Advertisement

External Learning Opportunities and the Diffusion of Process Innovations to Small Firms: The Case of Programmable Automation

  • Maryellen R. Kelley
  • Harvey Brooks

Abstract

In this chapter, we are concerned with explaining which types of firms have failed to adopt well-known improvements in process technology. This problem has, of course, been the underlying concern of all studies of diffusion “to rationalize why, if a new technology is superior, it is not taken up by all potential adopters” (Stoneman, 1983). Drawing on various theoretical perspectives, we identify a number of different barriers to adoption. With data collected from a 1987 nationally representative sample of US establishments in 21 metal-working and machinery manufacturing industries, we then construct a multivariate logistic regression model to empirically test for the effects of these factors on the likelihood of adoption of a particular process innovation, namely programmable automation (PA) machine tools.

Keywords

Machine Tool Firm Size Small Firm Large Firm Process Innovation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abernathy, W.J. and Clark, K.B., 1985, Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction, Research Policy 14: 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow, K., 1962, The economic implications of learning by doing, Review of Economic Studies 29: 155–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayres, R.U. and Miller, S.M., 1982, Robotics and conservation of human resources, Technology in Society 4: 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becattini, G., ed., 1987, Mercato e Forze Locali: Il Distretto Industriale, Il Mulino, Bologna, Italy.Google Scholar
  5. Becattini, G., 1989, Sectors and/or districts: Some remarks on the conceptual foundations of industrial economics, in E. Goodman et al.,eds., Small Firms and Industrial Districts in Italy,Routledge and Kegan Paul, London and New York.Google Scholar
  6. Bellandi, M., 1989, The industrial district in Marshall, in E. Goodman et al. (ibid).Google Scholar
  7. Bohn, R.E., 1987, Learning Experimentation in Manufacturing, Harvard Business School Working Paper No. 88–001, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  8. Bohn, R.E. and Jaikumar, R., 1986, The development of intelligent systems for industrial use: A conceptual framework, Research on Technological Innovation, Management and Policy 3: 169–211.Google Scholar
  9. Brusco, S., 1982, The Emilian model: Productive decentralization and social integration, Cambridge Journal of Economics 6 (2): 167–184.Google Scholar
  10. Brusco, S., 1986, Small firms and industrial districts: The experience of Italy, in D. Keeble and F. Weever, eds., New Firms and Regional Development, Croom Helm, London, UK.Google Scholar
  11. Carlsson, B., 1989, The evolution of manufacturing technology and its impact on industrial structure: An international study, Small Business Economics 1: 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clark, K.B., 1980, Unionization and productivity: Micro-economic evidence, Quarterly Journal of Economics:613–639, December.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A., 1990, Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation, Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Collis, D.J., 1988, The Machine tool industry and industrial policy, 1955–82, in M.A. Spence and H.A. Hazard, eds., International Competitiveness, Ballinger Publishing Co., Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  15. Cusamano, M., 1985, The Japanese Automobile Industry: Technology and Management at Nissan and Toyota, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  16. David, P.A., 1969, A Contribution to the Theory of Diffusion, Stanford Center for Research in Economic Growth, Memorandum No. 71, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  17. David, P.A., 1975, Technical Choice, Innovation and Economic Growth, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Dewar, R.D. and Dutton, J.E., 1986, The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis, Management Science 12:1422–1433, November.Google Scholar
  19. Dore, R., 1986, Flexible Rigidities: Industrial Policy and Structural Adjustment in the Japanese Economy 1970–1980, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  20. Dosi, G., 1982, Technological paradigm and technological trajectories, Research Policy 11(3):147–162.Google Scholar
  21. Dosi, G., 1988, Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation, Journal of Economic Literature 26: 1120–1171.Google Scholar
  22. Dosi, G., 1989, The research on innovation diffusion: An assessment, in A. Del Monte, ed., Recent Developments in Industrial Organization, MacMillan, London, UK.Google Scholar
  23. Edquist, C. and Jacobsson, S., 1988, Flexible Automation: The Global Diffusion of New Technology in the Engineering Industry, Basil Blackwell, Oxford and New York.Google Scholar
  24. Ettlie, J.E., Bridges, W.P., and O’Keefe, R.D., 1984, Organization strategy and structural differences for radical vs. incremental innovation, Management Science 30: 682–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ettlie, J.E. and Rubenstein, A.H., 1980, Social learning theory and the implementation of production innovations, Decision Sciences 11: 648–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Florida, R. and Kenney, M., 1989, High technology restructuring in the USA and Japan, Environment and Planning A 22 (2): 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Freeman, C., 1988, Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons From Japan, Pinter Publishers, London and New York.Google Scholar
  28. Freeman, C. and Perez, C., 1986, The Diffusion of Technical Innovations and Changes in Techno-economic Paradigm, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, UK.Google Scholar
  29. Freeman, R.B. and Medoff, J.L., 1984, What Do Unions Do? Basic Books, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  30. Gold, B., 1981, Changing perspectives on size, scale, and returns: An interpretive survey, Journal of Economic Literature 19: 5–33.Google Scholar
  31. Gorte, J.F., 1990, Making Things Better: Competing in Manufacturing, OTA-ITE Report No. 443, US Government Printing Office, Office of Technology Assessment of the US Congress, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  32. Granovetter, M., 1985, Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness, American Journal of Sociology 91:481–510, November.Google Scholar
  33. Griliches, Z., 1960, Hybrid corn and the economics of innovation, Science 3422: 275–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Guile, B., 1986, Investigation of a Transaction-cost Approach to Market Failures in the Development and Diffusion of Manufacturing Technologies, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management (October), Austin, TX, USA.Google Scholar
  35. Hage, J., 1980, Theories of Organizations: Form, Process and Transformation, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  36. Hage, J., Collins, P.D., Hull, F., and Teachman, J., 1989, Liabilities of Organizational Form in a Family of Populations: The Case of Capital Intensive American Manufacturing in 1973–87, Working Paper, Center for Innovation and Department of Sociology (July), University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.Google Scholar
  37. Harley, C.K., 1973, On the persistence of old techniques: The case of North American shipbuilding, Journal of Economic History 33: 372–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Harrison, B. and Kelley, M.R., 1991, Outsourcing and the search for flexibility: The morphology of “Contracting Out” in US manufacturing, in M. Storper and A.J. Scott, eds., Pathways to Industrialization and Regional Development in the 1990s, Unwin Hyman, Boston and London.Google Scholar
  39. Hicks, D.A., 1983, Automation Technology and Industrial Renewal: Adjustment Dynamics in the US Metalworking Industry, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  40. Hirschhorn, L.J., 1984, Beyond Mechanization: Work and Technology in a Postindustrial Age, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  41. Howland, M., 1988, Plant Closing and Worker Displacement: The Regional Issues, W.E. Upjohn Institute, Kalamazoo, MI, USA.Google Scholar
  42. Johnson, C., 1982, MITI and the Japanese Miracle: The Growth of Industrial Policy, 1925–1975, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  43. Kaplinsky, R., 1984, Automation: The Technology and Society, Longman, Harlow, UK.Google Scholar
  44. Kelley, M.R., 1989a, An assessment of the skill-upgrading and training opportunities for blue-Collar workers under programmable automation, Industrial Relations Research Association: Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting, pp. 301–308, July.Google Scholar
  45. Kelley, M.R., 1989b, Alternative forms of work organization under programmable automation, in S. Wood, ed., The Transformation of Work? Unwin Hyman, London, UK.Google Scholar
  46. Kelley, M.R., 1989c, Unionization and job design under programmable automation, Industrial Relations 28: 174–187.Google Scholar
  47. Kelley, M.R., 1990a, New process technology, job design, and work organization: A contingency model, American Sociological Review 55: 191–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kelley, M.R., 1990b, Plant, Process, and Product-Specific Determinants of Efficiency in the Use of New Technology: The Case of Programmable Automation, Working Paper No. 90–26, School of Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  49. Kelley, M.R. and Brooks, H., 1988, The State of Computerized Automation in US Manufacturing, Center for Business and Government, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  50. Kelley, M.R. and Harrison, B., 1990, The subcontracting behavior of single vs. multi-plant enterprises in US manufacturing: Implications for economic development, World Development, September.Google Scholar
  51. Kelley, M.R. and Xue, L., 1990, Does decentralization of programming responsibilities increase efficiency? An empirical test, in W. Karwowski and M. Rahimi, eds., Ergonomics of Advanced Manufacturing and Hybrid Automated Systems II, Elsevier Science Publishers, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  52. Kenney, M. and Florida, R., 1989, Reindustrialization Within Deindustrialization: Japanese Steel, Rubber and Automobile Production in the United States, Working Paper No. 89–58, School of Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.Google Scholar
  53. Kern, H. and Schumann, M., 1984, Das Ende der Arbeitsteilung? Beck, Munich, FRG.Google Scholar
  54. Kern, H. and Schumann, M., 1987, The limits of the division of labor: New production and employment concepts in West German industry, Economic and Social Democracy 8 (2).Google Scholar
  55. Kochan, T.A., 1985, Worker participation and American unions, in T. Kochan, ed., Challenges and Choices Facing American Labor, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  56. Kusterer, K., 1978, Know-How on the Job: The Important Working Knowledge of “Unskilled” Workers, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, USA.Google Scholar
  57. Leonard-Barton, D., 1988, Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization, Research Policy 17: 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lorenz, E., 1989, The search for flexibility: Subcontracting networks in French and British engineering, in P. Hirst and J. Zeitlin, eds., Reversing Industrial Decline? Berg, Leamington Spa, UK.Google Scholar
  59. Mansfield, E., 1968, Industrial Research and Technological Innovation, Norton & Co., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  60. Mansfield, E., Rapoport, J., Romeo, A., Villani, E., Wagner, S., and Husic, F., 1977, The Production and Application of New Industrial Technology, Norton & Co., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  61. March, J.G., 1981, Footnotes to organizational change, Administrative Science Quarterly 26: 563–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. March, J.G. and Simon, H.A., 1958, Organizations, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  63. Metcalfe, J.S., 1990, On Diffusion, Investment and the Process of Technological Change, paper presented at the conference on Technology and Investment, sponsored by the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences, the Swedish Ministry of Industry, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Stockholm, Sweden, January 21–24.Google Scholar
  64. Minato, T., 1986, A Comparison of Japanese and American Interfirm Production Systems, unpublished mimeo, School of International Politics, Economics, and Business, Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  65. Nabseth, L. and Ray, G.F., eds., 1974, The Diffusion of New Industrial Processes: An International Study, Cambridge University Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
  66. Nelson, R.R., 1990, Capitalism as an Engine of Progress, Research Policy 19: 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G., 1977, In search of a useful theory of innovation, Research Policy 6: 36–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G., 1982, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  69. Parsons, C., Scott, R., Crozier, P., and Guile, B., 1984, The Development of Programmable Automation Systems in Discrete Parts Manufacturing Industries: Agricultural Machinery; Auto Paris; and Pumps and Compressors, unpublished paper of the Berkeley Roundtable on International Economy, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  70. Pavitt, K. and Pari, P., 1988, The international distribution and determinants of technological activities, Oxford Review of Economic Policy 4: 35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Perez, C., 1986, The new technologies: An integrated view (translation of Las Nuevas Tecnologias: Una Vios de Conjunto), in C. Ominami, ed., La Tercera Revolucion Industrial: Impactos Internacionales del Actual Viraje Tecnologico, Grupo Editor Latinoamericano, Buenos Aires, Argentina.Google Scholar
  72. Piore, M. and Sabel, C., 1984, The Second Industrial Divide, Basic Books, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  73. Rogers, E., 1983, Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  74. Rosenberg, N., 1972, Factors affecting the diffusion of technology, Explorations in Economic History 10: 3–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rosenberg, N., 1982, Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  76. Rosenthal, S.R., 1984, Managerial Perspectives on Factory Automation in the USA, Manufacturing Roundtable Research Report Series, Boston University, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  77. Sabel, C., 1989, Flexible specialization and the reemergence of regional economies, in B. Hirst and J. Zeitlin, eds., Reversing Industrial Decline? Berg, Leamington Spa, UK.Google Scholar
  78. Salter, W.E.G., 1960, Productivity and Technical Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  79. Sato, Y., 1983, The subcontracting production (Shitauke) system in Japan, Keio Business Review, Keio University, Tokyo, No. 21: 1–25.Google Scholar
  80. Saxonhouse, G., 1974, A tale of Japanese technological diffusion in the Meiji period, Journal of Economic History 34: 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schmenner, R., 1982, Making Business Location Decisions, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
  82. Scott, W.R., 1987, Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems, 2nd edition, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA.Google Scholar
  83. Shapira, P., 1990., Modernizing Manufacturing: New Policies to Build Industrial Extension Services, Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  84. Shoko Chukin Bank, 1988, Fact-Finding Survey on Subcontractors in the Machinery Industries, Tokyo (available only in Japanese; privately translated for us).Google Scholar
  85. Simon, H.A., 1957, Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment, Models of Man: Social and Rational, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
  86. Skinner, W., 1986, The productivity paradox, Harvard Business Review:55–59, July-August.Google Scholar
  87. Stoneman, P., 1980, The rate of imitation, learning, and profitability, Economic Letters 6: 179–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Stoneman, P., 1983, The Economic Analysis of Technological Change, Oxford University Press, London, UK.Google Scholar
  89. Trevor, M., and Christie, I., 1988, Manufacturers and Suppliers in Britain and Japan, Policy Studies Institute, London, UK.Google Scholar
  90. Tushman, M.L. and Anderson, P., 1986, Technological discontinuities and organizational environments, Administrative Science Quarterly 31: 439–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Utterback, J.M., 1988, Innovation and industrial evolution in manufacturing industries, in B.R. Guile and H. Brooks, eds., Technology and Global Industry: Companies and Nations in the World Economy, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  92. von Hippel, E., 1988, The Sources of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York and Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maryellen R. Kelley
  • Harvey Brooks

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations