Even though all the elements of the framework are important in explaining the innova- tiveness and competitiveness of a local destination, in this last section of the paper our aim is to vindicate the relevance of relational networks.
Destination as a Local System: Role of Relational Networks 61
Outcomes Relational Elements
TLIS
Tourist Actors Private firm sector
Public Administrations
R+D+T Organisations
Local Communities
Knowledge creation &
Collective Learning
Collective Wealth Relational structure
Relational strength Innovation
Competitive Advantage Ancillary actors SupportExternal actors Interaction
Determining factors
Sustainability Innovative
Capacity
Territory
Macro-environment Politic
Social
Technological Historic Economic
Figure 4.1: Tourist local innovation system model.
Figure 4.2 shows an example of different clusters or local destinations with the con- nections among relevant actors within clusters and between clusters.
For its part, Figure 4.3 presents a causal model depicting the relationship between rela- tional networks and the competitiveness of local destinations.
As can be seen, there are two characteristics of the relational networks in a cluster or local destination to be considered: the centrality of each cluster in the global system and the internal structure or cohesion of the clusters.
As for centrality of the cluster (see top half of Figure 4.3), we assume that the clusters with more direct contacts with external clusters and actors will be more active in commu- nication activity in the global system, and thus, will have more of the information and knowledge flowing through the whole system. Nonetheless, even though a cluster has a small number of direct links with external clusters, it can still play an important interme- diary role between different clusters in the system (Guia, 2000). In Figure 4.2, cluster D is the only one who links the clusters on the right of the figure with the ones on the left, and thus, it has the most timely and exclusive access to the knowledge available in the system, that is, the most brokerage power.
Therefore, the more central the cluster, the more its potential to develop new tourist products in that it has advantages in identifying and assimilating the new knowledge avail- able in the system; or in other words, the more potential absorptive capacity (Zahra &
George, 2002).
Now, if we look at the bottom half of Figure 4.3, we see the role the cohesion of the internal network of the clusters play for its innovativeness and competitive capacity (Guia, 2000). The more cohesive the cluster, that is, the more actors are connected between them, the more trust and social norms will develop, and the more the efficiency in coordinating and controlling the collective actions carried by the group. Therefore, the more embedded in the local environment the actors in the clusters are, the lower the transaction costs of the collective activities of transforming the available knowledge and exploiting it in the form of new product development and marketing; or in other words, the more realized absorp- tive capacity (Zahra & George, 2002).
62 Jaume Guia et al.
A
B
C
D E
Figure 4.2: Connections between and within local destinations.
The two circumstances (centrality and cohesion) have to coexist in order to improve the innovative capacity of the local destination. Actors cannot possibly exploit knowledge without first acquiring it; similarly, they can acquire and assimilate knowledge, but might not have the capability to transform and exploit it for profit generation.
Conclusions
Briefly, due to the special characteristics of the tourist products we argue that the unit of analy- sis for the strategic study of these products is the local destination. Each local destination can be framed as a complex system in which every actor plays particular roles. The use of a frame- work for a LSIT as the one proposed above should prove relevant for the understanding of innovation processes and innovation deficits in the tourist industry and destinations.
Additionally, we highlight the particular relevance of relational networks in explaining the innovative capacity of a local destination. The centrality of de-destination in the global network of contacts between actors will determine its potential for new product develop- ment and innovation, in that, it will affect the quantity, and quality of knowledge to which it has access to. For its part, the cohesiveness of the internal network of contacts within the local cluster or destination will determine the “realizability” of the potential for new prod- uct development, in that it will affect the capability for transforming and exploiting the knowledge to which it had accessed.
Nonetheless, this paper is just a first exercise of translating the concept of systems of inno- vation to the tourism industry, and to the local level, which had not been done previously in Destination as a Local System: Role of Relational Networks 63
RELATIONAL NETWORKS CENTRALITY OF CLUSTERS
COHESION OF CLUSTERS
KNOWLEDGE ADVANTAGES:
Quantity Quality Timeliness Exclusivity
TRANSACTION COSTS ADVANTAGES:
Co-ordination Control
POTENTIALITY OF NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT:
Identification capacity Assimilation capacity
REALIZABILITY OF NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT:
Transformation capacity Exploitation capacity
PRODUCT INNOVATION IMPROVED
SEASONALITY AND COMPETITIVENESS
Figure 4.3: Relational networks, innovation and competitiveness.
the literature. The framework is, thus, a starting point for further research, as well on theo- retical issues, as on applications to particular local destinations in order to assess their inno- vative capacity, or to compare their innovative capacity with the capacity of other local destinations.
References
Andereck, K.L., & Vogt, C.A. (2000). The relationship between residents’ attitudes toward tourism and tourism development options, Journal of Travel Research,39(1), 27–36.
Asheim, B.T., & Isaksen, A. (2001). Los sistemas regionales de innovación, las PYMES y la política de innovación. In: M. Olazaran, & M. Gómez (Eds), Sistemas regionales de innovación. Zarautz:
Servicio editorial de la universidad del país vasco.
Aydalot P. (1982). Milieux innovateurs en Europe.Paris: Economica.
Becattini, G. (1979). Dal settore industriale al distretto industriale. Alcune considerazione sull’unità di indagine dell’economia industriale. Rivista di Economia e Politica Industriale 1, 7–14.
Braczyk, H.J., Cooke, P., & Heidenreich, M. (1998); Regional innovation systems: The role of governances in a globalized world. Londres: UCL.
Camisón, C., & Molina, F.J. (1998). Distritos industriales y recursos compartidos: Un enfoque integrador. Revista de Economía y Empresa, 32(12), 65–82.
Carneiro, A. (2000). How does knowledge management influence innovation and competitiveness?
Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 87–98.
Cooke, P. (2001). Sistemas de innovación regional: Conceptos, análisis y topología. In: M. Olazaran,
& M. Gómez (Eds), Sistemas regionales de innovación. Zarautz: Servicio editorial de la universidad del país vasco.
COTEC. (2001a). Innovación en servicios.Madrid: COTEC.
COTEC. (2001b). Estudio exploratorio sobre innovación en el sector turístico balear. Madrid:
COTEC.
Freeman, C. (1987). Technology policy and economic performance: Lessons from Japan.London:
Pinter.
Grant, R.M. (2004). Innovation in tourism planning processes: Action learning to support a coalition of stakeholders for sustainability. Tourism and Hospitality: Planning & Development, 1(3), 219–237.
Guia, J. (2000). Implicaciones del capital social para la ventaja competitiva de la empresa en un contexto evolutivo. Unpublished PhD disartation. Castelló: Universitat Jaume I.
Guia, J., & Prats, L. (2004). Innovation as institutional change: A complexity approach. Research workshop management of innovation, (7–8 June), Roskilde: Roskilde University (Denmark).
Gunn, C.A. (1997). Vacationscape: Developing tourist areas.Washington, DC: Taylor and Francis.
Hjalager, A.M. (2002). Repairing innovation defectiveness in tourism. Tourism Management, 23(5), 465–474.
Jacob, M., Tintoré, J., Aguiló, E., Bravo, A., & Mulet, J. (2000). Innovation in the tourism sector:
Results from a pilot study in the Balearic Islands. Tourism Economics, 9(3), 279–295.
Jacob, M., Tintoré, J., & Simonet, R. (2003). Innovación y turismo; en El papel social de la ciencia en Baleares. Un homenaje a Javier Benedí, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Palma de Mallorca.
Jensen, C.F. (2001). Innovative behaviour in experience intensive firms. A strategic perspective in tourism. Report 01:2. Roskilde: Roskilde University, Centre of Service Studies.
Kirat, T., & Lung, Y. (1999). Innovation and proximity: Territories as loci of collective learning processes. European Urban and Regional Studies, 6(1), 27–38.
64 Jaume Guia et al.
Lundvall, B.Å. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter.
Maillat, D., & Perrin, J.C. (1992). Entreprises innovatrices et développement territorial.Neuchâtel (France): EDES (Editions de la Division Économique et Sociale).
Nelson, R. (1993). National innovation systems.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Olazaran, M., & Gómez, M. (2001). Sistemas regionales de innovación. Zarautz: Servicio editorial de la universidad del país vasco.
OMT. (1999). Desarrollo turístico sostenible: Guía para administradores locales. Madrid: OMT.
Peteraf, M.A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 95–117.
Poon, A. (1990). Flexible specialization and small size — the case of Caribbean tourism. World Development, 1, 109–123.
Poon, A. (1993). Tourism, technology and competitive strategies.Oxon: CAB Intenational.
Porter, M.E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations.London: The MacMillan Press.
Porter, M.E. (1992). Els avantatges competitius de Catalunya.Barcelona: Generalitat de Catalunya.
Porter, M.E. (1999a). Ser competitivos: Nuevas aportaciones y conclusiones. Bilbao: Ediciones Deusto.
Porter, M.E. (1999b). Ser competitivos: Fronteras en expansión. Hardvard Deusto Business Review, 91, 34–37.
Prats, L. (2003). Competitivitat i turisme: El paper rellevant del territori. Cicle de conferències sobre competitivitat i territori, (18–25 February), Universitat de Girona.
Prats, L., & Guia, J. (2003). Aproximación a la competitividad de la industria del turismo: una pro- puesta de indicadores. (21–25 October), Ministerio de Educación Superior de Cuba: Universidad de Matanzas.
Stacey, R., Douglas, G., & Shaw, P. (2000). Compelexity and management: Fad or radical challenge to systems thinking? London: Routledge.
Stamboulis, Y., & Skayannis, P. (2003). Innovation strategies and technology for experience-based tourism. Tourism Management, 24(1), 35–43.
Sundbo, J. (1998). The organization of innovation in services. Copenhagen: Roskilde University Press.
Teece, J.T., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171–180.
WTO. (1999). Desarrollo turístico sostenible: Guía para administradores locales.Madrid: WTO.
Zahra, S.A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A reveiew, reconceptualization, and exten- sion. Academy of Management Review, 27, 185–203.
Destination as a Local System: Role of Relational Networks 65