Learning for supplying as a motive to be the early adopter of a new energy technology: A study on the adoption of stationary fuel cells
By early adopting a new technology, firms may attempt to improve their production efficiency and become further involved in the supply chain of the technology. These two different advantages derived from learning a new technology are identified as motives for adopting the technology. When learning for supplying (LFS) (becoming involved in the supply chain of the new technology) highlighted in this paper is significant enough, potential adopters may still be willing to adopt the new technology, even though learning for using (LFU) (increasing current production efficiency) is not significant. This paper identifies LFS as a motive for early adopters of the new technology. Firms may adopt a new technology for the purpose of learning how to become the suppliers of the relevant parts, materials, or equipment for the new technology. By investigating the adoption decision of a new energy technology (namely, phosphoric acid fuel cells (PAFC)), our arguments are supported by both observation of early adopters' attributes and a survey of Taiwanese firms' willingness to adopt new technology.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Staffan Jacobsson & Anna Bergek, 2004. "Transforming the energy sector: the evolution of technological systems in renewable energy technology," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(5), pages 815-849, October.
- Glen L. Urban & Eric von Hippel, 1988. "Lead User Analyses for the Development of New Industrial Products," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(5), pages 569-582, May.
- Teece, David J., 1986.
"Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy,"
Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 285-305, December.
- Teece, David J., 1993. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 112-113, April.
- Baldwin, Carliss & Hienerth, Christoph & von Hippel, Eric, 2006. "How user innovations become commercial products: A theoretical investigation and case study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1291-1313, November.
- Brown, James E. & Hendry, Chris N. & Harborne, Paul, 2007. "An emerging market in fuel cells? Residential combined heat and power in four countries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 2173-2186, April.
- Douthwaite, B. & Keatinge, J. D. H. & Park, J. R., 2001. "Why promising technologies fail: the neglected role of user innovation during adoption," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 819-836, May.
- Pamela D. Morrison & John H. Roberts & Eric von Hippel, 2000. "Determinants of User Innovation and Innovation Sharing in a Local Market," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(12), pages 1513-1527, December.
- Mody, Ashoka, 1993. "Learning through alliances," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 151-170, February.
- Gary L. Lilien & Pamela D. Morrison & Kathleen Searls & Mary Sonnack & Eric von Hippel, 2002. "Performance Assessment of the Lead User Idea-Generation Process for New Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(8), pages 1042-1059, August.
- Junginger, Martin & de Visser, Erika & Hjort-Gregersen, Kurt & Koornneef, Joris & Raven, Rob & Faaij, Andre & Turkenburg, Wim, 2006. "Technological learning in bioenergy systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 4024-4041, December.
- Swallow, Stephen K. & Opaluch, James J. & Weaver, Thomas F., 2001. "Strength-of-Preference Indicators and an Ordered-Response Model for Ordinarily Dichotomous, Discrete Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 70-93, January.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:36:y:2008:i:6:p:2143-2153. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.