Search results

As traditional manufacturing, previously vital to the UK economy, is increasingly outsourced to lower‐cost locations, policy makers seek leadership in emerging industries by encouraging innovative start‐up firms to pursue competitive opportunities. Emerging industries can either be those where a technology exists but the corresponding downstream value chain is unclear, or a new technology may subvert the existing value chain to satisfy existing customer needs. Hence, this area shows evidence of both technology‐push and market‐pull forces. The purpose of this paper is to focus on market‐pull and technology‐push orientations in manufacturing ventures, specifically examining how and why this orientation shifts during the firm's formative years.

A multiple case study approach of 25 UK start‐ups in emerging industries is used to examine this seldom explored area. The authors offer two models of dynamic business‐orientation in start‐ups and explain the common reasons for shifts in orientation and why these two orientations do not generally co‐exist during early firm development.

Separate evolution paths were found for strategic orientation in manufacturing start‐ups and separate reasons for them to shift in their early development. Technology‐push start‐ups often changed to a market‐pull orientation because of new partners, new market information or shift in management priorities. In contrast, many of the start‐ups beginning with a market‐pull orientation shifted to a technology‐push orientation because early market experiences necessitated a focus on improving processes in order to increase productivity or meet partner specifications, or meet a demand for complementary products.

While a significant body of work exists regarding manufacturing strategy in established firms, little work has been found that investigates how manufacturing strategy emerges in start‐up companies, particularly those in emerging industries.

This study analyzes how the innovation ecosystem helps integrate technology-push and market-pull strategies in the Industry 4.0 paradigm.

This study investigates companies' involvement in the Industry 4.0 paradigm through technology-push strategies, and through both technology-push and market-pull strategies. The authors perform two econometric logit models to test the influence of collaborations with heterogeneous actors, research and university relationships, and relations with business incubator (the pivot actor) on companies' involvement in Industry 4.0.

The study empirically shows that developing relationships with a greater diversity of actors, collaborating with university and research laboratories, and developing intense relationships with business incubator increase the likelihood for companies to integrate both technology-push and market-pull strategies in companies' involvement in the Industry 4.0 paradigm.

This study provides insights to practitioners who are interested or involved in the new Industry 4.0 paradigm. The authors' study explains how specific features of an innovation ecosystem, such as complex interactions among actors, can stimulate creative ideas and successfully implement innovations to address Industry 4.0 challenges.

First, the authors confirm the role of the innovation ecosystem on companies' involvement in the Industry 4.0 paradigm. Second, the authors study highlights that the innovation ecosystem is a new relevant framework that enables companies to integrate both technology-push and market-pull strategies. Third, we provide empirical evidence about the role of business incubator on firms' strategies to get involved in the Industry 4.0 paradigm.

Develops an original 12‐step management of technology protocol and applies it to 51 applications which range from Du Pont’s failure in Nylon to the Single Online Trade Exchange for Auto Parts procurement by GM, Ford, Daimler‐Chrysler and Renault‐Nissan. Provides many case studies with regards to the adoption of technology and describes seven chief technology officer characteristics. Discusses common errors when companies invest in technology and considers the probabilities of success. Provides 175 questions and answers to reinforce the concepts introduced. States that this substantial journal is aimed primarily at the present and potential chief technology officer to assist their survival and success in national and international markets.

Integrating supplier innovation is considered an effective strategy to reduce uncertainty at the fuzzy front end (FFE). However, the large number of supplier innovation resources and the task environment forces buying firms to precisely identify more valuable or interesting innovation resources for integration. The impact of the interaction between supplier innovation and task environment on FFE performance needs to be further explored. Therefore, this paper aims to propose a contingency framework to examine the relationship between supplier innovation (technology-push and market-pull) and buying firm’s FFE performance in different task environments, with the aim of clarifying which supplier innovation resources should be integrated to create high FFE performance in the face of an uncertain task environment.

Survey data from new product development team leaders in Chinese high-tech firms were collected and analyzed. Furthermore, using multiple regression analysis, the relationship among supplier innovation, task environment and FFE performance was examined.

The results show that although both technology-push and market-pull supplier innovation can improve FFE performance, there are significant differences between the influences of these two types of supplier innovation in the face of different task environments.

Practical guidelines are provided for buyer managers on how to effectively identify the “best” supplier innovation resources to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of supplier involvement in the FFE.

This paper deepens the knowledge of identifying supplier innovation resources in the FFE and enriches the research on supplier-enable FFE innovation.

In the UK as more and more traditional manufacturing is being outsourced to lower-cost countries, the development of manufacturing start-up companies is increasingly perceived as important in sustaining a competitive UK manufacturing base. However, start-up companies are often associated with a high failure rate, particularly during the early stages of operation. As they have yet to build up the strength and resources to sustain them through internal and external crises, start-ups operate under conditions that constantly challenge their survival. Developing the most appropriate manufacturing strategy is probably more critical in start-up companies than in established organisations, yet little research has addressed this area.

This paper reports the findings of an exploratory study involving six UK manufacturing start-up companies. A novel manufacturing strategy content framework is proposed. The chapter also examines the business orientation (technology-push or market-pull) adopted by the case companies, and investigates how business orientations influenced their manufacturing strategies. This leads to two business orientation mobility models. This chapter concludes by discussing the use of the frameworks and suggesting how they might be put into practice to provide assistance to operational managers in start-up companies.

We are living in an era of rapid technological change where innovation rates continue to increase exponentially. Accordingly, countries who wish to be active in the novel technology market will need to understand what drives and ultimately determines innovation. This research is a part of a bigger study investigating the determinants of innovation in the New Zealand biotechnology sector. It reports on preliminary findings of a thematic analysis of interviews conducted with senior figures in research, development and commercialisation businesses in the New Zealand biotechnology field. Specifically, this paper attempts to answer the research question “What are the drivers of innovation in the sustainable innovation paradigm”. In doing so, the constructs of Technology Push, Market Pull and Policy Intervention are explored along with a range of related and contributing management concepts.

This study aims to investigate the motivations for the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies among manufacturing firms in developing economies. Specifically, the effects of relative advantage of the technologies, competitive pressure, and government support on the adoption are explored. Moreover, the mediating role of top management support between environmental factors (government support and competitive pressure) and the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies is examined.

A research model is developed based on the technology-organization-environment (TOE) framework strengthened by institutional theory. Structural equation modeling (SEM) approach is employed to evaluate the model using data obtained from 215 manufacturing firms through a cross-industry survey. Additionally, a post-hoc analysis is conducted using cluster analysis and ANOVA.

The results show that competitive pressure and government support significantly promote top management support, which in turn contributes to the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies. Relative advantage of the technologies is not significantly related to the adoption.

This study does not explore the relationship between technology type and the specific needs of manufacturing firms. Future researchers can conduct a more comprehensive analysis by examining how different technology types align with the unique needs of individual companies.

The findings of this study have implications for both policymakers and managers. Policymakers can leverage these insights to understand the underlying motivations behind manufacturing firms' adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies and develop promoting policies. In turn, managers should keep an eye on government policies and utilize government support to facilitate technology adoption.

This study uncovers the underlying motivations—government support and competitive pressure—for the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies among manufacturing firms in developing economies. Meanwhile, it complements previous research by showing the mediating role of top management support between environmental factors (government support and competitive pressure) and the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies.

Summarises the report of a Sensors Task Force which was formed as part of the UK Technology Foresight exercise. Examines the various markets for sensor technology, both globally and in the UK. Details the opportunities and challenges, market pull factors, and the most promising technologies and application areas.

The products of some firms emerge neither from new technology developments nor from attempting to address articulated consumers’ needs, but from a company-internal design-driven approach. To explore this design-driven approach, we propose a construct, design orientation, as a firm’s ability to integrate functionality, aesthetics, and meaning in its new products. We hypothesize relationships between a firm’s design orientation, customer orientation, technological orientation, and willingness to cannibalize on its new product performance.

We use data from surveys of senior marketing executives entrusted with design in 252 US firms, we validate the construct of design orientation and establish its distinctiveness from related constructs of creativity, technological orientation, and customer orientation. Using a structural equation modeling approach, we test the hypotheses and find support for them.

Individually, design orientation, technological orientation, and customer orientation improve new product performance. In addition, customer orientation decreases the positive effect of design orientation while willingness to cannibalize increases the positive effect of design orientation on new product performance.

More than two-thirds of respondents (69%) perceive that their firm can improve its new product performance by increasing its design orientation, an overlooked organizational capability.

Although practitioners have acknowledged the importance of design as a strategic marketing issue, there is little in the literature on how firms can benefit from building capabilities in the design domain, the issue we focus on in this research.