Chapter 3

Chapter 3
Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms and

Challenges in a Government-Driven
Industry Cluster: A Saudi Arabian Case
Study
Aliah Zafer
Abstract
In the context of Saudi Arabia, this chapter investigates how clustering pro-
motes knowledge sharing and transfer in an emerging, government-directed
industry cluster. It is determined that lateral actors play a key facilitating role,
and formal and informal mechanisms and interpersonal links among actors
support that cluster knowledge exchange. Limited social capital strength and
depth and a lack of trust that prevents knowledge sharing are partially
explained by the cluster’s limited vertical and horizontal actors.
Keywords: Knowledge sharing; emerging industry cluster; Saudi Arabia;

lateral actors; horizontal actors; vertical actors
Introduction
This study examines how knowledge sharing is facilitated within a Saudi Arabian
emerging manufacturing industry cluster. Most research on industry clusters has
concentrated on regional development and growth. Clustering is emphasized as a
critical component of competitiveness and economic success in most innovation
policies at the national and regional levels (OECD, 1999). Industry clusters are
proposed as a value-adding amalgamation of the contributions of numerous
actors who are geographically close to one another (Brown et al., 2007a, 2010).
However, the mechanism by which proximity adds value to cluster members
remains an open question (Bell, Tracey, & Heide, 2009; Brown et al., 2007b;
Knoben & Oerlermans, 2006). It is evidently reported that creativity can enhance
a cluster’s effectiveness and its actors’ capacity to innovate. Therefore, the role of
Industry Clusters and Innovation in the Arab World, 57–97

Copyright © 2023 Aliah Zafer
Published under exclusive licence by Emerald Publishing Limited
doi:10.1108/978-1-80262-871-520231004
58 Aliah Zafer
clusters in facilitating knowledge sharing during the cluster’s initial stages of

development permits further investigation (Ibrahim & Fallah, 2005; Malmberg &
Power, 2005).
This chapter aims to close a research gap by examining the role of emerging
clusters in knowledge sharing that the government drives. Cluster-based policies
attempt to direct emerging economies such as Saudi Arabia’s economy toward
greater industry diversification and job creation (Amin & Wilkinson, 1999; Saudi
Vision 2030, 2016). This study establishes a link between industry clusters and
knowledge sharing in a newly formed cluster driven by the government. The
research is focused on determining how knowledge sharing is facilitated by
clustering.
This study uses Porter and Stern’s (2001) definition of clusters as the most
diverse collection of specialized industry localizations. Clusters are frequently
referred to by synonyms in the scholarly literature, such as industrial district,
industrial cluster, business network, and regional cluster (Maskell, 2001;
McDonald & Vertova, 2001; Simmie & Sennett, 1999). Porter (1998a, p. 9)
defines a cluster as “a geographically proximate group of interconnected busi-
nesses and associated institutions in a particular field, bound together by com-
monalities and complementarities.” There lacks understanding in the research
regarding how emerging clusters facilitate knowledge sharing to achieve
competitive advantage and economic development goals (Migdadi, 2009; Yeo &
Gold, 2014; Yeo & Marquardt, 2013). Moreover, a critical issue is a degree to
which clusters’ strategic support for knowledge sharing varies about local insti-
tutions, policies, and collaborative activity (Al-Adaileh & Al-Atawi, 2011;
Al-Alawai, Al-Marzooqi, & Mohammed, 2007; Migdadi, 2009; Yeo & Mar-
quardt, 2013). Al-Adaileh and Al-Atawi (2011) examine the role of knowledge
exchange practices in developing the Saudi Telecom Company (STC) as a case
study of the Saudi Arabian context. Cummings (2003, p. 1) defines knowledge
sharing as “the process by which organizations gain access to their own and the
knowledge of other organizations.” Collaboration is critical in emerging industry
clusters because it enables the cluster to operate efficiently and reach its full
potential (Dai & Zhang, 2014). Das and Das (2011) argued that processes for
managing knowledge sharing within clustered industries should be coordinated.
This study examines the knowledge-sharing mechanisms in a Saudi Arabian
government–controlled cluster. Several aspects of industry clusters were exam-
ined, including the following: A new study investigates how an emerging industry
cluster organizes and facilitates knowledge sharing and the effect of proximity on
knowledge sharing and exchange among cluster firms. The research question for
this study is as follows: How does clustering facilitate knowledge sharing within a
Saudi Arabian government–led industry cluster?
Sub-questions include the following:
(1) How does cluster analysis’s value-added web analytical framework apply to
an emerging, government-led industry cluster?
(2) Who are the cluster’s primary actors in terms of knowledge sharing?
Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms 59
(3) What obstacles exist to knowledge sharing?

(4) What implications does the research have for government cluster policy?
Theories and types of knowledge shape the research questions, key actors in
the Saudi Arabian Manufacturing (SAM) cluster, and barriers to knowledge
sharing. The study examines how proximity can support the development of
social capital, such as bonding and bridging capital. This chapter fills a gap in the
body of knowledge regarding the SAM cluster. Due to time and resource con-
straints, not all SAM cluster participants and key actors could be interviewed.
Additionally, this study took a “snapshot” of the cluster’s knowledge-sharing
processes. As previously stated, this is a developing cluster. As the cluster grows in
size and complexity, the challenges and mechanisms for knowledge sharing will
evolve. The following section summarizes previous research on knowledge
sharing within industry clusters.
Literature Review
Designing Industrial Districts and Clusters
Porter (1990) combines business strategies, cluster specialization, and regional
entrepreneurship in the industry clusters. With reference to Porter’s work,
Atherton and Johnston (2008) identified three patterns involved in cluster
development: physical proximity of firms, transactional proximity (collaboration
and trust), and relational proximity (knowledge sharing). This model emphasizes
the interconnectedness of factors in Porter’s (1998b) framework because initial
cluster resources and the broader economic climate drives regional cluster growth.
Initial cluster resources may include material and intangible resources such as
growth-supportive conditions. An entrepreneurial culture within a region and an
institutional system designed to launch new firms are also included in the eco-
nomic climate. Firms can provide specific services and products by utilizing the
cluster’s strategies and resources. A firm’s ability to improve quality, collaborate
with other firms, and create new products and services based on market demand is
also critical. The model links factors affecting cluster growth to knowledge-
sharing processes. For example, universities and research institutes help increase
production and knowledge. Based on the model, Ketels (2003) asserts that the
government can foster knowledge sharing in four actors: supporting factor con-
ditions, strategy and rivalry, demand conditions, and related industries (Ketels,
2003). To support demand conditions, the government must identify standards to
regulate cluster activities, such as reducing uncertainty, encouraging early adop-
tion, and encouraging knowledge sharing. The government funds programs to
align cluster actors to create educational and logistical zones.
Industry Clusters and Emerging Clusters

Clusters follow a cycle of birth, growth, stability, decline, and renewal or death
(Malmberg & Maaskell, 2002). While a mature cluster has existed for a long time-
60 Aliah Zafer
period and has developed an established infrastructure, membership, and repu-

tation, an immature or emerging cluster is distinct in terms of size, characteristics,
relationships, and collaboration between firms (Barkley & Henry, 2003). As the
cluster continues to evolve and develop, new firms are expected to join. Firms in
an immature cluster may lack specialized knowledge or access to cluster mem-
bership. Additionally, they may be unable to convert, share, exchange, transform,
and apply the cluster’s knowledge (Lan & Zhangliu, 2012). The Value Adding
Web (VAW) framework emphasizes the roles of various actors in value-added
activities and recognizes the potential for the cluster of VAWs to generate a
collective gain. Facilitating actors within the VAW are referred to as lateral actors
because they provide specialized expertise (Collins, Bray, & Burgess, 2013).
Brown, Burgess, Festing, and Royer (2010) illustrate the ideal-type value-added
web centered on horizontal, vertical, and lateral actors and how they interact.
Relationships manifest in different ways and are defined by degrees of indepen-
dence, ranging from a relatively low level of pooled interdependence to a very
high level of team-oriented interdependence. Additionally, each actor has
firm-level resources that may or may not be valuable and can be shared with other
firms in the cluster, resulting in strategic growth and development (Royer &
Burgess, 2013).
Actor Interactions and Relationships

There are both direct and indirect interactions between actors in the VAW. These
interactions indicate strong, weak, or moderate links (Brown et al., 2007a).
Internal and external interactions and direct and indirect interactions, are possible
divisions of the type of interaction within clusters. The relationship between a firm
in a cluster and the economic development agency can be considered a medium
link in the web (Newbert, 2008). In an emerging cluster, the focus is mainly on the
conditions for forming strong linkages, such as a strong expertise base or political
support, that increase the emerging cluster’s chances of achieving critical mass
(Menzel & Fornahl, 2009).
Considine (1994) defines a clustering public policy as one that encompasses
both the short-term financial and supportive resource provisions made by
governmental actors and the longer-term financial and supportive resource
provisions made by governmental actors. According to Hood (1983), gov-
ernment policy toward clusters is motivated by the desire to facilitate knowl-
edge-sharing related to cluster organization. Montana and Nenide (2008)
argue that policymakers in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) should pri-
oritize infrastructure development during the early stages of the cluster
development to minimize barriers to participation for firms. Governmental
actors and regulations shape and drive the SAM cluster. The manufacturing
administration can be considered a regulatory policy. In contrast, shared
knowledge about manufacturing issues among firm employees serves as a
cognitive policy, and shared beliefs about manufacturing outcomes serve as a
normative policy.
A Synopsis of the Research’s Contextual and Conceptual Framework

The SAM cluster case study used in this research is a single, emerging cluster
located within an industrial district containing other planned clusters. The cluster is
in its infancy and has not yet reached maturity. The VAW framework enables
analysis of the cluster’s relationships and interactions. In this case, the SAM cluster
is formative due to many relationships’ newness. This is important to consider when
analyzing knowledge sharing in a cluster context. For example, because the SAM
cluster is new, the interdependence of horizontal, vertical, and lateral actors has not
been established long enough to cultivate strong connections and relationships. This
creates difficulties when studying firms and webs; however, the VAW’s emphasis on
understanding the knowledge-sharing process mitigates these difficulties.
Developing clusters allows access to specialists upstream and downstream,
bringing expertise into the cluster. These knowledge brokers allow cluster mem-
bers to directly access expertise that would otherwise be unavailable if the member
was not part of the cluster (Mitchell et al., 2010). However, as previously dis-
cussed, gaps exist regarding the roles played by social capital and government
policies in knowledge sharing among firms (Connelly & Kelloway, 2003). An
integrative model of factors influencing knowledge sharing within emerging
clusters is needed (see Table 3.1).
A Theoretical Framework for the Study of Knowledge Sharing in Emerging

Clusters
Five factors are identified as affecting knowledge-sharing processes in the research
(see Table 3.1). The VAW framework is used as an analytical tool to define the
relationships and linkages that enable knowledge sharing between actors in the
Saudi cluster. By examining the relationships and links between cluster actors
using the VAW model, it is important to gain a better understanding of how
cluster actors share knowledge and how knowledge-sharing mechanisms work
within the cluster. The proposed research framework aims to determine the utility
of clustering as a VAW for assessing how knowledge is shared within the SAM
cluster. Prior research examining proximity and knowledge sharing in clustered
firms demonstrates that clustering affects knowledge sharing in at least five areas:
absorptive capacity, inter-organizational trust, knowledge of expertise location,
social capital, and accessibility. The conditions necessary for knowledge sharing
via proximity were discussed (Bechky, 2003; Boschma, 2005; Cohen & Levinthal,
1990; Inkpen & Tsang, 2005; Levin & Cross, 2004; Mitchell et al., 2010; Szu-
lanski, 1996; Szulanski & Capetta, 2003; Van Wijk et al., 2007). They describe the
mechanisms and processes that facilitate knowledge sharing within the cluster and
some of the barriers to knowledge sharing (Agostini & Filippini, 2019). The
following section establishes the conceptual framework for the two levels.
Absorptive Capacity
Absorptive capacity refers to a firm’s capacity to recognize the value of external
knowledge and information to achieve its goals and objectives (Ninan, 2005). It
Table 3.1. Conceptual Framework of Knowledge Sharing in an Emerging Cluster.
62
Levels of Factors Influencing Knowledge Sharing in an Emerging Cluster
Analysis on Absorptive Capacity Knowledge of Interorganizational Social Capital Accessibility
Aliah Zafer
Cluster as a Expertise Location Trust (Bonding and
VAW Bridging Capital)
Web-Level Facilitators Shared values and Norms sanction Social capital Shared values and
(Lateral, assimilate external beliefs in against provides a source policies minimize
Horizontal, knowledge sharing organizations that opportunistic for collaboration cultural conflict and
and Vertical to the cluster, knowledge sharing behavior and and the willingness specialized
actors) transmitting generates economic promote knowledge and aspiration for proximity linked to
knowledge to benefits for cluster sharing knowledge sharing normative
cluster actors actors. mechanisms. and innovation. controlling and
through Facilitators build Cognition-based Bonding capital leading role of
professional relationships to trust and mutual increases knowledge sharing
contact. provide direct and benefits as a result availability or the activities.
Facilitators are specific knowledge of economic extent to which Access through
skilled with on expertise. relations. knowledge is professional and
well-developed Links to the choice Willingness to share accessible for skilled employees’
knowledge to share and receive knowledge and application to a networks results in
networks to act as a tacit and explicit involve in given problem. knowledge sharing
channel among knowledge. knowledge-based Bridging capital practices.
actors/firms. cooperation. helps to identify Localized employee
External shared issues, movement flexibility
relationships strengthening the is linked to tacit
transfer information links between knowledge sharing.
regarding horizontal actors
knowledge gaps, and lateral actors.
generating research
activities.
Firm-Level Absorptive capacity Associated technical Cognition-based Bonding capital Common norms
(Horizontal links mutual and professional trust and normative improves and values,
actors) benefits, expertise pressure toward relationships; this interorganizational
understanding, and knowledge. interprofessional occurs along management, and
shared knowledge Individual cooperation and horizontal actors control mechanisms
base. interaction builds knowledge sharing. and enables sharing minimize the risks
Individual ad hoc knowledge Individual ties link tacit knowledge. associated with
relationships build on available expert to affect-based trust Bridging capital opportunism and
mutual location. and reciprocity. facilitates promote the
understanding and Collaboration innovation among awareness of shared
common shared increases firms’ firms by bringing value.
knowledge. perception of trust together disjointed Individual ties
Similar tacit and shared values, actors to generate provide access
knowledge, providing a context knowledge. through personal
Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms

including shared that engenders Bonding capital interactions.
understanding of further provides firms with
language, enables collaboration and access to knowledge
the exchange of knowledge sharing. networks.
knowledge between
actors.
Source: Self-construction & adapted from Mitchell et al. (2010), Collins et al. (2013), Inkpen and Tsang (2005), Levin and Cross (2004), Szulanski and
Capetta (2003), Van Wijk et al. (2007), Welch and Welch (2008), Cegarra-Navarro, Wensley, Batistic, Evans, and Para (2021) and Zafer (2017).
63
64 Aliah Zafer
Table 3.2. Coding Study Participants and Identifying Positions Within the
Cluster (Web-Level Lateral Actors).
Participating Lateral Actor’s Initial Participant’s Positions

Actors Coding
Cluster economic ED • Head of business development
developers • Senior director cluster’s
developer
• Manger of shareholder affairs
• Senior manager of business
marketing
• General manger
• Head manager of sustainability
• Media representative manger
University CU • Vice president
• Project manager
• Research fellow
Government agencies SAGIA • Vice secretary manger
ECA • PMO officer
HCA • HR managers
also refers to an organization’s ability to create, identify, and generate maximum

economic strength by determining, absorbing, and utilizing external information
and knowledge (Giuliani, 2005). The ability and capacity of firms within a cluster
to absorb external knowledge are used to determine its absorptive capacity. As a
result, the process is dynamic and interactive, where firms with similar cultures
and lines of business encounter fewer roadblocks (Lake, 2004). At the firm level,
knowledge sharing is facilitated when both the sender and recipient are cognizant
of the industry’s tacit processes, which may be accomplished by actors operating
in similar industries (Zeller, 2004).
It has been demonstrated that training new employees’ benefits from including
shared language through interactions in a professional setting (Bazerman &
Paradis, 1991). This knowledge exchange results in process improvement that
transcends industrial boundaries (Brown & Duguid, 2001). Additionally, research
indicates that deliberate activities contribute to the process’s facilitation (Mowery
et al., 1996). At the web level, knowledge sharing has been linked to the expansion
of firms’ absorptive capacity by assisting them in comprehending their internal
processes and the obstacles they face. Cluster absorptive capacity is affected by
concerted efforts to acquire new knowledge, resulting in increased absorptive
capacity. Individual relationships contribute to the development of shared
knowledge and mutual understanding. Similar tacit knowledge and a shared
language understanding facilitate knowledge transfer between actors (Mitchell
et al., 2010).
Table 3.3. Coding Study Participants and Identifying Positions Within the
Cluster (Firm-Level).
Participating Actors Actor’s Initial Coding Participant’s Positions

6 Horizontal actors HMF1 • Owner
• HR manager
HMF1 • Owner
• Engineer
HMF3 • Owner
• General manager
HMF4 • Owner
• General manager
HMF5 • Owner
• Project manger
HMF6 • General manger
2 Vertical actors The seaport • General manger
V1 • Strategic planning manager
Knowledge of Expertise Location

Facilitating knowledge exchange requires determining the appropriate question to
ask and locating the appropriate person to answer the appropriate question
(Ackerman, 2000). Similarities among cluster firms may facilitate knowledge
sharing through their shared understanding of the local environment and col-
lective knowledge and expertise. Borgatti and Cross (2003) argue that knowledge
of diverse information sources and access to these sources affects information
seeking outside the firm. Numerous studies demonstrate that this promotes the
development of technical expertise among individual actors (c.f. Palazzolo, 2005).
Trust between actors strengthens interactions, increasing knowledge sharing
within the SAM cluster (Akgün, Byrne, Keskin, Lynn, & Imamoglu, 2005). This
translates to an increase in the knowledge base at the web level (Yuan et al.,
2007). As illustrated in Table 3.1, in emerging clusters, shared values and beliefs
among organizations that knowledge sharing results in economic benefits for
cluster actors, combined with facilitators’ actions of establishing relationships to
provide location-specific expertise, all contribute to the decision to seek explicit
and tacit knowledge. At the firm level, individual interaction develops
location-specific expert knowledge in conjunction with technical and professional
expertise (Mitchell et al., 2010).
Interorganizational Trust
Trust is critical in knowledge sharing centered on networks and relationships
(Welch & Welch, 2008). It affects the process of knowledge sharing at both the
66 Aliah Zafer
Table 3.4. Identification of the Participants in the SAM Cluster.
Horizontal (6) Vertical (2) Lateral (3)

Horizontal The Seaport (Partial A university/research
manufacturing operation) and Vertical center and development
firm 1 (MHF1) Logistic Firm (V1) centers and training centers
Horizontal Partly suppliers to or buyers Academic school
manufacturing from the horizontal firms
firm 2 (MHF2)
Horizontal Logistics firm, distribution, Government agency
manufacturing and warehouses. Vertical (SAGIA) with two
firm 3 (MHF3) actor 2 (V2) subdivisions, ECA and
HCA
Horizontal Cafes, restaurants, Cluster economic
manufacturing supermarket, health clinic, developer (ED)
firm 4 (MHF4) and gym (integrate into
context as places for
meeting).
Horizontal Local hotel, villas, and
manufacturing apartments buildings and
firm 5 (MHF5) dormitories (residential).
Horizontal Engineering and consulting
manufacturing company
firm 6 (HMF6)
web and firm levels. Maintaining and developing trust and trust-based relation-
ships is critical for an organization’s performance (Bjorkman & Stahl, 2006).
Trust-based knowledge sharing occurs when the receiver is regarded as trust-
worthy and the sender is confident that the recipient will not misuse the knowl-
edge offered. Individuals view knowledge as a source of power in organizations,
and there is a fear of losing this power and a certain status if they share their
knowledge with others (Szulanski, 1996; Wang & Noe, 2010). Trust is associated
with cognition-based trust at the cluster web level (Parkhe, 1993; Uzzi & Gil-
lespie, 2002), encompassesing competence, responsibility, and reliability
(McAllister, 1995). This enhances knowledge exchange by increasing actors’
willingness to engage in the process (Mayer et al., 1995; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998).
According to research on the personal exchange theory, economic relation-
ships foster reciprocity, which increases a person’s willingness to share knowledge
(Blau, 1964; Watson & Hewett, 2006). According to Welch and Welch (2008),
trust improves teamwork, but this is directly related to the level of face-to-face
interaction and communication over time. These are associated with a shared
language as a means of information and strong sharing. As illustrated in
Table 3.1, emerging clusters have norms that penalize opportunistic behavior and
promote mechanisms for knowledge sharing. Economic relationships developed
over time foster trust and reciprocity based on cognition, which fosters a
willingness to share knowledge, collaborate on projects based on knowledge and
collaborate with other professionals. Individual connections foster affective trust
and reciprocity. The collaboration fosters firms’ perceptions of trust and shared
values, creating an environment conducive to future collaboration and knowledge
sharing (Mitchell et al., 2010).
Interorganizational Trust and Social Capital

Putnam (1993) asserts that networks provide access to valuable resources via
social capital, influencing performance through exchanging tangible and intan-
gible assets and acquiring and sharing knowledge (Nieves & Osorio, 2012).
Mason (2008) defines social capital as the resources that are part of and accessible
via a group or network of relationships. Social capital is a three-dimensional
variable that includes relational (i.e., trust and identity), structural (i.e., the
pattern of relationships between actors), and cognitive (i.e., behavioral codes and
cultures) (Reed, 2004). The literature on these dynamics explains how they can
foster trust by establishing strong relationships (Nieves & Osorio, 2012; Pessoa,
2011). As a result, social capital plays a critical role in developing Saudi Arabia’s
emerging cluster (Yeo & Marquardt, 2013).
The term “institutional thickness” refers to robust institutions that support
local networks, facilitating collaborative activities such as knowledge sharing
(Keeble et al., 1999). Institutional thickness was developed in response to the
importance of institutional economic growth in economic geography scholarship.
It encompasses the concepts of “inter-institutional interaction and synergy, col-
lective representation by numerous bodies, a common industrial objective, and
shared cultural norms and values” (Amin & Thrift, 1995, p. 102). However, there
needs to be more research investigating whether institutional thickness facilitates
knowledge sharing in clusters in their early developmental stages (Collins et al.,
2013; Connell & Thorpe, 2009; Yeo & Gold, 2014). According to research, firm-
and web-level relationships provide a foundation for institutional thickness, as
they facilitate the development of informal and formal institutions within the
cluster via social capital (Collins et al., 2013).
The research framework examines the impact of bonding and bridging capital
on social capital through enhancing knowledge-sharing mechanisms, mainly the
relationships between the cluster’s key actors. Within the cluster, formal and
informal networks collaborate to share knowledge through the knowledge of
specialists who disseminate information throughout the cluster (Mitchell et al.,
2010). According to Collins et al. (2013), social capital can be conceptualized as
bonding and bridging capital. Proximity increases the potential for generating
bonding and bridging social capital. Industry clusters, in particular, serve as focal
points and meeting points for generating various types of capital. Bonding capital
increases accessibility or the extent to which knowledge is available for applica-
tion to a particular problem or situation and also connects small firms to
68 Aliah Zafer
knowledge networks (Borgatti & Cross, 2003). By sharing knowledge and

resources, relationships can be strengthened.
In contrast, bridging capital created distinctions between groups. Through
bridging capital, actors in Saudi Arabia’s emerging cluster can collaborate on
common issues and share knowledge that might not be accessible through
traditional business relationships. Bridging capital is critical for the VAW’s
horizontal and lateral actors to strengthen their ties. Connections for bonding and
bridging can be formal or informal. Knowledge brokers facilitate communication
between internal and external cluster actors by disseminating information that
would not be available otherwise. This is a strategy for overcoming barriers to
bridging and bonding social capital.
Accessibility
Accessibility refers to the degree to which knowledge is available for resolving a
situation in a beneficial manner for the firm (Mitchell et al., 2010). Accessibility to
knowledge is also contingent on the technical expert’s willingness to devote time to
collecting and sharing knowledge (Borgatti & Cross, 2003). Helmsing (2001)
explains that at the cluster level, firms share information through logical, rational
interactions that result in beneficial outcomes for cluster members. At the web-scale,
accessibility reduces uncertainty about actors’ participation in knowledge sharing by
cultivating an environment that values economic collaboration and shared goals
(Ahuja, 2000; Capello, 2002; Capello & Faggian, 2005; Walker et al., 1997).
According to research, increasing the distance between actors by as little as 10 meters
can reduce the need for face-to-face interactions (Allen, 1977). Thus, accessibility via
mobility and distance promotes sharing at the web level (Almeida & Kogut, 1999).
Table 3.1 presents that, in emerging clusters, knowledge sharing is enabled by
accessibility-related issues to shared values and policies at the web level. It also results
from normative pressures associated with knowledge-sharing activities likely to
minimize cultural conflict networks of professional and skilled employees and
localized employee mobility. At the firm level, accessibility is facilitated by shared
norms and values, cross-organizational coordination, and control mechanisms that
all contribute to the perception of shared values in knowledge-based collaboration
while mitigating opportunism-related risks (Mitchell et al., 2010).
The framework is based on Mitchell et al. (2010) research on the role of
proximity in knowledge sharing in clustered firms and postulates that clustering
affects knowledge sharing. The uniqueness of this study is derived from the
importance of industry clusters as a strategic economic framework tool and the
importance of knowledge sharing.
Research Context
National Context of Saudi Arabia
According to Redding (2005), an in-depth understanding of institutional parameters
governing societal linkages requires understanding a country’s structure, including
history, politics, culture, and geography. Saudi Arabia is a self-governing Arab

Islamic state founded on the Quran and Sunnah (Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia: Min-
istry of Foreign Affairs, 2015). Saudi Arabia is estimated to have the world’s largest
crude oil reserves at 200 million barrels, and the government controls and shapes the
economy (Ministry of Economy and Planning, 2022). Before the discovery of oil,
Saudi Arabia was an impoverished country whose primary source of revenue was the
annual Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca. Agriculture was Saudi Arabia’s second revenue
source due to the country’s vast desert areas (El Ghonemy, 2012). Saudi Arabia
became one of the world’s largest oil producers following the 1938 discovery of oil
(CIA Factbook, 2013). The discovery of oil profoundly affected the Saudi Arabian
economy and standard of living. While oil accelerated national growth, it also
dominated the economy, rendering it completely dependent on it (Awan et al., 2021).
Since 1970, the Saudi Arabian government has been working to reduce the country’s
reliance on oil.
Additionally, six new cities were built with modern infrastructure, such as
railroads, power plants, ports, and refineries (Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency,
2022). The government made significant educational investments to enroll five a
million students in elementary and secondary schools by 2005, up from half a
million in 1970. Oil revenues account for 75% of Saudi Arabia’s total budget and
90% of its export earnings. Oil accounts for 45% of Saudi GDP. Other contrib-
utors include dates, cattle farming, and pilgrimage, with two million people
visiting Saudi Arabia yearly (Zuhur, 2011).
Industrial Cluster Programs in Saudi Arabiaa

The government established the Industrial Clusters Program (ICP) to foster and
develop new industries and clusters (Industrial Cluster Program, 2022). ICP’s
primary objective was to develop targeted industrial clusters and diversify Saudi
Arabia’s economy away from oil. It further assists in raising living standards,
developing human resources (HRs), expanding employment opportunities for
Saudi nationals, diversifying the economy, balancing regional development, and
promoting Saudi products. Vision 2020 seeks to strengthen academic-industrial
ties, grow the industry, develop human capital, and grow the private sector. The
Saudi government established six economic cities in Riyadh, Dammam, Jeddah,
and Al Qassim to attract foreign investment. These economic cities have defined
zones for specific industries and economic sectors, with flexible licensing and
relaxed entry requirements. The government established and controlled the
entrants. The government provides land, buildings, telecommunications,
a
This chapter includes data analysis from documents and interview’s transcripts of different
actors within the SAM cluster. The economic city cannot be identified in this research as
this would compromise the confidentiality of the participants through indirect
identification. All the information cited in this chapter is based either on confidential
sources or public sources that cannot be directly identified. Therefore, for confidentiality
and anonymity reasons, actual in-text and end-text reference cannot be revealed.
70 Aliah Zafer
information and communication technology, and utilities (Economic Cities

Website, 2014).
Saudi emerging city is an example of a public–private partnership development
program. The Economic Developer (ED) organized infrastructure and develop-
ment to support several clusters within the new city. The government encourages
foreign companies to join the cluster by fully owning and supporting the seaport
and logistics facilities.a The city intends for the region to have a diverse industrial
cluster, including manufacturing, pharmaceutical, plastics, fast-moving consumer
goods, and building and construction materials. The cluster studied in this study is
a manufacturing cluster comprising multiple manufacturing firms.
The Saudi Vision 2030 Plan (2016) prioritizes clustered industry development.
The government tasked the Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority
(SAGIA) with collaborating with local governments and the private sector to
foster regional economic growth by assisting firms in innovating, international-
izing, and networking. “We must strengthen and expand our interconnectivity
and economic integration.” It was stated that “We will seek to establish effective
regional ties” (Saudi Vision 2030 Plan, 2016, p. 58). SAGIA is privatizing gov-
ernment services, revitalizing economic cities, establishing special zones in
competitive locations, and establishing a regional logistic hub to attract foreign
and domestic talent (Saudi Vision 2030 Plan, 2016). The Saudi Vision 2030 Plan
establishes objectives for logistics, higher education, and e-government. The
cluster approach was identified as critical for diversifying and developing Saudi
Arabia’s economy.
The SAM cluster’s major players constitute actors on the lateral, horizontal,
and vertical players (Brown et al., 2007a). The government, through SAGIA, the
Economic City Authority (ECA), the ED, and the Cluster University (CU) are
the lateral actors. They contribute critical knowledge and assistance to the eco-
nomic development of the SAM cluster (Ageli & Zaidan, 2013). The horizontal
actors in the cluster are the primary manufacturers and producers. The primary
vertical actors are seaport shipping services, logistics, transportation suppliers,
and buyers. The study examines an emerging manufacturing and emerging cluster
associated with green and clean production systems across a range of related
products. The SAM cluster is dedicated to pollution prevention by international
standards. It mitigates pollution of the cluster’s water, air, noise, and land
(Exhibit A Website, 2013).a The SAM cluster is governed by an environmental
protection center that enforces all standards (Exhibit A Website, 2013). The
government initiates, finances, and regulates the cluster. The following summa-
rizes the major players in the SAM cluster.
First, SAGIA was established in 2000 as a central agency for inward invest-
ment in Saudi Arabia to assist the country’s economy in diversifying and
attracting foreign investors (Brown, Aarts, & Nonneman, 2006). SAGIA connects
investors to key stakeholders to facilitate the acquisition of capital, industrial
land, commercial space, and financing. Additionally, it provides advice and ser-
vices to assist businesses in establishing themselves in the kingdom (Ghassan,
Alhajhoj, & Alaoui, 2013). Second is the ECA, which began in 2006 to develop
the Saudi cluster as part of a regional economic development program. The ECA
is a constituent player and is responsible for the management of economic

development programs under the sponsorships of the Supreme Economic Council
of Saudi Arabia (Mahran, 2012).
Moreover, the third actor is the Human Capital Authority (HCA). In 2008,
HCA was formed to promote employee welfare within industry clusters. HCA
must develop local talent to increase its competitiveness and innovation and
develop leadership qualities. It offers educational and training opportunities
(Industrial Clusters Program, 2012). The HCA educates trains, and establishes
guidelines for the new city’s human capital development and sustainability. The
fourth actor is ED in Saudi Arabia, a 1997-founded real estate development
company. It is a global property development and management service provider.
Furthermore, the CU is the fifth major player in the SAM cluster. CU was
established in 2009 with a campus that covers an area of 36 square kilometers.
Multiple university campuses, research and development centers, and facilities are
located within the Educational Zone. The seaport is the primary vertical actor
and logistical support infrastructure for the economic city and SAM cluster. It is
the region’s busiest seaport, with an annual capacity of 10 million twenty-foot
equivalent units (TEU) (Exhibit C Website, 2013). The seaport is a privately held
and operated enterprise. The emerging city’s seaport serves as a logistical hub for
the cluster.
Methodology
This interpretive and exploratory study employs a constructionist epistemology to
clarify the factors influencing knowledge transfer in an emerging, evolving, and
government-controlled cluster. The study used qualitative methods, including
interviews, to examine how reality is constructed socially (Walsham, 1993). By
examining publicly available official documents and soliciting referrals from other
participants, it was decided to use purposeful sampling to identify manufacturing
companies in the SAM cluster. Interviews with CEOs, owners, HR managers, and
key managerial employees of manufacturing firms in the emerging cluster were
conducted on a targeted basis. These participants held positions of authority and
decision-making within their organizations. As a result, they determined the
extent to which knowledge transfer occurred within the emerging cluster. Inter-
views lasted between 30 and 45 minutes. The literature on conditions conducive to
knowledge transfer informed the semi-structured interviews. The research
instrument was pretested, and participants were allowed to review their
transcripts.
The research techniques cover data collection methods, participant and
information source selection, data recording and evaluation, and data validation
and analysis. Semi-structured interviews with selected participants should give
helpful information for the study’s principal aims. Interviews help understand the
cluster’s complexity, and the actors engaged, their resources, and linkages.
Therefore, the researcher conducted 39 interviews with cluster actors. The inter-
view transcripts can be used for further analysis. Each of the five criteria identified
as affecting knowledge sharing is assigned a code as part of the data analysis
72 Aliah Zafer
process. Participants were classified as lateral, vertical, or horizontal actors. These

three groups have a few actors we interviewed. Tables 3.2 and 3.3 show how the
chosen respondents followed these recommendations.
In addition, the researcher reviewed and analyzed documents provided by the
cluster facilitators and firm managers/owners, among others. Other documents were
accessible for download online or via social media. These included agendas,
advertisements, minutes of meetings, brochures, background papers on the clusters,
journals and diaries, newspaper and magazine articles, charts and maps of the
clusters and firms, press releases, program proposals, scripts of television and radio
about SAM cluster achievements and activities, survey data, and institutional
reports. The documents provided context for the study, supported the interviews,
and validated the interviews using many data sources (Jafar & Eshghi, 2011).
The researcher focused on general data, then used categorization to narrow the
analysis. This helped make connections and distinguish between data points.
Open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) was employed to aid the researcher in
assembling the observed phenomena into sets. This facilitated it easier to create
multidimensional groupings for analysis. The document analysis results led the
further data collection, resulting in a higher-level synthesis of the information.
Each step of the data collection process was created, developed, checked, and
revised iteratively (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). The qualitative data were
analyzed using NVivo software, which aids in organizing, storing, and reporting
qualitative data. The interviews were coded (see Appendix 1) in NVivo using
deductive content analysis (Creswell, 2003; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). The next
phase in the analysis was to define research content categories. The content cat-
egories were variables that took on values when applied to data analysis tools.
The coding specification determined the measurement level of the content vari-
ables. NVivo was used to construct a list of nodes (categories) based on the
interviews. Although there are no established standards for assessing reliability
and validity in qualitative research, this study aimed to maximize these attributes
in many ways (Saunders & Tosey, 2012). Interviewees were given an anonymity
consent form from the researcher’s university and asked to describe their back-
grounds. Second, each participant was given a summary of the project before
interview, which increased validity and reliability by allowing the respondent to
think about the information required and the research. Third, open questions
were used when appropriate, allowing respondents to express themselves freely.
The data are coded according to the defining actors based on the value-added web
framework. Participants are coded at the firm and web level for horizontal, ver-
tical, and lateral cluster actors.
Findings of Data Analysis at the (Web Level) and (Firm Level)1

The Saudi cluster has two levels of analysis: web level and firm level. As a result,
analyzing knowledge sharing inside the Saudi cluster depends on interactions at
multiple levels of analysis, types of knowledge, and links/relationships between
actors. Interviews with important actors in the SAM cluster were also done to
develop the case study, identify major themes and research topics, and compare
the findings to answer the research questions. The ED and the ECA are
responsible for the cluster’s administrative and academic support. The horizontal
actors are the Saudi industry cluster’s primary producers and manufacturers. A
key vertical actor in the cluster is a port. Table 3.4 lists the participating actors’
understudies.
Links and Relationships Between Actors and the Type of Knowledge

The SAM cluster’s web-level knowledge-sharing mechanisms vary, but formal
and informal are the most common. Formal mechanisms include formal monthly
meetings, meetings (one-on-one or group meetings), formal events such as con-
ferences and presentations, formal documents such as consultancy reports and
industrial forms, and workshops. Meetings are the formal mechanism for
knowledge sharing. Events, monthly BBQs, phone calls, emails, flyers, and
pamphlets are informal or casual mechanisms used within the web level to share
news about the cluster. The SAM cluster has several knowledge-sharing mecha-
nisms, most organized and sponsored by lateral actors. Along with the lateral
players’ leading role, proximity is vital in supporting these mechanisms. The
cluster’s facilitators assist, enhance, and facilitate actor interactions (directly or
indirectly) as one of the cluster’s key goals.
Meetings are the formal knowledge-sharing method at the web level and may
include the ED, external partners, regulator advisers, and economic advisors.
Formal investor meetings are held, as various professional gatherings such as
research exposure events and industrial trips are organized for our clusters or
investors on certain issues of level to industry. The university participant gives
recommendations on how to improve knowledge sharing and communication
among cluster actors:
The cluster facilitator set up internal e-forums for actors within the
SAM cluster to discuss manufacturing problems and solutions,
and every employee can share their ideas and knowledge. Being
a part of the monthly meeting allows knowledge to be shared,
which promotes growth and development for both firms and the
cluster as a whole.
One firm was said to be less active than others due to sending an inappropriate
representative to the direction-finding committee. Having a manager represent a
firm indicated the high regard with which the firm holds knowledge sharing and
engaging within the cluster (Minutes of Meeting 2014). Formal social events
between cluster actors, such as new contract signing ceremonies, exhibitions,
annual meetings, conferences, and special holiday festivals such as Ramadan, Eid
al-Fitr, and Eid al-Adha, can also be effective mechanisms of knowledge sharing
(Quarterly Magazine, 2013).
V2 uses computer/phone applications to manage the supply chain and logistics
solutions, allowing customers to view work updates anywhere worldwide (V2
company profile 2013). The facilitators established a free hotline with an 800
74 Aliah Zafer
dedicated number operating 24/7 for the cluster actors to share their information,
requirements, and needs with the lateral actors (Exhibit A Website, 2013; SAM
Cluster Flyers, 2013).
SAM Cluster Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms

Tacit knowledge among lateral actors involves shared ideals, mutual collabora-
tion within the cluster, and comprehension of shared laws and regulations that
allow the ECA, ED, and university to find and integrate knowledge (ED Minutes
of Meeting 2010). Also, informal knowledge sharing across horizontal actors is
facilitated by proximity, allowing firms to share problems and challenges with
facilitators and try to find solutions.
In the interview, the director of ED shared the types of knowledge firms
normally shared with facilitators:
We (economic developers) invite all firms to meet with us (ECA) to

discuss their concerns or requirements after they join the industry
cluster.
The cluster facilitator illustrates of how enterprises’ needs inform the ED:
For example, some firms require daily washing of employee lap

coats, so having a skilled dry cleaner nearby is critical.
According to interviews with the ECA PMO officer, facilitators share knowledge
and information about the cluster with other economic cities in Saudi Arabia,
“which can be beneficial from a marketing and advertising perspective.” This kind
of knowledge sharing adds to the reputation of the cluster as a desirable location for
investment, which enhances the development and expansion of the entire region.
Firm-Level Knowledge Sharing (Formal and Informal) Mechanisms

Various formal and informal mechanisms allow horizontal firms in the cluster to
share knowledge. Online facilities using government-provided ICT services of
ECA to establish effective and fast communication services are the dominant
method of sharing knowledge. The senior manager of HMF5 mentioned the
e-forum and how it helped improve the factory’s performance in interviews:
The e-forum is the cluster’s knowledge base. Workplace ideas and

innovation are generated by employees posting solutions to
problems. We saved 30% of production time by constantly
applying solutions from e-forums.
The ED general manager said that “management meetings are scheduled

regularly.” Seminars and conferences also share formal knowledge. When asked
about the best way to share knowledge, an HMF1 engineer said that “sharing
meetings as information gathering sessions was good because it forced them to
document rather than just talk about things.”
The following participant (owner of HMF5), who regularly attends the formal
meeting, illustrates the need to integrate explicit and tacit knowledge:
The monthly meeting is useful when they discuss manufacturing

services. Facilitators usually contact the university to arrange a
specific seminar with a specific presenter or professor. They help us
identify the root causes of issues and practical solutions. . . I always
go to the seminars. I see them as a chance to get together and
discuss new developments.
The research shows that the monthly meeting has several outcomes, including
developing initial respect and trust within horizontal firms and firms recognizing
the importance of collaboration. The SAM cluster needed mutual respect for each
actor’s abilities, according to the HMF1 owner. The lack of respect hampered
inter-organizational trust. According to HMF1’s owner:
HMF6 has some shady employees. I would not share knowledge

with them because I do not believe they have the integrity to
participate equally. That’s unfair.
Mutual respect among actors resulted from previous collaboration and

consideration of what each actor brought to the cluster. Firms could share
knowledge even if they did not like each other. HMF1 allows every employee to
share their ideas on how to improve manufacturing processes. HMF6’s general
manager says they “. . . extended employee training programs. We work with the
University’s R&D facilities to educate and train local employee.”
On the other hand, informal knowledge sharing is common at the emerging
stage because most actors have formed personal relationships since joining the
cluster. So informal meetings or chats are common for firms to exchange
knowledge. HMF4 was the first firm to join the SAM cluster, and its employees
live in the same dormitory as other firms’ employees. This promotes informal
knowledge sharing and social capital building. “My workers live in the same
dormitory as HMF4. . . I always get the quickest response regarding cluster
services.”
According to HMF1’s HR manager, the friendly environment of knowledge
sharing between firms is very advantageous. Employees are always willing to go
out for coffee or lunch casually and share problems they faced during their early
days in the cluster. Early cluster development can benefit knowledge sharing as
new entrants want to learn from established firms in the cluster. The data also
show informal knowledge sharing during lunch and coffee breaks. HMF4 owner:
“Daily coffee meetings are important because they allow people to share ideas.”
Firm-level knowledge sharing occurs formally and informally, illustrating the role
of proximity. Informal knowledge-sharing activities for workers include casual
76 Aliah Zafer
meetings, dormitory chats, informal emails, and phone calls. Informal knowledge
sharing occurs during lunchtime when employees gather in the cluster’s food
court. At this stage, HMFs are reluctant to share specific tacit knowledge related
to know-how and technical knowledge. The cluster’s general services, logistics,
connections, and events are openly shared knowledge. The lateral actors facilitate
the sharing of knowledge. “Know-how” knowledge is less shared because it is firm
specific. “I don’t think they have integrity. They’ll take information without
giving anything back,” said HMF1’s owner. The HMF6 manager agreed, stating
“Some firms tend to keep secrets to protect their competitive advantage.”
Cluster Knowledge-Sharing Factors

With respect to the Saudi Arabia cluster (SAM cluster), the next sections examine
the antecedents and consequences of proximity and clustering, using the five
sources listed in Table 3.1: absorptive capacity, knowledge of expertise location,
inter-organizational trust, social capital, and accessibility.
Absorptive Capacity
The cluster facilitators and the university act as a channel to connect the firms
with the available resources inside the cluster and connect the firms with external
knowledge. The university is involved with the cluster in the economic region
(economic city), enabling technology development and knowledge sharing,
spin-offs, and job creation within the cluster. “We are the major portals for new
graduates to enter and work in the cluster. We help the people out there find
several jobs’ prospects in different factories of our investors.” This confirms the
important influence of the absorptive capacity at the web level in facilitating
knowledge sharing.
Feedback from firms and results from collaborative work between firms and
universities enable actors to engage in research and development to search for new
knowledge. “The university is working on a research project financed by various
enterprises here in the SAM cluster. . . common advantages and benefits are being
generated as a result of this effort.”

This is evident from the participants’ comments and analyzing collected web-level
documents, where knowledge of expertise location within the SAM cluster is
available through the university, research and development. The university col-
laborates on almost 60 projects with the horizontal actors, focusing on knowledge
sharing within the cluster to bridge the gap between academia and industries
participating in the cluster (CU official Facebook page 2013). “We are now
working on the triple P model, which is the relationship between the government,
the firms, and the academia for the development of the cluster.”
The role of facilitators within the cluster in establishing connections that help
to provide specific knowledge about available expertise within and beyond the
clusters was evident. The entrepreneurship program established in the cluster is a

collaborative program between the ED and the university to help students start
new businesses in the industry cluster to commercialize their research and inno-
vative ideas:
We provide information about cluster rules, regulations, and

facilities to students who want to start their businesses. The
university has, first and foremost, a unique research facility
backed by the expertise and strong administrative database
management, which allows and encourages industry
collaborations.
The university transfer and innovation center also works with the researchers
to protect, manage, and commercialize the intellectual property portfolio. This
research participant has evaluated many of the cluster firms’ systems and helped
implement them with other cluster actors. He said:
In order to build new infrastructure projects for the SAM cluster,

various actors and industry partners in the SAM cluster are
adopting CU-developed technologies. This is one of the smart
systems developed through knowledge sharing.
Interorganizational trust is a significant factor influencing knowledge sharing
across the web and firm level in the SAM cluster, with considerations to inter-
organizational trust evident from the interview data and documents analysis of
this research:
“The actors in the web level freely share knowledge without any
expectations of reciprocity as they are working towards a common
goal,” a PMO officer said.
The university is a key asset in this regard, as it serves as a platform for firms to
collaborate and share. There is an initial level of trust that encourages firms to
share ideas. An HMF1 owner stated:
Trust developed in the SAM cluster today from mutual respect

that developed in the early stages of the cluster when firms were
just starting. Trust is important for free knowledge sharing. . .
One participant firm overcame a lack of trust when other firms shared their
knowledge and ideas. Those firms had two factors considered essential to efficient
knowledge sharing at the early stages of emerging clusters: inter-organizational
trust and social capital, which this firm did not have. An HMF1 HR manager said
he had trouble trusting newer firms because some information shared can be
78 Aliah Zafer
sensitive. In addition, an HMF1 owner believes that a lack of trust between firms
prevents HMF1 from sharing know-how with its neighbor (HMF6). Participants
reported that participating in these types of meetings by cluster facilitators also
tested cluster actors’ trust in one another. If a factory sends someone to a meeting
to share ideas and knowledge, this builds trust between firms for future meetings.
Social Capital
The SAM cluster’s reputation is formalized, and the lateral players’ duties as
brokers are very structured and explicit. The web-level networks facilitate and
provide the basis for cooperation between actors, while the impact of bonding
capital is evident as facilitators assist firms in collaborating with universities by
providing opportunities for work and research studies in the cluster:
Our economic, infrastructure and service divisions work with the

economic developer, and we have a counterpart in each.
The government’s role in the cluster is to collaborate with the ED and

undertake initial feasibility studies to lead the industry cluster toward further
development (ECA Website, 2013). While the SAM cluster is still evolving, some
projects are being developed by firms and lateral actors to improve inter-
organizational interaction and knowledge sharing. Data emphasize the impor-
tance of cluster integrity in facilitating knowledge sharing. The ED’s shareholder
affairs manager explained:
The best location for firms to cluster has been chosen. We carefully
placed some firms next to each other, partly for environmental
reasons and partly because some work better together.
Through horizontal actor interaction, they established links between vertical

actors, research centers, and universities. Horizontal actors also collaborate on
general knowledge. Horizontal firms could obtain resources from bridging capital
through organizational and professional connections with other actors. Bridging
capital influenced knowledge sharing by promoting strong ties and links among
horizontal firms. HMF4’s general manager stated:
Our embeddedness and other SAM cluster factories help us

quickly connect with facilitators and share knowledge about
manufacturing services, jobs, power, housing, and utilities.
The data show lateral actors use bridging capital to identify and extract explicit
knowledge from firm-level actors and bonding capital to facilitate tacit knowledge
acquisition, knowledge diffusion, and knowledge sharing among cluster actors.
The lateral actors play an important role as knowledge brokers and gatekeepers.
Bridging capital helps horizontal actors within the cluster share tacit knowledge,
which can lead to new manufacturing ideas and research (SAM Newsletter, 2013).
Through R&D relationships, horizontal actors can demonstrate their skills and
provide firms with innovative research. An HMF5 project manager noted:
We want factories to use R&D centers as knowledge networks. So

long as the factories trust each other as a knowledge resource, we
want this cluster to succeed. It is good for us all. So, since our goals
are similar, we will strengthen our relationships.
Accessibility
The value of existing knowledge is in its accessibility linked to engagement levels
and facilitators’ ability to channel activities toward relevant knowledge sharing.
Since the SAM cluster is located in the economic city, localized employee mobility
is linked to embody knowledge sharing.
I am unaware of formal restrictions or regulations prohibiting

knowledge sharing within the cluster. Still, as an economic
planner, I can help promote knowledge sharing from a
geographical and clustering strategy standpoint.
The proximity of the cluster seaport is another important benefit as firms can
use this huge facility to import/export materials and products.
Manufacturers in SAM approach the university to acquire a

sustained competitive advantage through the university’s
expertise, and we have research centers and laboratories with
cutting-edge technologically sophisticated equipment.
SAM Cluster Knowledge Sharing Barriers

Barriers from the governments relate to the efforts put forth by the governmental
authorities in integrating and establishing projects that are within the Saudi
Arabian government’s vision of building the country’s economic policies. “The
government has integrated many initiatives in the cluster to accommodate for a
diverse player since they want the cluster to be available to different types of
industries.”
A participant of the ED shared his views on how integrating and modifying
main Saudi rules and regulations to make them applicable to the cluster’s context
can be a barrier to knowledge sharing with external economic entities outside the
cluster. “The fundamental problem faced by the industry cluster is its own policy
of linking with the national economy. . . with certain adjustments of the rules.”
Language is another issue, as languages in the SAM cluster vary depending on
the nationalities of workers and companies, such as India, the United Kingdom,
the United States, Australia, Europe, and East Asia (Exhibit A Website, 2013).
As a participant, employees from different actors of mixed nationalities must
communicate in English with other divisions or international offices. “This
80 Aliah Zafer
language barrier is especially a problem during telephone discussions because it is

sometimes impossible to comprehend the other party, making it difficult to
express what a person wants. . .”
Some firms are unwilling to share their core business strategies and
manufacturing techniques with other firms, believing that sharing their secrets and
know-how will reduce their competitive advantage over competitors in the same
industry:
Our approach as facilitators is to promote knowledge sharing by

cluster actors in the same industry due to proximity. However,
from the firms’ perspective, they protect intellectual property; they
have some restrictions and limitations.
Due to the cluster’s newness and as firms have not yet built networks, other
participants look to the government for direction. Finally, according to the
research model, the five factors of knowledge sharing and their applicability to the
web level of analysis within the cluster have been evaluated. Fear of losing control
of proprietary knowledge (ownership of manufacturing ideas) also discouraged
firms from sharing ideas. The actors’ observations and contributions changed an
idea once it was brought to their attention. Regarding sharing specific types of
knowledge like technical or financial information, some participants from HMF1
and HMF5 said they still had trust difficulties. An HMF1 owner stated:
When we first joined, people still tried to figure out who was doing
what and how much. Some people refused to share their info for
various projects, contracts, etc. So one is always unsure what to
reveal and what to keep hidden.
The SAM cluster’s proximity to the economic city adds value to the firms’
competitive advantage. But at this stage of cluster development, ad hoc knowl-
edge protection between horizontal actors at the firm level, where technical
knowledge is not accessible to all actors, inhibits knowledge sharing. The owner
of HMF1 confirms:
“Some factories, like HMF6, are unwilling to share and keep

protecting their know-how, they have specific technologies and
other clearly arranged systems which they are not very
comfortable sharing with us. So I think releasing information in
a highly competitive market is difficult at this early stage.”
Moreover, the general manager of (HMF6) stated that they
protect intellectual property to avoid opportunism from other
competitors in the cluster: “Protecting intellectual property is
critical. Our factory has a strict policy for protecting intellectual
property and databases. After joining the cluster, mechanisms
were put in place to protect our know-how.”
Discussion of the Findings

Coordination, innovation, and knowledge transfer are useful outcomes generated
by clusters. Developing knowledge-sharing processes within industry clusters is a
key public policy goal (European Commission, 2008). Creating clusters to drive
economic development is insufficient; they need immense support and infra-
structure, like social capital, to help develop and share knowledge. The role of
lateral actors, particularly government agencies, in facilitating knowledge sharing
within a cluster must be noticed. Emerging clusters support knowledge sharing
when lateral actors lead, develop, and implement mechanisms. This direction and
leadership benefit both the firms and the cluster. The findings also highlight the
research of cluster facilitators in bringing together diverse actors to address shared
challenges like skilled labor shortages. As a catalyst for the development of
bonding and bridging capital, facilitators enable the knowledge-sharing process.
According to the findings, lateral actors organize knowledge-sharing
mechanisms in the cluster to facilitate actor collaboration and achieve positive
outcomes. For example, the industry–university collaborative program was
created by lateral actors to foster horizontal collaboration and knowledge
sharing. Mesmer-Magnus and DeChurch (2009) found that knowledge
sharing leads to lower production costs, faster project completion, improved
team and firm performance, and increased innovation. According to previous
research, organizations waste time seeking knowledge and fail to use past
expertise and experience (Hull et al., 2000). Enhancing and encouraging
knowledge sharing is one of the facilitator’s main goals in government-led
cluster development.
The cluster’s lateral actors recognize the value of formal mechanisms for
integrating implicit and tacit knowledge. Formal minutes and reports facilitate
to shift tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge that can be shared on the web.
They propose that knowledge management has three components: capturing (in
this case, through lateral actors facilitated forums such as meetings); storing
(through minutes, databases, e-forums and websites, and reports); and sharing
(through meetings and informal gatherings). According to Howell and Anna-
singh (2013), knowledge management aims to maximize individual and orga-
nizational knowledge by concentrating all available implicit and tacit
knowledge, converting it into explicit knowledge that can be codified, and
interpreted, represented, saved, retrieved, and reused. This tacit knowledge is
shared and embedded in the local context, making it difficult for firms outside
the cluster to imitate. According to the web-level findings, a general manager of
HMF6 perceived local knowledge as being central to the refinement of the
“Made in SAM cluster brand” of manufacturing products, demonstrating
intracluster knowledge sharing benefits from a path dependency perspective.
Based on the web-level findings, the cluster’s lateral actors share tacit knowl-
edge, including shared values and understanding of shared rules and regula-
tions that allow the university to identify and absorb knowledge. However, the
basic infrastructures, communications, rules, and regulations are more similar
82 Aliah Zafer
to web-level forms of knowledge (Brown et al., 2007a; Connell & Thorpe,

2009).
Frost (2010) states that the type of knowledge shared influences the sharing
process. The findings show that while firm actors are willing to share explicit
knowledge, tacit and technical knowledge gives them a competitive edge. The
intended socialization does not always occur because not all actors attend social
events. Participants from the ED stated that lack of trust is a barrier to effective
knowledge sharing. The results show that lateral actors and local media exchange
knowledge about the SAM (cluster’s reputation) and its reputation as a new
economic city of clean and green manufacturing excellence to attract more
businesses to join the cluster. The proximity and shared living dormitories for the
workers result in tacit knowledge sharing through personal interactions at the
SAM cluster web level through lateral actors’ social events. Staff mobility and
interactions between different actors within the cluster allow for the exchange of
tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is regarded as the most valuable source of
knowledge, influencing innovation and sustainable growth and development in
clusters (Frost, 2010).
The findings show that creating a platform for all web-level actors to meet
and build informal networks using informal mechanisms that influence knowl-
edge sharing is critical because of the small number of firms and their
geographical proximity, lateral, horizontal, and vertical actors’ relationships are
informal. The findings align with Gretzinger and Royer’s (2014) case study
analysis of a Danish mechatronics cluster. They found that informal mecha-
nisms facilitated exchange between horizontal, vertical, and lateral cluster
actors. The results show that formal communication promoted by cluster
facilitators usually referred to forms of knowledge not directly related to core
strategic business activities and know-how as perceived by horizontal actors, for
example, workshops to share general knowledge about recruitment and man-
ufacturing. Some firms are reluctant to share their tacit or specific know-how
knowledge with other actors for various reasons, according to the firm-level
findings. Because large firms (mostly multinational enterprises [MNEs]) have
links with external horizontal actors that bring value to the new cluster, while
smaller local firms do not, integrating SMEs and thus knowledge flow is
hampered. Second, some horizontal actors are MNEs, while others are local
firms, meaning their organizational cultures differ. Third is a lack of trust. This
emphasizes the critical role of lateral actors in supporting knowledge sharing in
an emerging cluster where horizontal actor bonds are weak, limiting knowledge
sharing. Having built very good personal relationships, most actors have built
more informal mechanisms for knowledge exchange shortly. While lateral actors
are critical in the planning, leading, and organizing of knowledge-sharing ini-
tiatives, the cluster’s strength comes from informal mechanisms that influence
trust building between actors, increasing the chances of sharing tacit knowledge,
which is critical for competitive advantage.
Factors Affecting SAM Cluster Knowledge Sharing

Absorptive Capacity
The web-level findings confirm the universities and training centers’ active pro-
fessional role in training new cluster actors. For example, HCA provides industry
workshops and training to local talent, and the CU has established collaborative
programs with some horizontal actors. A shared language that increases
absorption capacity is promoted through professional interactions, according to
Berkenkotter and Huckin’s (1995) research. The SAM cluster’s proximity of
actors was an ideal tool for identifying and assimilating knowledge. For example,
the university’s proximity benefits both horizontal actors and the university. This
finding supports Zeller’s (2004) claim that both sender and recipient actors should
be consistent with the industry’s implicit knowledge processes, which may be
accomplished by manufacturing actors in the same or related industries.
As a result of this active and effective absorption capacity, lateral actors help
actors learn skills, solve problems, and gain general knowledge. The findings also
show that lateral actors are adopting strategies and providing opportunities for
the cluster’s absorptive learning, innovation, and knowledge sharing via ICT.
However, there is evidence that know-how (tacit knowledge) is not shared
between horizontal actors. The immaturity of the cluster at the firm level limits
the firm’s ability to learn and grow. According to Yokakul et al. (2010),
absorptive capacity promotes knowledge sharing, learning, and cluster
development.

According to Royer and Burgess (2013), clusters can respond to public policy
challenges related to job growth and employment by attracting local graduate job
seekers. The research emphasized the value of lateral actors, particularly uni-
versities, as sources of locational expertise. For example, actors educate and train
students for first jobs, preparing them to start new businesses in the industry
cluster to implement their research and innovative ideas. This type of dependency
and interaction facilitates knowledge exchange between web-level actors. Simi-
larly, Festing, Schafer, and Scullion (2013) discuss the sequential interdepen-
dencies between actors in a cluster built around HRs, where the output for some
companies is input for others.
Similarities and proximity among firms (horizontal actors) are important
because they improve relationships and encourage regular knowledge-sharing
(Rempel et al., 1985; Uzzi, 1996, 1999; Zucker, 1986). According to research, this
boosts horizontal actors’ technical expertise (Palazzolo, 2005; Yuan et al., 2005).
Lateral actors in the SAM cluster benefit from mutual understanding and trust,
which encourages knowledge sharing and openness about available infrastructure
and resources. For example, the university promotes inter-organizational trust by
establishing research projects encouraging firms to collaborate. This finding is in
84 Aliah Zafer
line with Welch and Welch (2008) who note that trust is an important factor in
knowledge sharing because it identifies how knowledge is shared among actors.
Trust is connected to cognition-based trust at the cluster web level by providing
efficient technical basic infrastructure for actors in the SAM cluster (Parkhe, 1993;
Uzzi & Gillespie, 2002). Cognition-based trust includes technical competence,
responsibility, and dependability, according to Tsai and Ghoshal (1998), which
incorporate competence, responsibility, and reliability.
Moreover, due to fear of losing power and status as a well-known large MNE,
one MNE horizontal firm refused to share know-how with other horizontal actors
in the SAM cluster. Because of the small number of actors, lack of trust, and fear
of sharing technical knowledge at this early stage, horizontal actors, including
MNEs manufacturers, currently lack access to specialist knowledge (know-how).
Trust has been linked to cost reduction by reducing opportunistic behavior
(Torsvik, 2000). Findings show that most horizontal firms at this stage of SAM
cluster development have goodwill, respect, and understanding of other partici-
pating firms. These firms are benefiting from trust in cost reductions by only
sharing general knowledge about rules infrastructure and SAM cluster services.
Social Capital and Knowledge Sharing

Social capital is built through relationships between cluster facilitators and hor-
izontal actors and formal links between firms and the outside world. The research
shows that lateral actors have common goals for the entire economic city region,
which motivates them to form a strong network of knowledge-sharing activities
within the SAM cluster. Cabrera and Cabrera (2005) agree that knowledge is an
asset shared among participating firms in building social capital. Social capital
provides the web-level formal and informal SAM cluster linkages. Thus, the
cluster environment benefits from social capital embedded in local cultures,
institutions, and actors, as Solvell et al. (2003) suggested. The impact of social
capital may be more informal and involves personal interactions among lateral
actors at the web level than at the firm level. Lateral actors may lead and support
formal knowledge-sharing activities such as training, finance, marketing, and
technology development. Emerging cluster activity and interest enhances tacit
engagement and, thus, the development of vital social capital in the network.
This research’s findings show the importance of institutional thickness in a
government-directed cluster for knowledge sharing. It also helps build social
capital and shared values, contributing to the cluster’s economic growth. As social
capital develops informal and formal institutions within the cluster, this is
consistent with research suggesting firm-level and web-level relationships provide
a foundation for institutional thickness (Collins et al., 2013).
Knowledge Brokers as Social Capital Bonders

Horizontal actors sought information, advice, and support from their neighboring
firm and the university. A cluster’s bonding and bridging capital can be provided
by universities, say Collins et al. (2013). Existing cluster with strong lateral links
established technical specialists in the region, and some horizontal and vertical
cooperation. To maintain the efficiency of this foundation in later stages of
development, the cluster needs to develop other institutions that facilitate
knowledge sharing, access, generation, and encoding for application within the
cluster. But if lateral actors continue to lead and organize social capital, this may
not occur.
Bonding capital improves relationships in the SAM cluster, particularly where
horizontal actors share tacit knowledge, as in HMF1 and HMF5. Firms and
universities, and R&D and training centers also show bridging capital. Prior
research suggests that bridging capital occurs through cluster innovation by
bringing disparate actors together to generate knowledge (Dyer & Nobeoka,
2001). The findings also show bridging capital in the SAM cluster, where lateral
actors cooperate in providing shared values, beliefs, and flexible regulations for
horizontal actors (e.g., visas for foreign workers). This aligns with Mitchell et al.
(2010), who argue that bridging capital is critical to strengthening horizontal–
lateral links.
Accessibility
The findings show how accessibility affects knowledge sharing by influencing
horizontal actors’ willingness to share knowledge and allocate time to collecting
knowledge from other cluster actors. As noted by Allen, James, and Gamlen
(2007), knowledge sharing facilitates the knowledge of formal and informal net-
works. Studies in institutional economics show that regulations and informal
structures facilitate knowledge sharing and the accessibility of norms (Helmsing,
2001; Inkpen & Tsang, 2005). Accessibility on the web level reduces uncertainty
among participants in knowledge sharing by promoting economic partnerships
and shared goals (Ahuja, 2000; Capello, 2002; Capello & Faggian, 2005; Walker
et al., 1997).
According to Keeble and Wilkinson (1999), knowledge can be shared between
firms, suppliers, and customers. Others benefit from technical similarities by
connecting actors in networks (Brown & Duguid, 2001; Schamp et al., 2004) and
driving normative pressures within institutions (Brint, 1993). Mitchel et al. (2010)
also contend that knowledge has multiple structures and that clustering enhances
access to knowledge by directly sharing knowledge through commercial and
social clusters and accessing it through transactional relationships. Lateral actors
as knowledge brokers enable cluster members to directly access expertise that
would otherwise be inaccessible, such as ministries and professional networks.
Knowledge-Sharing Barriers in SAM Cluster

This research links knowledge-sharing barriers to efficiency, access, and costs. The
challenges of knowledge sharing confront emerging clusters, particularly in
developing firms. The challenges are limited infrastructure, HR and marketing
capabilities, access to skills and expertise, and access to external markets. In the
SAM cluster, lateral actors implement infrastructure, provide workforce and skill
86 Aliah Zafer
development, and develop mechanisms to strengthen cluster relationships. The

dominant role of lateral actors is what, in the future, may prove a challenge to
knowledge sharing. Firms are over-dependent on lateral actors to facilitate all the
activities of knowledge sharing, leaving them exposed should there be changes to
the operations of lateral actors. For example, reductions in government funding
or restructuring of the cluster support mechanisms could remove the knowledge-
sharing infrastructure developed to date.
Firms may be close to a cluster, but still isolated from the activities linked to
knowledge flows within the cluster (Giuliani & Bell, 2005). Although vertical
actors in the SAM cluster are close to lateral actors’ knowledge-sharing
arrangements, their involvement in knowledge sharing activities is limited. This
may reflect the cluster’s small number of vertical actors’ lack of awareness of the
importance or relevance of lateral actors’ activities arranged by lateral actors.
According to Boschma (2005), proximity and membership do not guarantee
access to knowledge and social capital. Lack of trust may be a barrier to
knowledge sharing in this case due to the cluster’s newness and a small number of
actors, but as the cluster matures, a trust may develop as a process along with
relationships.
Finally, it is difficult for lateral actors to act as a neutral broker when the
government is a central stakeholder in both the cluster and ongoing knowledge-
sharing activities. Conflicting roles and goals may compromise processes,
communication, and trust. Due to their leading and dominant role, lateral actors
rely heavily on lateral actors at both levels to facilitate knowledge-sharing
activities and mechanisms in the cluster. They play a vital role in developing
bridging capital in the cluster. Once completely developed, more actors in the
cluster will attract knowledge brokers like consultants. However, the research
found that stand-alone lateral actors have limited effectiveness in enhancing
horizontal knowledge sharing. Better formalized, goal-oriented mechanisms could
enhance knowledge sharing and foster social capital development.
Implications and Research Contributions

Implications of Policy Design and Implementation
While proximity facilitates knowledge sharing (Mitchell et al., 2010), it can also
be used to assess operational effectiveness. A cluster’s links and interactions must
be defined early on. This can be achieved through detailed cluster mapping
showing physical and commercial (formal and informal) relationships (Brown
et al., 2007b, 2008, 2010). Cooperation and knowledge-sharing networks are
investigated, and network gaps are filled. Knowledge-sharing relationships among
SMEs, local firms, and multinationals must be defined. The policy implications of
this study are that SAGIA must consider regional differences in cluster devel-
opment initiatives, like lateral actors’ dominance, which can impede knowledge
sharing. High dominance may work for clusters with few horizontal and vertical
players and in the infancy stage with more vertical and horizontal actors.
The government may need to rethink knowledge-sharing mechanisms during

policy implementation. While meetings work well for formal knowledge sharing,
low attendance may necessitate reconsidering lateral actor involvement. Atten-
dance at meetings only sometimes equates to added value. Rethinking the idea of
social events to build social capital among various actors is an important impli-
cation. Demonstrating the value of such meetings may increase attendance and
subsequent knowledge sharing, improving results by involving horizontal and
vertical actors in implementing a knowledge-sharing policy. Getting more vertical
players into the cluster is another policy implementation issue. During imple-
mentation, the government must decide what vertical actors must be in charge to
participate and play an important role in organized knowledge sharing. To build
sustainable knowledge-sharing mechanisms, lateral actors’ dominance can be
reduced. Small and large businesses have different capabilities and absorption
capacities due to the difficult sharing of tacit knowledge between SMEs and larger
organizations. It is possible to better serve SMEs by focusing on horizontal actors
who can build their links and knowledge-sharing mechanisms.
National and regional capabilities outperform firm-level capabilities. It is a
network of industries and linkages. Thus, manufacturing and economic clusters
are important for increasing business sophistication and industry diversification.
Research Contributions and Future Studies

In an emerging government-driven cluster, lateral actors primarily facilitate
knowledge-sharing mechanisms, with the government dominating. To classify
main actors, their links, and interactions in both government-driven and organic
clusters at any stage of development, this study used the VAW Framework. The
VAW helps understand how knowledge-sharing processes communicate at
various levels of analysis within the cluster. To shed light on the factors that
influence knowledge sharing, knowledge types, and sharing mechanisms. The
VAW analytical tool’s results allowed for identifying which actor and interaction
links to consider at which cluster level for later knowledge management assess-
ment. An important factor influencing the study’s uniqueness is the importance of
establishing knowledge-sharing mechanisms within industry clusters as strategic
economic development tools. It is a topic of high practical context due to the lack
of research on clustering’s role in supporting knowledge sharing within an
emerging, government-directed industry cluster in Saudi Arabia. Few studies have
examined the impact of knowledge sharing mechanisms on cluster growth. In
theory and policy, understanding how knowledge sharing affects progress and the
development of emerging clusters is important.
A longitudinal study would be valuable for future research, given the study’s
focus on a new cluster with few actors. As the cluster evolves, new firms enter, and
lateral players lose dominance, it is worth tracking changes. More research could
be done using the same cluster or other mature industry clusters in Saudi Arabia
and investigating their knowledge-sharing mechanisms. It was used to study a
government-sponsored cluster. More research is needed on the Saudi cluster’s use
88 Aliah Zafer
of the value-added web model to guide its future development. Complex

knowledge-sharing processes in agricultural and single-industry settings should be
conducted using mixed methods and longitudinal approaches. Diverse types of
knowledge sharing could be investigated further in the SAM cluster to see if there
are mutual forces that facilitate new mechanisms for more effective and sus-
tainable knowledge sharing. Finally, this study highlighted some barriers to
knowledge sharing within the cluster. More research may reveal ways to over-
come these knowledge-sharing barriers.
Note
1. This section includes data analysis from documents and interview’s transcripts of
different actors within the SAM cluster. The city cannot be identified in this
research as this would compromise the confidentiality of the participants through
indirect identification. All the information cited in this section is based either on
confidential sources or public sources that cannot be directly identified. Therefore,
for confidentiality and anonymity reasons, actual in-text and end-text reference
cannot be revealed.
References
Ackerman, M. S. (2000). The intellectual challenge of CSCW: The gap between social
requirements and technical feasibility. Human-Computer Interaction, 15(2–3),
179–203.
Ageli, M. M., & Zaidan, S. M. (2013). Saudi financial structure and economic growth:
A macro econometric approach. International Journal of Economics and Finance,
5(3). doi:10.5539/ijef.v5n3p30
Agostini, L., & Filippini, R. (2019). Organizational and managerial challenges in the
path toward Industry 4.0. European Journal of Innovation Management, 22(3),
406–421. doi:10.1108/EJIM-02-2018-0030
Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A lon-
gitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455.
Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S., & Imamoglu, S. Z. (2005).
Knowledge networks in new product development projects: A transactive memory
perspective. Information & Management, 42(8), 1105–1120.
Al-Adaileh, R. M., & Al-Atawi, M. S. (2011). Organizational culture impact on
knowledge exchange: Saudi Telecom context. Journal of Knowledge Management,
15(2), 212–230.
Al-Alawai, A. I., Al-Marzooqi, N. Y., & Mohammed, Y. F. (2007). Organizational
culture and knowledge sharing: Critical success factors. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 11(2), 22–42.
Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Allen, J., James, A., & Gamlen, P. (2007). Formal versus informal knowledge net-
works in R&D: A case study using social network analysis. R&D Management,
37(3), 179–196.
Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. (1999). Localization of knowledge and the mobility of
engineers in regional networks. Management Science, 45(7), 905–917.
Amin, A., & Thrift, N. (1995). Globalization, institutions, and regional development in
Europe. London: Oxford University Press.
Amin, A., & Wilkinson, F. (1999). Learning, proximity and industrial performance:
An introduction. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(2), 121–125. doi:10.1093/cje/
23.2.121
Atherton, A., & Johnston, A. (2008). Cluster formation from the ‘bottom-up’: A
process perspective. In C. Karlsson (Ed.), Handbook of research on clusters theory
(pp. 93–112). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Awan, U., Shamim, S., Khan, Z., Zia, N. U., Shariq, S. M., & Khan, M. N. (2021).
Big data analytics capability and decision-making: The role of data-driven insight
on circular economy performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
168, 120766.
Barkley, D., & Henry, M. (2003). Are industry clusters a good bet for rural devel-
opment? Community Economics Newsletter, 325(November), 1–3.
Bazerman, C., & Paradis, J. (1991). Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and
contemporary studies of writing in professional communities. Madison, WI: Uni-
versity of Wisconsin Press.
Bechky, B. A. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The
transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science,
14(3), 312–330.
Bell, S. J., Tracey, P., & Heide, J. B. (2009). The organization of regional clusters.
Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 623–642.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary commu-
nication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Björkman, I., & Stahl, G. K. (2006). International human resource management
research: An introduction to the field. In Handbook of research in international
human resource management (p. 1) Vienna.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.
Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and
learning in social networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432–445.
Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional
Studies, 39(1), 61–74.
Brint, S. (1993). Eliot Freidson’s contribution to the sociology of professions. Work
and Occupations, 20(3), 259–278.
Brown, L. C., Aarts, P., & Nonneman, G. (2006). Saudi Arabia in the balance:
Political economy, society. Foreign Affairs, 85(5), 176. doi:10.2307/20032121
Brown, K., Burgess, J., Festing, M., & Royer, S. (2010). Conceptualising clusters as
overlapping value adding Webs. In K. Brown, J. Burgess, M. Festing, & S. Royer
(Eds.), Value adding webs and clusters—concepts and cases (pp. 11–42). München:
Rainer Hampp Verlag.
Brown, K., Burgess, J., Festing, M., Royer, S., Steffen, C., & Waterhouse, J. (2007a).
The value adding web - A multi-level framework of competitive advantage realisation
in firm-clusters. Berlin: European School of Management.
Brown, K., Burgess, J., Festing, M., Royer, S., Steffen, C., & Waterhouse, J. (2007b).
The value adding Web: A conceptual framework of competitive advantage real-
isation in clusters. Australia and New Zealand Academy of Management Confer-
ence, 24(2).
90 Aliah Zafer
Brown, K. A., Burgess, J., Festing, M., Royer, S., Steffen, C., Waterhouse, J. M., &
Keast, R. L. (2010). Conceptualising clusters as overlapping value adding webs. In
K. A. Brown, J. Burgess, M. Festing, & S. Royer (Eds.), Value adding webs and
clusters: Concepts and cases (pp. 11–42). Munchen: Rainer Hampp Verlag.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice
perspective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198–213.
Cabrera, E., & Cabrera, A. (2005). Fostering knowledge sharing through people
management practices. International Journal of Human Resource Management,
16(5), 720–735. doi:10.1080/09585190500083020
Capello, R. (2002). Spatial and sectoral characteristics of relational capital in inno-
vation activity. European Planning Studies, 10(2), 177–200.
Capello, R., & Faggian, A. (2005). Collective learning and relational capital in local
innovation processes. Regional Studies, 39(1), 75–87.
Cegarra-Navarro, J., Wensley, A., Batistic, S., Evans, M., & Para, C. (2021).
Minimizing the effects of defensive routines on knowledge hiding though
unlearning. Journal of Business Research, 137(2021), 58–68.
CIA Factbook. (2013). Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/
publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on
learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
Collins, D., Bray, M., & Burgess, J. (2013). Responding to global warming mitigation
policies: The hunter valley construction and engineering cluster. In K. Brown, J.
Burgess, M. Festing, & S. Royer (Eds.), Resources and competitive advantage in
clusters (pp. 113–131). München: Rainer Hampp Verlag.
Connell, J., & Thorpe, M. (2009). Do clusters support innovation? An inside view of
two Dubai based clusters. In S. K. Singh & B. Gupta (Eds.), Innovation manage-
ment (pp. 25–43). New Delhi: Macmillan, Publishers.
Connelly, C. E., & Kelloway, E. K. (2003). Predictors of employees’ perceptions of
knowledge sharing cultures. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
24(5), 294–301.
Considine, M. (1994). Public policy: A critical approach. Melbourne, FL: Macmillan.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication.
Cummings, J. (2003). Knowledge sharing: A review of the literature.
Dai, S., & Zhang, H. (2014). Assessment on knowledge network sharing capability of
industrial cluster based on Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence. The Scientific
World Journal, 2014(3). doi:10.1155/2014/810782
Das, R., & Das, A. K. (2011). Industrial cluster: An approach for rural development
in North East India. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 2(2),
161–165. doi:10.7763/ijtef.2011.v2.96
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dyer, J. H., & Nobeoka, K. (2001). Sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic
Management Journal, 21(3), 345–367.
Economic Cities and Special Zones Authority. (2014). Business role pages. Retrieved
from http://eca.gov.sa/webcenter/faces/oracle/webcenter/page/scopedMD/
s8bba98ff_4cbb_40b8_beee_296c916a23ed/businessRolePages/Page52.jspx?
_afrLoop57537427482891026#!%40%40%3F_afrLoop%3D7537427482891026%
26_adf.ctrl-state%3D1cl5rc35in_4
European Commission. (2008). Innobarometer 2006: Clusters facilitate innovation in
Europe, Flash Eurobarometer 187. Brussels: European Commision.
Festing, M., Schafer, L., & Scullion, H. (2013). Talent management in medium-sized
German companies: An explorative study and agenda for future research.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(9), 1872–1893.
Frost, A. (2010). The different types of knowledge. In The knowledge management
tools (blog). Retrieved from http://www.knowledge–management–tools.net/
different–types–of–knowledge.html
Ghassan, H. B., Alhajhoj, H. R., & Alaoui, M. K. (2013). The impacts of interna-
tional financial crisis on Saudi Arabia economy: Evidence from Glaser, Barney G.
and Anselm L. Strauss, 1967. In The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL:
Aldine Press.
Giuliani, E. (July 2005). Cluster absorptive capacity: Why do some clusters forge
ahead and others lag behind?. European Urban and Regional Studies, 12(3),
269–288. Project: International Development and Innovation. doi:10.1177/
0969776405056593
Giuliani, E., & Bell, M. (2005). The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and
innovation: Evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 34(1),
47–68.
Gretzinger, S., & Royer, S. (2014). Relational resources in value adding Webs: The
case of a Southern Danish firm cluster. European Management Journal, 32(1),
117–131. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2013.02.004
Helmsing, B. (2001). Externalities, learning and governance: New perspectives on
local economic development. Development and Change, 32(2), 277–308.
Hood, C. (1983). Using bureaucracy sparingly. Public Administration, 61(2), 197–208.
Howell, K. E., & Annasingh, F. (2013). Knowledge generation and sharing in UK
universities: A tale of two cultures. International Journal of Information Manage-
ment, 33(1), 32–39.
Hull, R., Chumer, M., & Willmott, H. (2000). In C. Prichard (Ed.), Managing
knowledge: Critical investigations of work and learning. London: Macmillan.
Ibrahim, S., & Fallah, M. H. (2005). Drivers of innovation and influence of techno-
logical clusters. Engineering Management Journal, 17(3), 33–41.
Industrial Cluster Program. (2022). About. Retrieved from http://www.ic.gov.sa/
index.php?option5com_content&view5article&id52&Itemid5102
Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge
transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146–165.
Jafar, A., & Eshghi, T. A. (2011). The role of information and communication
technology (ICT) in Iranian olive industrial cluster. Journal of Agricultural Science,
3(1), 228–232. doi:10.5539/jas.v3n1p228
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research
paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 13–26. doi:10.3102/
0013189X033007014
Keeble, D., Lawson, C., Moore, B., & Wilkinson, F. (1999). Collective learning
processes, networking and ‘institutional thickness’ in the Cambridge region.
Regional Studies, 3(4), 319–332.
92 Aliah Zafer
Keeble, D., & Wilkinson, F. (1999a). Collective learning and knowledge development
in the evolution of regional clusters of high technology SMEs in Europe. Regional
Studies, 33(4), 295–303.
Ketels, C. H. M. (2003). The development of the cluster concept-Present experiences
and further developments. In Paper prepared for NRW Conference on Clusters,
Duisburg.
Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia: Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2015). Al-Naimi highlights
national industrial cluster development program. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Min-
istry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from http://www.mofa.gov.sa/sites/mofaen/
ServicesAndInformation/news/GovernmentNews/Pages/NewsArticleID61431.aspx
Knoben, J., & Oerlemans, L. A. (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collabo-
ration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2),
71–89.
Lake, P. (2004). Business networks within a regional industrial cluster. PhD disserta-
tion, University of Southern Queensland. Retrieved from https://eprints.usq.edu.
au/114/3/02whole.pdf
Lan, W., & Zhangliu, W. (2012). Research on interactive learning, knowledge sharing
and collective innovation in SMEs cluster. International Journal of Innovation,
Management and Technology, 3(1), 24–29.
Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The
mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science,
50(11), 1477–1490.
Mahran, H. A. (2012). Financial intermediation and economic growth in Saudi
Arabia: An empirical analysis, 1968–2010. Modern Economy, 3(5), 626–640. doi:
10.4236/me.2012.35082
Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2002). The elusive concept of localization economies:
Towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering. Environment and Planning
A, 34(3), 429–449.
Malmberg, A., & Power, D. (2005). (How) do (firms in) clusters create knowledge?
Industry & Innovation, 12(4), 409–431. doi:10.1080/13662710500381583
Maskell, P. (2001). Knowledge creation and diffusion in geographic clusters.
International Journal of Innovation Management, 5(02), 213–237.
Mason, C. (2008). Virtual communities of enterprise value creation potential for
regional clusters. PhD dissertation, Deakin University. Retrieved from http://dro.
deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30023302/mason-virtualcommunities-2008.pdf
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integration model of
organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect and cognition-based trust as foundations for inter-
personal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1),
24–59.
McDonald, F., & Vertova, G. (2001). Geographical concentration and competitive-
ness in the European Union. European Business Review, 13(3), 157–165.
Menzel, M. P., & Fornahl, D. (2009). Cluster life cycles - Dimensions and rationales
of cluster evolution. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(1), 205–238. doi:10.1093/
icc/dtp036
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team
performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 535.
Migdadi, M. (2009). Knowledge management enablers and outcomes in the

small-and-medium sized enterprises. Industrial Management & Data Systems,
109(6), 840–858. doi:10.1108/02635570910968072
Ministry of Economy and Planning. (2022). News. Retrieved from http://www.mep.
gov.sa/en/news/
Mitchell, R., Burgess, J., & Waterhouse, J. (2010). Proximity and knowledge sharing
in clustered firms. International Journal of Globalisation and Small Business, 4(1),
5–24. doi:10.1504/IJGSB.2010.035328
Montana, J. P., & Nenide, B. (2008). The evolution of regional industry clusters and
their implications for sustainable economic development: Two case illustrations.
Economic Development Quarterly, 22(4), 290–302.
Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and
interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 77–91.
Newbert, S. L. (2008). Value, rareness, competitive advantage, and performance: A
conceptual-level empirical investigation of the resource-based view of the firm.
Strategic Management Journal, 29(7), 745–768. doi:10.1002/smj.686
Nieves, J., & Osorio, J. (2012). The role of social networks in knowledge creation.
Knowledge Management Research & Practice journal, 11(1), 62–77.
Ninan, A. (2005). What are the roles of networks and clusters in the operation of an
industry? PhD dissertation. Queensland University of Technology. Retrieved from
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/16090/
OECD. (1999). Managing national innovation systems. Retrieved from https://www.
oecd-ilibrary.org/industry-and-services/managing-national-innovation-systems_
9789264189416-en
Palazzolo, E. T. (2005). Organizing for information retrieval in transactive memory
systems. Communication Research, 32(6), 726–761.
Parkhe, A. (1993). Strategic alliance structuring: A game theoretic and transaction
cost examination of interfirm cooperation. Academy of Management Journal, 36(4),
794–829.
Pessoa, A. (2011). The cluster policy paradox: Externalities vs. comparative advantages.
FEP Working Paper 431. Faculdade de Economia - Universidade do Porto, Porto.
Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. London: Macmillan.
Porter, M. (1998a). Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business
Review, 76(6), 77–90.
Porter, M. (1998b). On competition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Porter, M. E., & Stern, S. (2001). Innovation: Location matters. MIT Sloan Man-
agement Review, 42(4), 28.
Putnam, R. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. The
American Prospect, 13(4).
Reed, A. Y. (2004). Heavenly ascent, angelic descent, and the transmission of
knowledge in 1 Enoch 6–16. Heavenly Realms and Earthly Realities in Late Antique
Religions, 47–66.
Redding, G. (2005). The thick description and comparison of societal systems of
capitalism. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(2), 123–155. Retrieved
from http://sfx.library.curtin.edu.au
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95–112.
94 Aliah Zafer
Royer, S., & Burgess, J. (2013). Towards a better understanding of value creation in
clustered firms. In Paper presented at TCI Annual Global Conference, Comwell
Kolding.
Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency. (2022). Annual reports. Retrieved from http://www.
sama.gov.sa
Saudi Vision 2030. (2016). Home. Retrieved from http://vision2030.gov.sa/en
Saunders, M., & Tosey, P. (2012). The layers of research design. Rapport: The
Magazine for NLP Professionals, 30(Winter), 58–59.
Schamp, E. W., Rentmeister, B., & Lo, V. (2004). Dimensions of proximity in
knowledge-based networks: The cases of investment banking and automobile
design. European Planning Studies, 12(5), 607–618.
Simmie, J., & Sennett, J. (1999). Innovative clusters: Global or local linkages?
National Institute Economic Review, 170, 87–98.
Solvell, O., Lindqvist, G., & Ketels, C. (2003). The cluster initiative greenbook.
Stockholm: Ivory Towers.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons,
and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. doi:10.1007/BF00988593
Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best
practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue),
27–43.
Szulanski, G., & Cappetta, R. (2003). Stickiness: Conceptualizing, measuring and
predicting difficulties in the transfer of knowledge within organization. In M.
Easterby-Smith & M. A. Lyles (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of organizational
learning and knowledge management (pp. 513–534). Thoas Oaks, CA: Sage.
Torsvik, G. (2000). Social capital and economic development: A plea for the mech-
anisms. Rationality and Society, 12(4), 451–476.
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm
networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.
Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic
performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review,
61(4), 674–698.
Uzzi, B. (1999). Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: How social relations
and networks benefit firms seeking financing. American Sociological Review, 64,
481–505.
Uzzi, B., & Gillespie, J. J. (2002). Knowledge spill over in corporate financing net-
works: Embeddedness and the firm’s debt performance. Strategic Management
Journal, 23(7), 595–618.
Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. P., & Lyles, M. A. (2007). Organizational knowledge
transfer: A metaanalytical review of its antecedents and outcomes. Academy of
Management Proceedings, 1, 1–6.
Walker, G., Kogut, B., & Shan, W. (1997). Social capital, structural holes and the
formation of an industry network. Organization Science, 8(2), 109–125.
Walsham, G. (1993). Interpreting information systems in organizations. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley.
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future
research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115–131.
Watson, S., & Hewett, K. (2006). A multi-theoretical model of knowledge transfer in

organizations: Determinants of knowledge contribution and knowledge reuse.
Journal of Management Studies, 43(2), 141–173.
Welch, D. E., & Welch, L. S. (2008). The importance of language in international
knowledge transfer. Management International Review, 48(3), 339–360.
Yeo, R. K., & Gold, J. (2014). Knowledge sharing attitude and behaviour in Saudi
Arabian organisations: Why trust matters. International Journal of Human
Resource Development and Management, 14(1–3), 97–118.
Yeo, R. K., & Marquardt, M. J. (2013). To share or not to share: Self-perception and
knowledge sharing intent. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 13(3),
311–328.
Yokakul, N., Zawdie, G., & Booth, P. (2010). The role of social capital, knowledge
exchange and the growth of indigenous knowledge-based industry in the Triple
Helix system: The case of SMEs in Thailand. In Proceedings Papers of the Triple
Helix IX Conference. Stanford University.
Yuan, Y. C., Fulk, J., & Monge, P. R. (2005). Social capital and transactive memory
systems in work groups: A multilevel approach. Academy of Management Pro-
ceedings, 1, C1–C6.
Yuan, C. Y., Fulk, J., & Monge, P. R. (2007). Access to information in connective and
communal transactive memory systems. Communication Research, 34(2), 131–154.
Zafer, A. (2017). Knowledge sharing in an emerging industry cluster: A Saudi Arabian
case study. Doctoral dissertation. Curtin University. Retrieved from https://espace.
curtin.edu.au/bitstream/handle/20.500.11937/56526/Zafer%20A%202017.pdf?
sequence51
Zeller, C. (2004). North Atlantic innovative relations of Swiss pharmaceuticals and the
proximities with regional biotech arenas. Economic Geography, 80(1), 83–111.
Zucker, L. G. (1986). The production of trust: Institutional sources of economic
structure, 1840–1920. Research in Organisational Behaviour, 8, 53–111.
Zuhur, S. (2011). Saudi Arabia (1st ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
96 Aliah Zafer
Appendix 1: Thematic Analysis Using NVivo
Annual Report of SAM Cluster 2014
Board of Director Reports 2013
CU Cluster Brochure 2013
CU Newsletter 2013
CU Fact Sheet 2013
CU Official Facebook Page 2013
Economic City Fact Sheet 2013
ED – Investor Relations Presentation 2014, 2013

Exhibit A Official Website (Accessed September 13)
Exhibit B Official Website (Accessed November 13)
Exhibit C Official Website (Accessed November 13)
HMF2 Company Profile
HMF6 Minute of Meetings 2013
HMF1 Official Website 2013 (Accessed August 14)
HMF3 Official Website 2013(Accessed August 14)
HMF6 Official Website (Accessed August 14)
SAM Cluster Newsletter (2013)
SAM Cluster Brochure (2012)
SAM Cluster Quarterly Magazines (2012, 2016)
V2 Company Profile (2013)

Chapter 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 3

Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms and

Keywords: Knowledge sharing; emerging industry cluster; Saudi Arabia;

Industry Clusters and Innovation in the Arab World, 57–97

clusters in facilitating knowledge sharing during the cluster’s initial stages of

(3) What obstacles exist to knowledge sharing?

Industry Clusters and Emerging Clusters

period and has developed an established infrastructure, membership, and repu-

Actor Interactions and Relationships

A Synopsis of the Research’s Contextual and Conceptual Framework

A Theoretical Framework for the Study of Knowledge Sharing in Emerging

Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms

Participating Lateral Actor’s Initial Participant’s Positions

also refers to an organization’s ability to create, identify, and generate maximum

Participating Actors Actor’s Initial Coding Participant’s Positions

Knowledge of Expertise Location

Table 3.4. Identiﬁcation of the Participants in the SAM Cluster.

Horizontal (6) Vertical (2) Lateral (3)

Interorganizational Trust and Social Capital

knowledge networks (Borgatti & Cross, 2003). By sharing knowledge and

history, politics, culture, and geography. Saudi Arabia is a self-governing Arab

Industrial Cluster Programs in Saudi Arabiaa

information and communication technology, and utilities (Economic Cities

is a constituent player and is responsible for the management of economic

process. Participants were classiﬁed as lateral, vertical, or horizontal actors. These

Findings of Data Analysis at the (Web Level) and (Firm Level)1

Links and Relationships Between Actors and the Type of Knowledge

SAM Cluster Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms

We (economic developers) invite all ﬁrms to meet with us (ECA) to

For example, some ﬁrms require daily washing of employee lap

Firm-Level Knowledge Sharing (Formal and Informal) Mechanisms

The e-forum is the cluster’s knowledge base. Workplace ideas and

The ED general manager said that “management meetings are scheduled

The monthly meeting is useful when they discuss manufacturing

HMF6 has some shady employees. I would not share knowledge

Mutual respect among actors resulted from previous collaboration and

Cluster Knowledge-Sharing Factors

Knowledge of Expertise Location

clusters was evident. The entrepreneurship program established in the cluster is a

We provide information about cluster rules, regulations, and

In order to build new infrastructure projects for the SAM cluster,

Trust developed in the SAM cluster today from mutual respect

Our economic, infrastructure and service divisions work with the

The government’s role in the cluster is to collaborate with the ED and

Through horizontal actor interaction, they established links between vertical

Our embeddedness and other SAM cluster factories help us

We want factories to use R&D centers as knowledge networks. So

I am unaware of formal restrictions or regulations prohibiting

Manufacturers in SAM approach the university to acquire a

SAM Cluster Knowledge Sharing Barriers

language barrier is especially a problem during telephone discussions because it is

Our approach as facilitators is to promote knowledge sharing by

“Some factories, like HMF6, are unwilling to share and keep

Discussion of the Findings

to web-level forms of knowledge (Brown et al., 2007a; Connell & Thorpe,

Factors Affecting SAM Cluster Knowledge Sharing

Knowledge of Expertise Location

Social Capital and Knowledge Sharing

Knowledge Brokers as Social Capital Bonders

Knowledge-Sharing Barriers in SAM Cluster

development, and develop mechanisms to strengthen cluster relationships. The

Implications and Research Contributions

The government may need to rethink knowledge-sharing mechanisms during

Research Contributions and Future Studies