Each innovation cluster was then labelled as one of the following innovation cluster types: 

Diverse innovation clusters: co-located groups of firms that do not specialise in the same industrial sectors but also lack solid evidence of collaboration within the cluster.

Specialised innovation clusters: co-located groups of firms that specialise in the same industrial sectors, but with no evidence to suggest collaboration within the cluster.

R&D collaborating innovation clusters: co-located groups of firms with solid evidence of collaboration within the cluster.

Dispersed innovation communities: Groups of firms where there is evidence of collaboration within the cluster, but the collaborations are spatially dispersed rather than co-located in a single place.

Key findings

• There is a low correlation between the number of clusters per sector and the average turnover or employment per sector. This suggests that sector size and cluster size are not suitable indicators of cluster success or potential.
• Clusters that collaborate on UK R&D projects are correlated with higher average turnovers across a wide variety of sectors.
• Strong collaborations between clusters of the same sector and clusters across related sectors such as Engineering.
• Some of the strongest collaboration networks span at least 150km between research intensive universities, research organisations, and firms.
• Greater London is currently the core knowledge hub in collaborative relationships, with other knowledge hubs including Hampshire, Bristol, Birmingham and Manchester.
• Beyond research-intensive areas, places tend to cooperate more frequently with partners in their own geographical region regardless of industrial co-location.
• Industrial co-location generally occurs because sectors have resource needs that are satisfied by similar locations.
• The unevenness of public R&D funding distribution across sectors reflects the different propensities and levels of competence across sectors in seeking innovation funding.
• Since 2016, emerging sectors like Fintech have received more private than public funding per firm compared to traditional sectors like Machinery.
• Sectors with greater levels of positive social externality such as social work and care or water and waste received relatively lower levels of private funding compared to public funding.
• Across the UK, all regions host the top-3 largest clusters for at least one sector. For example. The North West region hosts the top-3 largest clusters in 39 sectors.

Recommendations 

• A broader range of indicators should be explored when identifying cluster potential for growth, and craft interventions based on industry-specific expertise.  

• Regional support to satisfy requirements such as talent pool, land space and accessibility is crucial to build and sustain clusters.

• Insights from the interactive tool will be even more valuable if supplemented with local intelligence and qualitative research to explore enablers and barriers to cluster growth and productivity.

• When developing policies to boost knowledge sharing across sectors and places, it is important to consider wider collaboration networks. While regional proximity and sectoral similarity promotes collaboration between clusters, firms are willing and able to span long distances to engage in research-intensive hubs.