The Brest ICT cluster (in english).

What can we say about the ITC Brest cluster perspectives ?

Based on the interviews and our own analysis, we can say that what we have observed is not

counterintuitive regarding the behaviour of an evolutive social and complex interacting system

as a well-functioned cluster should be. The basic elements, firms, research/education institutions

and local authorities, before interacting all together in a richer manner, have to develop trust

with one another, and for that, tend to favour dynamic and repeated bilateral interactions10. It is

what we have observed within the cluster and it is the signal of a “normal” development

process. However, a danger exists of a lock-in situation and a frozen situation if relational

density does not increase. Network innovation, local base knowledge appears as soon as

information and tacit knowledge diffuse easily within the cluster, in this sense, the recent “small

world” theory (Watts, 1999) highlight the underlie interaction structure and collective

organization that optimise the diffusion. Without go in further details11, one can say that an

optimal collective organisation relies on a mix of strong local interaction (cohesion or

cliquishness) and global interaction (accessibility), what does it means exactly for the collective

organisation of the cluster ?

A well-functioning cluster needs to be locally connected, and these ties must be dynamic and

evolutive. It is a way of easily and quickly diffusing new ideas and good practices and, finally,

supporting radical or incremental innovation. With a future ICT federative program, Brest is

attempting to stimulate this local cohesion but a good way is also including new coherent

elements in the system, ie. start-ups to recompose and support new interactions. Here again,

Brest seems to be on the right track with affirmative support for entrepreneurship and an active

incubator policy.

However, a well-functioned cluster must also be connected with the outside

and in this domain, the Brest cluster seems not so well-connected : except for the key companies

and some others of the cluster, the connections with abroad are relatively scarce.

There is clearly a problem of accessibility to and from Brest but the cluster is also suffering

from a hub and spoke architecture with an insufficient diffusion of information and tacit

knowledge, from Thales or Alcatel, to the other actors of Cluster. The strictly pair wise

interactions between these large firms and their spin-offs brake the evolution of the interactions

and the local diffusion. More can be do to support the development of the cluster, passing a

crucial tipping point and leaving a frozen situation.

As far as the behaviour of the local authority is concerned, the ICT ambitions are not clear.

Several development programs are now engaged and depending on the level of institutional

actor (Cluster with “technopole Brest Iroise, Agglomeration with “CUB” or Regional), the

number of interlocutors are numerous, probably too much. A possible clarification is possible

with a reinforcement of the prerogatives of the “technopole Brest Iroise” and a stronger

communication and cluster policy. At last, a possible polycentric strategy with the other

Brittany clusters could be considered in order to prevent a risk of an under-critical mass lock-in

situation. Of course, there is a danger to an over-specialization, but an identification of

complementarities between Lannion and Brest could be a good development strategy.

The capacity to attract ICT foreign companies or stimulate the delocation of a national company

is not really the role of the “technopole Brest Iroise” association, on the other hand, the internal

and external promotion of the cluster is. We recommend strongly improving the internal communication with a more active “who is who” policy. There is a directory, but it is too

formal and probably inadequate for internal communication. One could stimulates informal

meetings or events on the cluster.

We recommend also external communication. As previously

mentioned, Brest is suffering from an image deficit while many natural assets are present. Non-

Brittany ICT workers must know that. Besides, Brest must not forget that amenities, cultural

and nightlife are important for young well-educated. Currently, and some interviewees have

remarked this, Brest is not quite pro-active in this way while city is not very well equipped.

The virtuous circle of agglomeration with positive feedback effect begins to occur when

negative externalities of agglomeration are inferior to positive externalities of agglomeration.

Today, and for the Brest ICT Cluster, the difference between both is insufficiently positive. The

negative externalities are not really present in Brest (low congestion, low rent, ...), that is the

reason why a local effort must be focused on the positive externalities (urban amenities,

transport, ...) associated with a more affirmative ICT image.

Les initiatives en faveur du e-gouvernement dans

l’agglomération brestoise.

La ville de Brest fait figure de ville leader en France en matière de soutien aux usages publics et citoyens de l’Internet. Sans être aussi en avance que certaines en matière d’administration électronique et de gestion électronique de la relation citoyenne (on trouve par exemple très peu de télé-procédures administratives, des sites Internet portails très descriptifs et présentant très peu d’interactions avec l’usagers, pas d’alerte SMS non plus comme on peut le voir ailleurs), elle n’en reste pas moins novatrice en ce qui concerne le développement d’un Internet citoyen et ses initiatives en matière de démocratie électronique, notamment autour des pratiques de co-publication, sont nationalement reconnues.

Ces actions, qui sont récompensées par la distinction du label national « ville Internet », sont principalement des

politiques qui visent à renforcer les usages individuels et citoyens de l’Internet tout en luttant contre les exclusions numériques. Ceci passe donc par une politique forte de formation et de mise à disposition d’accès publics subventionnés. Longtemps pénalisé par une législation très

rigoureuse en matière d’aménagement infrastructurelle, les récents assouplissements vont permettre à la ville de relâcher la contrainte associée à un marché non seulement encore largement dominé par l’opérateur historique en ce qui concerne les très grosses infrastructures mais aussi parce que les technologies haut-débits alternatives restent encore peu diffusées.

Toutefois, ici encore, la ville de Brest reste très active en la matière puisqu’elle supporte et promeut de telles technologies comme la BLR et plus généralement les technologies sans-fils.

Le désenclavement géographique et sociale étant une double condition nécessaire de la réussite du pari municipal d’un Internet citoyen et d’une démocratie locale participative.

Comme dans beaucoup de villes en France qui font figure de pionnières, ces politiques sont très souvent portées par des individus et des équipes municipales et de ce point de vue, elles restent soumises à l’aléa électoral. Le risque existe par conséquent que des projets, qui s’inscrivent dans le temps long et/ou trop marqués politiquement, avortent.

Malgré tout, de tels risques apparaissent minimisés dès lors que les projets locaux s’inscrivent dans des logiques nationales. Il en va ainsi de tout ce qui concerne les projets attenants à l’administration électronique, carte électronique ou encore ceux relatifs aux procédures de

vote électronique et qui ont la faveur et le soutien de l’Etat. Encore peu développés à Brest, ces axes de développement peuvent constituer des stratégies pérennes de soutien aux usages des TIC par les citoyens et sont facteurs d’améliorations de la gestion électronique de la relation citoyenne.