
  projects,
• discussion on financial aspects.
• Progressive lock in
• Note the absence of the national policy makers.

24
(No Transcript)
25
(No Transcript)
26
Comments

• Institutional entrepreneurs in new science
  technology like nano are riding many waves at the
  same time (incl. excellence and relevance of the
  research) and are faced with ironies
• Institutional entrepreneurs shape the world while
  adopting opportunities and adapting to
  constraints in contexts ( reverse salients)
  and thus may end up in a different place.

27
Further comments

• They must link up with technological facilities
  - to justify their action, - to enable some
  coordination, and - to create a business model
  for institutionalised strategic research
• Requirements of nanotechnology is a driver
  towards some convergence in different cases?
  Technological determinism? yes, as a rhetoric
  which becomes true because of social
  (institutional, political) dynamics.

28
Further work

• On technological agglomeration (role of
  technological platforms in structuring networks
  and supporting nodes in broader patterns)
• On comparisons with further nano-regions in
  Europe
• On the inclusion of further actors in the
  networks (e.g. various authorities and agencies,
  but also NGOs)