IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/proeco/v230y2020ics0925527320301900.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Seeking coherence between barriers to manufacturing technology adoption and innovation policy

Author

Listed:
  • Bonnin Roca, Jaime
  • O'Sullivan, Eoin

Abstract

Manufacturing-enabling technologies (MET) play a key role in increasing the reliability of manufacturing processes, and help accelerate new product development and testing. Manufacturing firms are, however, often reluctant to develop MET themselves, as these may not be part of their core competencies nor easily appropriable. Government support can play a vital role in overcoming these barriers for firms. Ideally, this support should be tailored to the barriers associated with a specific technology. Existing studies do not provide insight into how these barriers differ across types of MET. Based on 26 interviews and approximately a hundred sources of archival data, we study the adoption of four types of MET for advanced composite materials in the aviation industry. We analyze what technology-level and market factors affect the adoption of each type of MET, and whether government programs have responded to industry's needs. We find significant heterogeneity in barriers to the adoption of different METs, and that government programs designed to foster manufacturing innovation do not readily adapt to these variations. In particular, they often do not account for factors such as MET technological interdependence, nature of learning (scientific versus trial-and-error), and the heterogeneity of the technology development community. Our findings, and recommendations for policymakers, can improve the alignment between the public support programs for MET and barriers to adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Bonnin Roca, Jaime & O'Sullivan, Eoin, 2020. "Seeking coherence between barriers to manufacturing technology adoption and innovation policy," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:proeco:v:230:y:2020:i:c:s0925527320301900
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107818
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925527320301900
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107818?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rothaermel, Frank T. & Thursby, Marie, 2007. "The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: Sources of productivity in incumbent firm research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 832-849, July.
    2. Martin, Stephen & Scott, John T., 2000. "The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 437-447, April.
    3. Pisano, Gary P., 1996. "Learning-before-doing in the development of new process technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(7), pages 1097-1119, October.
    4. Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, 1985. "Standardization, Compatibility, and Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(1), pages 70-83, Spring.
    5. Tassey, Gregory, 2000. "Standardization in technology-based markets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 587-602, April.
    6. Grid Thoma, 2009. "Striving for a large market: evidence from a general purpose technology in action," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 18(1), pages 107-138, February.
    7. Link, Albert N. & Siegel, Donald S. & Van Fleet, David D., 2011. "Public science and public innovation: Assessing the relationship between patenting at U.S. National Laboratories and the Bayh-Dole Act," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1094-1099, October.
    8. Francesco Caselli & Wilbur John Coleman, 2001. "Cross-Country Technology Diffusion: The Case of Computers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 328-335, May.
    9. Choi, Jay Pil & Thum, Marcel, 1998. "Market structure and the timing of technology adoption with network externalities," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 225-244, February.
    10. Fuchs, Erica R.H. & Field, Frank R. & Roth, Richard & Kirchain, Randolph E., 2011. "Plastic cars in China? The significance of production location over markets for technology competitiveness in the United States versus the People's Republic of China," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 79-92, July.
    11. Intarakumnerd, Patarapong & Goto, Akira, 2018. "Role of public research institutes in national innovation systems in industrialized countries: The cases of Fraunhofer, NIST, CSIRO, AIST, and ITRI," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1309-1320.
    12. Lynne, Gary D. & Franklin Casey, C. & Hodges, Alan & Rahmani, Mohammed, 1995. "Conservation technology adoption decisions and the theory of planned behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 581-598, December.
    13. Daron Acemoglu & Joshua Linn, 2004. "Market Size in Innovation: Theory and Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(3), pages 1049-1090.
    14. Bronwyn H. Hall, 2004. "Innovation and Diffusion," NBER Working Papers 10212, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Garth Saloner & Andrea Shepard, 1995. "Adoption of Technologies with Network Effects: An Empirical Examination of the Adoption of Teller Machines," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(3), pages 479-501, Autumn.
    16. Thomke, Stefan H., 1997. "The role of flexibility in the development of new products: An empirical study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 105-119, March.
    17. Edler, Jakob & Georghiou, Luke, 2007. "Public procurement and innovation--Resurrecting the demand side," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 949-963, September.
    18. von Hippel, Eric, 1976. "The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 212-239, July.
    19. Rao, Nirupama, 2016. "Do tax credits stimulate R&D spending? The effect of the R&D tax credit in its first decade," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 1-12.
    20. Marvin B. Lieberman & David B. Montgomery, 1988. "First‐mover advantages," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(S1), pages 41-58, June.
    21. Jeffrey T. Macher, 2006. "Technological Development and the Boundaries of the Firm: A Knowledge-Based Examination in Semiconductor Manufacturing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(6), pages 826-843, June.
    22. Foray, D. & Mowery, D.C. & Nelson, R.R., 2012. "Public R&D and social challenges: What lessons from mission R&D programs?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 1697-1702.
    23. Koskinen, Kaj U. & Vanharanta, Hannu, 2002. "The role of tacit knowledge in innovation processes of small technology companies," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 57-64, November.
    24. Höyssä, Maria & Hyysalo, Sampsa, 2009. "The fog of innovation: Innovativeness and deviance in developing new clinical testing equipment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 984-993, July.
    25. Jaikumar, Ramchandran, 2005. "From Filing and Fitting to Flexible Manufacturing: A Study in the Evolution of Process Control," Foundations and Trends(R) in Technology, Information and Operations Management, now publishers, vol. 1(1), pages 1-120, October.
    26. John V. Gray & Enno Siemsen & Gurneeta Vasudeva, 2015. "Colocation Still Matters: Conformance Quality and the Interdependence of R&D and Manufacturing in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(11), pages 2760-2781, November.
    27. Kim, Minkyun & Chai, Sangmi, 2017. "The impact of supplier innovativeness, information sharing and strategic sourcing on improving supply chain agility: Global supply chain perspective," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 42-52.
    28. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    29. Jan Youtie & Maurizio Iacopetta & Stuart Graham, 2008. "Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: can we uncover an emerging general purpose technology?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 315-329, June.
    30. Cui, Anna Shaojie & Griffith, David A. & Cavusgil, S. Tamer & Dabic, Marina, 2006. "The influence of market and cultural environmental factors on technology transfer between foreign MNCs and local subsidiaries: A Croatian illustration," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 100-111, June.
    31. Koh, S.C.L. & Gunasekaran, A. & Cooper, J.R., 2009. "The demand for training and consultancy investment in SME-specific ERP systems implementation and operation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 241-254, November.
    32. Dalenogare, Lucas Santos & Benitez, Guilherme Brittes & Ayala, Néstor Fabián & Frank, Alejandro Germán, 2018. "The expected contribution of Industry 4.0 technologies for industrial performance," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 383-394.
    33. Erica Fuchs & Randolph Kirchain, 2010. "Design for Location? The Impact of Manufacturing Offshore on Technology Competitiveness in the Optoelectronics Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(12), pages 2323-2349, December.
    34. Richard R Nelson & Alexander Peterhansl & Bhaven Sampat, 2004. "Why and how innovations get adopted: a tale of four models," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 13(5), pages 679-699, October.
    35. Fleck, James, 1994. "Learning by trying: the implementation of configurational technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 637-652, November.
    36. Ikujiro Nonaka & Georg von Krogh, 2009. "Perspective---Tacit Knowledge and Knowledge Conversion: Controversy and Advancement in Organizational Knowledge Creation Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 635-652, June.
    37. Bohn, Roger E., 2005. "From Art to Science in Manufacturing: The Evolution of Technological Knowledge," Foundations and Trends(R) in Technology, Information and Operations Management, now publishers, vol. 1(2), pages 1-82, October.
    38. Grimaldi, Rosa & Kenney, Martin & Siegel, Donald S. & Wright, Mike, 2011. "30 years after Bayh-Dole: Reassessing academic entrepreneurship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(8), pages 1045-1057, October.
    39. Agnew, Andrew & Forrester, Paul & Hassard, John & Procter, Stephen, 1997. "Deskilling and reskilling within the labour process: The case of computer integrated manufacturing," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 317-324, October.
    40. Choi, Joonhwan & Lee, Jaegul, 2017. "Repairing the R&D market failure: Public R&D subsidy and the composition of private R&D," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1465-1478.
    41. Wiegmann, Paul Moritz & de Vries, Henk J. & Blind, Knut, 2017. "Multi-mode standardisation: A critical review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1370-1386.
    42. Albert Link & Donald Siegel, 2005. "Generating science-based growth: an econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry technology transfer," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 169-181.
    43. Daniel Holbrook & Wesley M. Cohen & David A. Hounshell & Steven Klepper, 2000. "The nature, sources, and consequences of firm differences in the early history of the semiconductor industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1017-1041, October.
    44. Nile W. Hatch & David C. Mowery, 1998. "Process Innovation and Learning by Doing in Semiconductor Manufacturing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(11-Part-1), pages 1461-1477, November.
    45. Bonnín Roca, Jaime & Vaishnav, Parth & Morgan, M.Granger & Mendonça, Joana & Fuchs, Erica, 2017. "When risks cannot be seen: Regulating uncertainty in emerging technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1215-1233.
    46. Terwiesch, Christian & E. Bohn, Roger, 2001. "Learning and process improvement during production ramp-up," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 1-19, March.
    47. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1972. "Factors affecting the diffusion of technology," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 3-33.
    48. Featherston, Charles R. & O'Sullivan, Eoin, 2017. "Enabling technologies, lifecycle transitions, and industrial systems in technology foresight: Insights from advanced materials FTA," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 261-277.
    49. Balconi, Margherita, 2002. "Tacitness, codification of technological knowledge and the organisation of industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 357-379, March.
    50. Aharonson, Barak S. & Schilling, Melissa A., 2016. "Mapping the technological landscape: Measuring technology distance, technological footprints, and technology evolution," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 81-96.
    51. Blind, Knut & Thumm, Nikolaus, 2004. "Interrelation between patenting and standardisation strategies: empirical evidence and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(10), pages 1583-1598, December.
    52. Metcalfe, J S, 1995. "Technology Systems and Technology Policy in an Evolutionary Framework," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 19(1), pages 25-46, February.
    53. Chong, Alain Yee-Loong & Ooi, Keng-Boon & Sohal, Amrik, 2009. "The relationship between supply chain factors and adoption of e-Collaboration tools: An empirical examination," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 150-160, November.
    54. Bar, Talia & Leiponen, Aija, 2012. "A measure of technological distance," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(3), pages 457-459.
    55. Rosenberg, Nathan, 1992. "Scientific instrumentation and university research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 381-390, August.
    56. Albert Link & Stan Metcalfe, 2008. "Technology Infrastructure: Introduction To The Special Issue," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(7-8), pages 611-614.
    57. Kakati, M., 1997. "Strategic evaluation of advanced manufacturing technology," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 141-156, November.
    58. Bernadette Szajna, 1996. "Empirical Evaluation of the Revised Technology Acceptance Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(1), pages 85-92, January.
    59. Nightingale, P., 2000. "The product-process-organisation relationship in complex development projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(7-8), pages 913-930, August.
    60. Riggs, William & von Hippel, Eric, 1994. "Incentives to innovate and the sources of innovation: the case of scientific instruments," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 459-469, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Senna, Pedro P. & Bonnin Roca, Jaime & Barros, Ana C., 2023. "Overcoming barriers to manufacturing digitalization: Policies across EU countries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    2. Bonnín Roca, Jaime & Vaishnav, Parth & Morgan, Granger M. & Fuchs, Erica & Mendonça, Joana, 2021. "Technology Forgiveness: Why emerging technologies differ in their resilience to institutional instability," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bonnín Roca, Jaime & Vaishnav, Parth & Morgan, Granger M. & Fuchs, Erica & Mendonça, Joana, 2021. "Technology Forgiveness: Why emerging technologies differ in their resilience to institutional instability," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    2. Bonnín Roca, Jaime & Vaishnav, Parth & Morgan, M.Granger & Mendonça, Joana & Fuchs, Erica, 2017. "When risks cannot be seen: Regulating uncertainty in emerging technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1215-1233.
    3. John V. Gray & Enno Siemsen & Gurneeta Vasudeva, 2015. "Colocation Still Matters: Conformance Quality and the Interdependence of R&D and Manufacturing in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(11), pages 2760-2781, November.
    4. RAITERI Emilio, 2015. "A time to nourish? Evaluating the impact of innovative public procurement on technological generality through patent data," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2015-05, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    5. Das Nilotpal & Falaris Evangelos M & Mulligan James G, 2009. "Vintage Effects and the Diffusion of Time-Saving Technological Innovations," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-37, June.
    6. Liikanen, Jukka & Stoneman, Paul & Toivanen, Otto, 2004. "Intergenerational effects in the diffusion of new technology: the case of mobile phones," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(8-9), pages 1137-1154, November.
    7. James A. Cunningham & Matthias Menter & Chris Young, 2017. "A review of qualitative case methods trends and themes used in technology transfer research," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 923-956, August.
    8. Narayanan, V.K. & Chen, Tianxu, 2012. "Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1375-1406.
    9. Christian Sandström & Karl Wennberg & Martin W. Wallin & Yulia Zherlygina, 2018. "Public policy for academic entrepreneurship initiatives: a review and critical discussion," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 1232-1256, October.
    10. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    11. Senna, Pedro P. & Bonnin Roca, Jaime & Barros, Ana C., 2023. "Overcoming barriers to manufacturing digitalization: Policies across EU countries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    12. Christoph March & Ina Schieferdecker, 2021. "Technological Sovereignty as Ability, Not Autarky," CESifo Working Paper Series 9139, CESifo.
    13. Yang, Chia-Hsuan & Nugent, Rebecca & Fuchs, Erica R.H., 2016. "Gains from others’ losses: Technology trajectories and the global division of firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 724-745.
    14. Raiteri, Emilio, 2018. "A time to nourish? Evaluating the impact of public procurement on technological generality through patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 936-952.
    15. Martin Kalthaus, 2020. "Knowledge recombination along the technology life cycle," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 643-704, July.
    16. Simon Wiederhold, 2012. "The Role of Public Procurement in Innovation: Theory and Empirical Evidence," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 43.
    17. Fabrizio, Kira R. & Poczter, Sharon & Zelner, Bennet A., 2017. "Does innovation policy attract international competition? Evidence from energy storage," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1106-1117.
    18. Doblinger, Claudia & Surana, Kavita & Li, Deyu & Hultman, Nathan & Anadón, Laura Díaz, 2022. "How do global manufacturing shifts affect long-term clean energy innovation? A study of wind energy suppliers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    19. Aaron K. Chatterji & Kira Fabrizio, 2012. "How Do Product Users Influence Corporate Invention?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 971-987, August.
    20. Mario Benassi & Elena Grinza & Francesco Rentocchini & Laura Rondi, 2020. "Going Revolutionary: The Impact of 4IR Technology Development on Firm Performance," SEEDS Working Papers 0720, SEEDS, Sustainability Environmental Economics and Dynamics Studies, revised Jul 2020.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:proeco:v:230:y:2020:i:c:s0925527320301900. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.