Page - (000192) - in Knowledge and Networks

186 The graphs in Fig. 9.5 clearly illustrate the transformations related to the role played by the bridging core within IMAST. In 2006 and 2007, the bridging core was the very center of the network. Cluster 4 included the local public university (under whose initiative the district was first instituted) and the national public research institute. In 2009 and 2010 the local public university entered the cohesive block (4;4) (blue nodes in Figure 9.5, block 4;4 in Figure 9.4). The bridging core (pink node in Figure 9.5, block 5;5 in Figure 9.4) was composed, instead, of the national public research institute alone. The district itself, took part in a large European proj- ect together with some of the district members, acting as an institutional global broker between the European partners and the district (yellow node circled in red in Figure 9.5, block 4;4 in Figure 9.4). In 2011 a further bridging core emerged within the system, encompassing two firms (white nodes in Figure 9.5, block 6;6 in figure 9.4). Lastly, in 2013, the only bridging core remeined was this block (6;6) that included a firm and a private research center from two different industries (aerospace and transport). Collaboration, however, assumed a completely new pattern because many actors individually connected cores one another, as was the case with two public research institutes (circled in red) from cluster 1. Similarly, in cluster 2 both IMAST itself and the local public university had explicit brokerage functions. In cluster 4, a university from another region linked the cohesive cluster with the rest of the project members, acting as a global broker. These ties linking individual organizations from a core with all the members of other cores account for the generalized increase in the inconsistencies reported in the matrix of Fig. 9.4. We have circled these broker organizations in red to indicate that their behavior is inconsistent with the model. It is worth noting that, in 2013, broker organizations connected the local cohesive core (circles) with actors external to the district (triangles). This global brokerage very much recalls the buzz- and- pipeline configuration described by Bathelt et al. (2004). These results support the conclusion that IMAST is characterized by a clear structural transition from a core–periphery topology toward a new buzz-and- pipeline configuration. Conclusions We have tackled the problem of analyzing the topology and evolution of collabora- tions within a policy-anchored district by using prespecified block modeling. Through analysis of the patterns of collaboration established during the period from 2006 to 2013, our study has traced the evolutionary trajectory of IMAST’s R&D collaborations. Given that collaborations were actively managed by the administra- tion, the study has also provided an assessment of the district’s governance and inherent innovation policy. We used prespecified blockmodeling to define a benchmark topology against which to measure structural changes. Empirical results clearly show that the IMAST L. Prota et al.