Formal clusters supporting small firms' internationalization: a case of public–private interaction

2.1 Formal clusters and internationalization

The traditional definition of clusters as groups of firms from the same industry, based in the same place and connected through knowledge, skills, inputs, demand or other linkages (Porter, 1998; Delgado et al., 2016), emphasizes the role of geographical concentration and proximity as a basic attribute of the cluster structure (Becattini, 1990; Camuffo and Grandinetti, 2011; Lis, 2019). Following this approach, the policy effort has promoted cluster-based initiatives (Obadić, 2013; Calignano et al., 2018), which has led to the emergence of formal clusters, defined as “geographic concentrations of actors characterized by formal governance structures and the formal membership of firms and other institutions” (Colovic and Lamotte, 2014, p. 451) and as “an organized business association, geographically and sectorally concentrated” (Dana and Winstone, 2008, p. 2178). Formal clusters can be regarded as deliberate top-down initiatives, created by intentionally administrative or institutional decisions, in contrast to more informal or bottom-up phenomena, which are the result of the spontaneous initiative of local firms (Jankowska and Götz, 2018; Fromhold-Eisebith and Eisebith, 2005). Formal clusters take responsibility to foster cluster activities, are mainly based on public support and rely on intentional building on the cluster notion.

The geographical definition of cluster gives important insights into the role of spatial proximity for relationships development within clusters and for knowledge exchange mechanisms. Yet, geographical proximity is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for learning and interaction, and it does not provide any understanding of how interactions and thick relationships are developed across the geographical borders of clusters (Staber, 2009; Balland et al., 2015). In this sense, IMP studies can provide the analytical tool to catch the underlying complexities of relationships and content, by focusing on microinteraction processes and the network context (Eklinder-Frick, 2016; Guercini and Tunisini, 2017). IMP shows that interaction is not an exception deriving from being spatially close to each other (Håkansson and Waluszewski, 2020), as firms-specific linkages have no boundaries (Eklinder-Frick and Linné, 2017). Space is conceived as a source deriving from ongoing local companies’ dynamics (Baraldi and Strömsten, 2006; Håkansson et al., 2006), where each organization represents unique combinations of resources related to specific places and a unique channel to these resources enacted in interaction (La Rocca and Snehota, 2014; Waluszewski, 2004b).

Taking into consideration the space-related knowledge dynamics and heterogeneity of firms within spatial borders – that is, accounting for the cluster approach – and combining it with the idea that place is a significant resource in the form of how resources can be combined – that is accounting for the IMP tradition (Håkansson et al., 2006; Waluszewski, 2004a) – give a complete picture of the complex processes behind international networks embeddedness.

On the impact of networks and clusters on the internationalization process of firms, the literature has repeatedly acknowledged that one of the drivers of small firms' internationalization is the development of a set of exchange relationships in networks (Johanson and Vahlne, 2009; Kowalski, 2014). The network of relationships can drive, facilitate, inhibit a firm’s international market development, can influence the choice of foreign markets and can provide access to external resources (Coviello and Munro, 1997). This is of major importance for SMEs, as no company controls by itself all resources and activities needed to operate, especially microenterprises.

The role of clusters in SMEs’ internationalization fits into this line of reasoning, as their contribution is that of providing access to specific networking opportunities and resources (Ciabuschi et al., 2012; Colovic and Lamotte, 2014). Networks and clusters are the primary sources of an extended knowledge base, which can help to reduce uncertainty and, at the same time, facilitate the development of new knowledge (Gulanowski et al., 2018; Galdino, 2019). Knowledge concerning internationalization derives from the combination of firms’ direct experience and prior foreign market knowledge with new knowledge (Fletcher et al., 2013). In this sense, clusters can provide a twofold contribution to firms’ international expansions: directly, by implementing dedicated and designed internationalization measures and activities and, indirectly, by supporting a natural conducive environment to internationalization (Jankowska and Götz, 2018). Because of their features and nature, clusters have been described as cognitive labs (Camuffo and Grandinetti, 2011), characterized by diversity and complexity of learning mechanisms, that rely on a mix of related local/global and formal-deliberate/informal-emergent structures (Belussi and Sedita, 2012; Crespin-Mazet et al., 2021).

2.2 The project dimension in clusters

The existing literature on clusters’ facilitating role for internationalization has pointed out the different shapes that such support and facilitation can assume, including networking activities, collaboration, cooperation and projects (Ingstrup, 2013; Ferasso and Grenier, 2021). When implementing internationalization projects, the cluster works for the development of enablers to share and access knowledge and works with internal and external actors, resources and activities (Ingstrup, 2013). In this sense, projects assume interaction-intense and problem-solving character.

In the context of clusters, projects have been defined as having a paradoxical nature, being the most suited form of interorganizational partnership but presenting context-specific management issues (Calamel et al., 2012). Indeed, projects implemented in clusters are characterized by a structured and planned development within a given timeframe (Fornahl and Hassink, 2017), involving firms having their own goals and institutional independence. Yet, in spite of their temporary and episodic nature (Palmer et al., 2017), projects are not conceived and developed in a vacuum. They are rather embedded in wider and more permanent contexts and processes (Lind and Dubois, 2008). In this sense, clusters may function as intermediaries to fill in and link the distinction and disconnectedness between the temporary level linked to the project and the permanent one of firms (Crespin-Mazet et al., 2021; Ingemansson Havenvid et al., 2016) and of the cluster.

To get a complete understanding of projects, it is necessary to look at the environment where the project takes place, as projects are often dependent on the external actors and resources that are present in the context. Indeed, the project and the companies participating in it are actors, who perform activities and control resources. By looking at the project embeddedness in terms of actors, activities and resources (Håkansson and Snehota, 1995), it is possible to capture how the project relates to its context (Lind and Dubois, 2008), that is the cluster in which it has been implemented. The ARA framework, developed within IMP (Håkansson and Snehota, 1995), is here conceived as the analytical tool to investigate interaction within projects implemented in a cluster initiative. The framework suggests that the content of a business relationship can be described in terms of three interrelated layers: actors’ bonds, resource ties and activity links. Interconnectedness among the three dimensions occurs, as activities are performed by actors, who use resources and what occurs in a specific relationship impacts not only the individual organization but also its relationships and the wider network.

The context of projects implemented within clusters also calls for an intensified public–private interaction. Clusters are traditionally characterized by the presence of actors other than private business firms, such as institutions, public organizations and universities. Public–private interaction is extremely uncertain and time-consuming, and the characteristics of projects like temporality, discontinuity, episodic interaction, complexity and uniqueness (Kronlid and Baraldi, 2020), as well as a combination of collective and self-interests of the actors involved (Ingemansson Havenvid et al., 2016; Munksgaard and Medlin, 2014), further accentuate this.

In public–private interaction, actors differ in nature (Keränen, 2017; Elbe et al., 2018), objectives, cultures, decision-making processes, organizational setups and approaches, and this might result in a different perception of the project’s goals and divergent interests (Munksgaard et al., 2017). Such differences require a high demand of resources spent in interaction and in getting an understanding of the counterpart’s culture and mindset, forcing actors to prioritize and preclude certain activities and actors. Heterogeneity among teams (Nissen et al., 2014) might also lead to frictions that need to be mitigated by developing partnerships and spurring continuity across projects (Crespin-Mazet et al., 2015).

Within projects, both formal and informal mechanisms are implemented for learning and sharing knowledge. While formal mechanisms, mainly in place to achieve the project's objectives, are related to the project's tasks and to the exchange of codified knowledge (Nissen et al., 2014; Mouzas and Ford, 2012), informal mechanisms are related to collaboration, strong linkages with a long-term orientation, crucial for sharing tacit knowledge (Munksgaard et al., 2017; Nissen et al., 2014). A failure to recognize interactivity and independency among public and private actors might lead to the project’s failure, as public–private interaction requires active engagement from both parties for it to be successful (Waluszewski et al., 2019a; Munksgaard et al., 2017).

The literature has also pointed out the benefits that both public and private actors can exploit from participating in projects. Studies by Munksgaard et al. (2017) and Leite and Bengtson (2018) have shown that for private actors, building relationships with policymakers represents an opportunity for meeting new partners, initiating new contracts and opportunities for adaptations; an asset for long-term benefits and leverage for engaging in future projects or, more in general, to access relationships with potential public partners; and a driver for expanding one’s knowledge base as projects can be understood as a way of collecting information, knowledge and reputation benefits.

3.1 Research design

This study investigates how public and private actors interact within an internationalization project implemented by a formal cluster initiative. Studies have shown how cluster dynamics can be captured by using qualitative research techniques and primarily through the mean of a case study (Chain et al., 2019; Ortega-Colomer et al., 2016; Wolfe and Gertler, 2004), as the qualitative aspects outweigh input quantities in cluster studies and dismiss a top-down “one-size-fits-all” solution (Fromhold-Eisebith and Eisebith, 2005). Further, different empirical studies using qualitative methods rely on cluster initiatives to investigate the role that clusters can fulfill to foster small firms' internationalization (Andersson et al., 2013; Colovic and Lamotte, 2014; Jankowska, 2015). Based on these reasons and coherently with existing studies on clusters, this research aims to reach its goal by adopting a qualitative methodology based on a single in-depth case study (Yin, 2017).

The empirical setting under investigation is a formal cluster initiative based in Sweden, operating in the field of innovative and increased use of geographic information technology and active within the area of Smart Cities, Health and Sustainability. Notably, the cluster provides both technology and expertise to contribute to data-driven community solutions. The cluster’s environment is characterized by a quadruple helix perspective, with members being representatives from Research (including the local University College and adult educational associations), Policy (i.e. Ministries and Swedish administrative authorities and nonprofit associations) Business (i.e. investment companies, consulting firms, accelerators and both high-tech global companies and small local firms) and both the Swedish Municipality and Region where the cluster is located.

The unit of analysis is an international business project implemented within the cluster and aimed to enable the internationalization process of microenterprises in three Swedish regions. Projects can be considered as a “temporary resource constellation and activity pattern in which the actors form a distinct logic and develop new solutions in relation to each other” (Ingemansson Havenvid et al., 2016, p. 86) and where, according to recent IMP studies, network relations emerge and get activated (Manning, 2017).

The suitability of this context is given by the nature of the cluster initiative, which has been initiated by and partly owned by public actors and by the purpose of the activities and projects implemented, which work according to market logics but, at the same time, have a public interest aim. The cluster initiative does not fully adhere to the definition of public actor, but it can be considered as a hybrid actor, given its features and the public function it plays. Within the project in focus, it works in synergy with other public actors. Thus, the cluster initiative is investigated as the public side of the public–private interface.

3.2 Data collection

The first source of data used is one-to-one semi-structured interviews (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009). This typology of inquiry has been widely used in the IMP tradition to understand the complexity of relationships, and it has been described as “the most effective means of gathering data” (Lindgreen et al., 2020, p. 2). To select informants, a list of actors involved in the project has been compiled based on the project’s documentation and on the information acquired from a critical preliminary meeting conducted with two key informants of the cluster initiative. Therefore, potential participants have been chosen based on the preliminary information collected, and they have been asked to participate in the interview process. In all, 11 interviews have been conducted with all available informants from the cluster side that played a role in the project, with actors from the public organizations involved and with informants from the companies. As the project addresses microenterprises, for each firm selected, interviews were conducted with the main person involved in the project, who in most cases was the CEO of the microenterprise. The interviews were supplemented by written notes of the interviewer, and all interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Table 1 summarizes the information about the interviews conducted.

The resulting sample is representative of the different organizations involved in the project and of the project network depicted in Figure 2. Indeed, the governance level of the project is represented by the interviews conducted with the cluster initiative; the operational level is exemplified through the interviews with the business incubator and the science park (SP). Resource providers and companies have also been represented in the sample.

In relation to the cluster initiative, the informants labeled in Table 1 as belonging to the cluster initiatives are employees of the cluster who were directly involved with the projects’ initial conception and activities; informants from the SP, business incubator and EEN are not formally in the cluster, but they are rather external actors already familiar with interacting with the cluster initiative because of previous shared activities and projects. Concerning the firms’ side, two of the interviewed firms were already members of the cluster before the projects or have become members as a result, while one is a member of the business incubator. To sum up, the informants selected from the public side cover all the central actors involved in the project, while those chosen from firms represent a smaller sample of the project's participants. However, these companies are deemed as representing a good range in terms of activities undertaken within the project, heterogeneity in industry and heterogeneity in project outcomes. At the same time, given the membership of participating firms in the cluster/incubator, it has been possible to retrieve information concerning six companies that were not available for interviews, thanks to the knowledge of the respondents from the incubator and of one additional company that worked with the cluster’s respondents during the project.

The interview questions are designed according to the nature of the actor interviewed and cover themes ranging from the activities implemented within the project, the roles played by the various actors and the interaction mechanisms adopted, to difficulties encountered, resources needed, participation in the activities among others. In addition to interviews, secondary data has been collected, through the companies’ official websites and the available official documentation of the projects to integrate interviews and collected data as well as comparing data gathered from different sources. This second group of data has been used to track the project’s process, interdependencies, key facts and main results.

3.3 Data analysis

Primary and secondary data has been analyzed by adopting a systematic combining approach (Dubois and Gadde, 2002) to highlight the interplay between the research object, methodology and theory. The data collected from the meetings, interviews and secondary sources has been used to map up a chronology of events. Data coding and analysis has been based:

• on the project process; and

• on relevant IMP concepts, such as the ARA framework (Håkansson and Snehota, 1995).

First, to investigate the nature of actors in interaction, these are conceived in relation to their roles. The categories addressed are public actors (the formal cluster initiative, incubator and SP) and private actors (firms participating in the project). Concerning the interaction patterns and features between the formal cluster and the firms within the project, an effort has been made to point out functional/operational activities within the project and project management-related activities (Engwall, 2003), also considering formal and informal processes (Belussi and Sedita, 2012). Second, by analyzing the single activities within the project, interaction is explored at different levels. The focus on activities also allows for discovering interdependencies within the same project and with other projects. This helps understand each activity's efficacy compared to the others and see differences in activities implemented by different public actors in supporting SMEs' internationalization. The last layer addresses the resource development processes deriving from interaction to understand how heterogeneous resources are activated in relation to exchanges involving different actors, acknowledging the space-related dimension.

Figure 1 highlights the link between data collection and findings’ display. In particular, the left side of the Figure shows the guiding aim of the three ARA dimensions, while the right side shows how they have been translated into questions/themes and from which sources information has been gathered.

4.1 The cluster organization

The study is centered on a cluster initiative, a nonprofit organization, situated in central Sweden and among Europe's leading clusters for highly qualified competence in innovative and increased use of geographic information technology and active within the area of Smart Cities, Health and Sustainability. The cluster cooperates and partners with “quadruple helix” actors, such as researchers, innovators, entrepreneurs, governments, municipality organizations, citizens and stakeholders implementing projects within research, development, monitoring and evaluation in both the private and public sector. The cluster organization's owners include public actors as governmental agencies, the County Council, University, the municipality and others. In addition to these, more than 200 companies participate in the projects and activities of the cluster. The cluster has enclosed more than 15 countries in its network through its own offices, established through internationalization strategies and relationships within research projects. The cluster initiative is financed by the Region, the Swedish innovation agency, the European Regional Development Fund and the municipality.

The main project in which the cluster is involved is an initiative centered around services and technologies in the Region where the cluster operates (Vinnova, 2014). During the implementation of the project, the clusters produced an action plan identifying different practice areas. To address the area of “entrepreneurship and commercialization,” it has developed an internationalization innovation platform to create access to internationalization and growth capital for the companies in the cluster's network. Starting from this internationalization goal, the cluster has run the internationalization project to establish an investment fund to stimulate internationalization and develop models to support the companies’ internationalization process.

4.2 The innovation internationalization project

5.1 The actor dimension of public–private interaction within formal cluster’s internationalization projects

On the public actors' side, the cluster is the orchestrator of the project network (Andresen, 2020; Dessaigne and Pardo, 2020), as it is in charge of assembling and managing the interorganizational network composed of public and private actors to achieve the project’s common goals. The cluster does so by taking on many roles, primarily acting as supporter and financer. These roles are not separate but rather coexistent (Guercini et al., 2020) and have been focused on initiating and outlining the overall project strategy, coordinating the project activities – as the cluster enabled and constrained the government and the enactment of practices – and intermediating and promoting interaction (Andresen, 2020). While the roles are partly given by the project structure itself and they are acknowledged and accepted by the other actors (Dessaigne and Pardo, 2020), what characterizes this actor is its dynamism throughout the process of role-switching (Hurmelinna-Laukkanen and Nätti, 2018) and multilayers reconfigurations it assumes in synergy with the other public actors. This can be discussed in terms of the role it assumes as the orchestrator of the network, or as “architect” and “leader,” as defined by Andresen (2020), that is a resourceful actor, with a controlling approach who has the ability to take the initiative to act and to initiate relationship development, manage alliances, map and influence stakeholders, initial coordination and integration of resources.

The cluster plays a role in helping firms overcome obstacles deriving from their scarce resources and limited international experience. It goes beyond the role that it has been assigned by the project, as it does not merely facilitate internationalization but also participates actively in forming relationships with local and international partners, acting both for business development and capability building activities (Colovic and Lamotte, 2014). The support provided by the cluster in developing new relationships with foreign partners has been functional for firms to expand internationally and position themselves in their network (Guercini and Milanesi, 2019).

In doing this, the cluster initiative has been supported by other public actors: the incubator and the SP as operational partners and the other regional/national actors as providers of ad hoc resources in terms of experts and market knowledge. Therefore, the cluster has mainly acted at the governance level of the project, and the other organizations involved assumed a role linked to the different operational tasks. The project implemented within the cluster allows for the activation of actor bonds involving public and private actors, governed by the structure and rules of the game.

Actors showed a high degree of synergy during the project implementation; yet this joint action was also characterized by some frictions (Lind, 2015; Munksgaard et al., 2017), which led to a delay in the start of the activities and the failure in the achievement of some of the project’s expected results, because of role conflicts, competition and divergent views ambiguity (Chowdhury et al., 2016; Elbe et al., 2018). The geographical division of competencies was clear from the beginning of the project, thus facilitating the process initially, but on the other side, the similar nature of the public actors involved gave rise to frictions. Tensions could be managed and overcome only through existing personal relationships (Halinen and Salmi, 2001; Dahl and Pedersen, 2004), highlighting the importance of social capital (Bondeli et al., 2018). The study shows the importance that public actors agree on rules concerning roles and scopes of activities, as well as define the network to avoid conflicts (Finke et al., 2016; Fröberg et al., 2020). One emerging aspect is the role played by the formalization of collaboration (Drejer and Jørgensen, 2005) in ensuring smooth interaction among the project's participants, which helps make sure that potential conflicts are dealt with.

On the business side, firms assumed the role of project “customers,” displaying various degrees of interest and commitment, which derive from their heterogeneity in industry, maturity and previous internationalization strategies. In this sense, a leader–follower pattern can be identified (Guercini and Runfola, 2015; Parrilli, 2019).

The leading firm has been recognized as “someone you could send other firms to take as an example” and “who participated confidently and successfully in activities related (and not) to the project” (Business coach – Incubator). The leading firm defined its role in the project as a “learner,” understanding the project as an opportunity to develop its knowledge, adapt it to a different context and be able to comprehend the changes needed in terms of product, marketing strategies, distribution channels and communication. Leading firms were also characterized by readiness in terms of industrialization process and technological upgrade, identified as critical aspects to handle internationalization’s steps successfully. Another way to illustrate the role of leading firms is based on the outcomes of their more intense activity than other firms. Leaders became committed beyond the scope of formal tasks. Active leading firms were also the most engaged in managing the cross-relational network deriving from joint activities (Munksgaard and Medlin, 2014), thus having more collective interest in mind. Their role is central in initiating network activities to involve other firms in creating a collective interest and shaping network development.

Companies defined as followers did not have a passive role in the project, but rather they had less knowledge and experience, showing thus a reactive behavior (Gancarczyk and Gancarczyk, 2018), which could be improved through interaction. Other companies had an unclear and nonactive status. This is the case of companies whose main expectation from the project was to get access to funding and did not value “internal” relationships but only the external networking functional to the short-term aim of finding suppliers, customers and distributors.

While confirming previous studies (Gancarczyk and Gancarczyk, 2018) about the proactive and reactive behavior of SMEs in internationalization, the present study adds to them by underlying how the internationalization of firms identified as followers does not happen indirectly or as a consequence of the activity of leaders but is rather because of either material conditions and resource constraints or to a determined choice of exploiting only certain activities, whose results might entail real benefits for the process.

Also, while all being characterized by geographical proximity to the cluster and its network, the study shows that firms displayed very different interaction patterns. Geographical proximity both to the cluster and to the other public actors is overcome by the different degrees of access that firms have to knowledge, which depends on other typologies of proximity and absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Balland et al., 2015).

5.2 The activity dimension of public–private interaction within formal cluster’s internationalization projects

Concerning the activity layer of the ARA framework, the interaction patterns among public actors and participating firms highlight three main aspects. First, project activities have been well structured in terms of content and processes, forecasting specific steps to be undertaken by the participating firms. Second, the nature and the limited resources of the small firms have been considered through various measures: an in-depth analysis of business needs, flexible involvement of participating firms in the different activities, intense bilateral support and mentoring through dedicated resources. Third, also “collective” activities (Nissen et al., 2014), such as workshops and informal meetings, have been carried out to promote interaction and knowledge exchanges among representatives of public actors and business firms. Joining resources and connecting activities lead to developing business relationships and the network. The collective interests of firms are served by collaborating and coordinating mutual activities in a network (Munksgaard and Medlin, 2014).

The typology of interaction at the activity layer assumed different forms. It occurred individually, between the cluster and the single companies, and in groups through meetings and workshops. The choice to vary the typology of interaction resulted in different learning outcomes. While individual time allowed firms to learn directly and be tutored by their business coach, the choice of grouping firms led to other forms of interactive learning and informal knowledge exchange, in line with what already showed by previous studies (Kowalski, 2014). Therefore, the combination of structured and flexible processes and formal and informal ones helped support companies over a three-year-span effort (Belussi and Sedita, 2012).

Knowledge-related activities have occurred at multiple levels. Workshops took place at the interorganizational level when different firms gathered and worked together around common needs. Coaching has been planned at the intraproject level, where knowledge is bound up with the project managers and business coaches. Finally, at the interproject level, internationalization knowledge has been shared in the form of “good practice” among participants in different projects. These activities do not occur one after another, but they often overlap, merge and entail knowledge flows across organizational boundaries. Indeed, the formal cluster initiative managed to access and combine activities with other projects’ external efforts (Lind and Dubois, 2008).

Concerning the two main typologies of internationalization knowledge, that is market and product knowledge, this has been used as an assessment for firms, which were first asked to evaluate knowledge of i) the export market to invest in; ii) export customers; and iii) the customer’s situation in the export market. Once the project’s activities started, workshops were organized to transfer market knowledge, manage the different phases of the internationalization process and provide firms with the knowledge to address common needs. Individual coaching and timbank also represented useful activities for the exchange of market knowledge. Product knowledge was mainly addressed in the export lab, where products were co-created with the customer. Co-creation is about the joint creation of value between the company and the international customer to better suit the context. The export lab can be defined as a learning process entailing a more active engagement of the private side in creating knowledge related to the product or service to internationalize. Thus, the creation and exchange of market knowledge versus product knowledge require different timings and activities (Galdino et al., 2019; Gebert Persson et al., 2015). While the product is co-created jointly with international customers, market knowledge is a prerequisite for entering an international market and, at the same time, is likely to continue even after market introduction. This suggests that project completion criteria and project management might be different for the product versus market knowledge.

Building on previous studies (Colovic and Lamotte, 2014; Ciabuschi et al., 2012; Gulanowski et al., 2018), the results of the current research show that the formal cluster, and its network of public actors, exploit public support and projects to promote some of their activities such as incubation programs and promotional initiatives. The cluster and its network identified possibilities to combine the resources and activities of some of the companies involved in the project to provide continuity to the results of the project (Lind and Dubois, 2008). Furthermore, other forms of support are here uncovered, which are not based on “traditional support programs” as collaborative workspace in the form of workshops, interproject meetings to address issues arising from international activities and the innovative export lab methodology.

Actor bonds clearly emerge in the implementation of activities, as the cluster highly relies on its network to provide and implement them; this is the example of the activities provided through the business coaching and timbank to reduce entry barriers in foreign markets. These are not directly provided by the cluster but rather enacted thanks to its network.

5.3 The resource dimension of public–private interaction within formal cluster’s internationalization projects

On the impact of the project in terms of resources, the main resources involved were the financial incentives provided, knowledge and complementary capabilities. The project saw a combination of actors’ own resources with the project-level ones (Lind and Dubois, 2008).

In line with other studies (Perna et al., 2015), the monetary dimension is a key factor throughout the phases of the project. First, it has been crucial to raise the interest of microenterprises, primarily through the low participation fee and the money available for the trip. Second, it has been a reason for quitting the project, as the bureaucratic hurdles to get the project’s money for the international trip has been perceived as challenging to handle for firms with few employees and where, generally, it was the owner and CEO himself/herself to be personally involved in the project.

Also, knowledge and knowledge access are among the key resources (Gulanowski et al., 2018). The project has represented a valuable experience and has been assessed as a good practice, thus embodying valuable knowledge to support small firms in international markets and helping the cluster to achieve its institutional goals in terms of regional internationalization. The project also endorsed the cluster in gaining a stronger international reputation among European formal clusters and institutions, increasing its knowledge and strengthening relationships with other local actors, local businesses, international institutions and business partners.

A significant output is the online internationalization tool, developed, distributed and owned by the cluster initiative in the project's aftermath. Microenterprises could easily access different resources and materials. This has become an organizational resource for institutional and business actors, even though its development has shown frictions among the project’s partners (Lind, 2015; Munksgaard et al., 2017). Another essential resource is the Export Lab process developed by the incubator before starting the project and implemented successfully within the project. In this sense, while projects involving different actors might give access to a broader set of expertise and purposes, they also imply struggles with coordination and interfacing issues.

On the business side, participation in the project has helped small firms further design their product or service package for international markets, gain valuable knowledge of foreign markets and establish critical connections with foreign partners (Guercini and Milanesi, 2019), in line with results shown by Colovic and Lamotte (2014). This knowledge was supported and facilitated by the formal cluster's internal and external networks (Andersson et al., 2013), which companies could exploit to find the spot’s right contact during their trip. The external and internal relationships of the cluster represented, thus, an important pool of heterogeneous resources to be actively dealt with for firms (Waluszewski et al., 2019a).

Business firms developed both physical resources, through the development of products and prototypes, and organizational ones in the form of managerial knowledge in terms of skills and project management and interaction with institutions and other knowledge providers and brokers. It could be argued that small firms have started to develop the first seed of relational skills, which could become a valuable asset for future involvement and interaction in similar projects (Munksgaard and Medlin, 2014). This pattern has already been shown by some firms involved in the project, which participated in another project or applied for public innovation support from other institutions.

Table 3 summarizes the three dimensions of actors, resources and activities emerging from the project’s implementation.

6.1 Managerial implications

The empirical research entails practical implications that can be translated into operational guidance for managers of the formal cluster initiative and of microenterprises. On the formal cluster organization side, managers should conduct appropriate planning and structuring of project’s activities, which should account for their degree of embeddedness in existing local and international configurations of actors, activities/projects and resources (Lind and Dubois, 2008), requiring a carefully planned joint action with the other actors involved. Second, proposing and implementing an ambitious and complex project should fill a clear and relevant gap in the local business context, and it should promote and effectively manage all possible synergies with previous and ongoing projects developed by both public and private actors. This means that a well-timed and well-judged analysis of the ongoing projects in the extended network should be conducted to avoid the duplication of programs and initiatives enacted by public actors and to provide either a more comprehensive internationalization action program involving more actors or a more differentiated project, targeting only certain industries or certain markets.

On the small firm side, participation in formal cluster internationalization projects can provide a variety of benefits, which can be exploited and transformed into newly available resources through a credible commitment in terms of time and managerial effort, thus developing appropriate relational skills. An important implication for firms concerns the degree of activities to be undertaken in terms of participation in initiatives, programs or projects. Given resource scarcity and the fact that it is often the CEO that manages the participation in projects alongside daily operations, it is crucial for firms to prioritize and preclude activities (Munksgaard et al., 2017) and establish boundaries in engagement by weighing the extent to which their business network can be enriched thanks to such activities. Also, the study has shown that participating in such projects can provide further funding opportunities or participation in follow-up projects. Thus, it is pivotal for managers to actively engage in new relationships thanks to the project’s network and to engage in a proactive and long-term oriented strategy for projects to overcome internal barriers.

6.2 Policy implications

The study shows the role of formal cluster organizations in becoming a key actor supporting the internationalization processes of small firms, other than traditional players such as export consortia and export promotion agencies. The cluster’s initiative formal nature and its mission can be considered a tool and enabler of direct policy intervention and can offer advantages in the light of the interconnectedness of different types of formal cluster initiatives in the area of entrepreneurship, innovation and marketing and able to provide more articulated support for small firms’ internationalization projects (Colovic and Lamotte, 2014). Policymakers need to be aware of the different interaction levels and of the expected and desired outcomes of policies that can change depending on interaction among actors at the resource and activity layer (Eklinder-Frick, 2016).

The projects' monetary benefit has been a strong incentive for firms to take part in the project. It is essential to combine this effort with initiatives aimed at promoting a far-reaching commitment and understanding the implications of the project on a wider horizon and beyond the scope of the project. Otherwise, firms might participate in the project without a clear objective and strategy in mind, thus jeopardizing the project's long-term goals. In this study setting, some firms did not understand the project's long-term aim, adopted an inactive or unclear status and eventually dropped out, because of a misalignment of their interests with those of the cluster and other firms. Some firms sought self-interest from the network rather than building network collective interests and perceived the network as a way to access resources (Munksgaard and Medlin, 2014).

The emergence of formal clusters provides an arena to spur cooperation and collaboration, connect actors and develop business opportunities leading to regional growth through funding possibilities and the provision of an organizational framework (Drejer and Jørgensen, 2005). Still, it is of utmost importance to understand what happens undercurrent among actors in interaction. The promotion of cluster-based initiatives through policies and programs needs to be integrated by an appropriate understanding (and use) of networks and collective initiatives.