IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i8p2342-d224164.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systemic Functions Evaluation based Technological Innovation System for the Sustainability of IoT in the Manufacturing Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Yu-Sheng Kao

    (Department of Technology Management for Innovation, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan)

  • Kazumitsu Nawata

    (Department of Technology Management for Innovation, The University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-8656, Japan)

  • Chi-Yo Huang

    (Department of Industrial Education, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei 106, Taiwan)

Abstract

Technological innovations are regarded as the tools that can stimulate economic growth and the sustainable development of technology. In recent years, as technologies based on the internet of things (IoT) have rapidly developed, a number of applications based on IoT innovations have emerged and have been widely adopted by various public and private sectors. Applications of IoT in the manufacturing industry, such as manufacturing intelligence, not only play a significant role in the enhancement of industrial competitiveness and sustainability, but also influence the diffusion of innovative applications that are based on IoT innovations. It is crucial for policy makers to understand these potential reasons for stimulating IoT industrial sustainability, as they can facilitate industrial competitiveness and technological innovations using supportive means, such as government procurement and financial incentives. Therefore, there is a need to ascertain different factors that may affect IoT industrial sustainability and further explore the relationship between these factors. However, finding a set of factors that affects IoT industrial sustainability is not easy. Recently, the robustness of a theoretical framework, termed the technological innovation system (TIS), has been verified and has been used to explore and analyze technological and industrial development. Thus, it is suitable for this research to use this theoretical model. In order to find out appropriate factors and accurately analyze the causality among factors that influence IoT industrial sustainability, this research presents a Bayesian rough Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) model based on TIS functions by integrating random forest (RF), decision making trial and evaluation (DEMATEL), Bayesian theory, and rough interval numbers. The proposed analytical framework is validated by an empirical case of defining the causality between TIS functions to enable the industrial sustainability of IoT in the Taiwanese smart manufacturing industry. Based on the empirical study results, the cause group consists of entrepreneurial activities, knowledge development, market formation, and resource mobilization. The effect group is composed of knowledge diffusion through networks’ guidance of the search, and creation of legitimacy. Moreover, the analytical results also provide several policy suggestions promoting IoT industrial sustainability that can serve as the basis for defining innovation policy tools for Taiwan and late coming economies.

Suggested Citation

  • Yu-Sheng Kao & Kazumitsu Nawata & Chi-Yo Huang, 2019. "Systemic Functions Evaluation based Technological Innovation System for the Sustainability of IoT in the Manufacturing Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-34, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:8:p:2342-:d:224164
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/8/2342/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/8/2342/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Saba Moradi & Farimah Mokhatab Rafiei, 2019. "A dynamic credit risk assessment model with data mining techniques: evidence from Iranian banks," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 5(1), pages 1-27, December.
    2. Tigabu, Aschalew D. & Berkhout, Frans & van Beukering, Pieter, 2015. "Technology innovation systems and technology diffusion: Adoption of bio-digestion in an emerging innovation system in Rwanda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PA), pages 318-330.
    3. Edsand, Hans-Erik, 2017. "Identifying barriers to wind energy diffusion in Colombia: A function analysis of the technological innovation system and the wider context," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-15.
    4. Negro, Simona O. & Hekkert, Marko P. & Smits, Ruud E., 2007. "Explaining the failure of the Dutch innovation system for biomass digestion--A functional analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 925-938, February.
    5. Chia-Hua Cheng & James J. H. Liou & Chui-Yu Chiu, 2017. "A Consistent Fuzzy Preference Relations Based ANP Model for R&D Project Selection," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-17, August.
    6. Reichardt, Kristin & Negro, Simona O. & Rogge, Karoline S. & Hekkert, Marko P., 2016. "Analyzing interdependencies between policy mixes and technological innovation systems: The case of offshore wind in Germany," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 11-21.
    7. Stephan, Annegret & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Bening, Catharina R. & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2017. "The sectoral configuration of technological innovation systems: Patterns of knowledge development and diffusion in the lithium-ion battery technology in Japan," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 709-723.
    8. Choi, Jeongho & Yeniyurt, Sengun, 2015. "Contingency distance factors and international research and development (R&D), marketing, and manufacturing alliance formations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 1061-1071.
    9. Haley, Brendan, 2018. "Integrating structural tensions into technological innovation systems analysis: Application to the case of transmission interconnections and renewable electricity in Nova Scotia, Canada," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(6), pages 1147-1160.
    10. Kebede, Kassahun Y. & Mitsufuji, Toshio, 2017. "Technological innovation system building for diffusion of renewable energy technology: A case of solar PV systems in Ethiopia," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 242-253.
    11. Shaker Zahra, 2015. "Corporate entrepreneurship as knowledge creation and conversion: the role of entrepreneurial hubs," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 727-735, April.
    12. Geels, Frank W., 2002. "Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1257-1274, December.
    13. Anna J. Wieczorek & Marko P. Hekkert, 2012. "Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(1), pages 74-87, February.
    14. Patrick Biernacki & Dan Waldorf, 1981. "Snowball Sampling: Problems and Techniques of Chain Referral Sampling," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 10(2), pages 141-163, November.
    15. Gans, Joshua S. & Stern, Scott, 2003. "The product market and the market for "ideas": commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 333-350, February.
    16. Carlsson, Bo & Jacobsson, Staffan & Holmen, Magnus & Rickne, Annika, 2002. "Innovation systems: analytical and methodological issues," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 233-245, February.
    17. Anna J. Wieczorek & Marko P. Hekkert, 2012. "Corrigendum to 'Systemic instruments for systemic innovation problems: A framework for policy makers and innovation scholars'," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 842-842, December.
    18. Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Cuppen, Eefje & Suurs, Roald, 2014. "Analysing the past and exploring the future of sustainable biomass. Participatory stakeholder dialogue and technological innovation systems research," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 227-235.
    19. Jun Dong & Huijuan Huo & Dongran Liu & Rong Li, 2017. "Evaluating the Comprehensive Performance of Demand Response for Commercial Customers by Applying Combination Weighting Techniques and Fuzzy VIKOR Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-32, July.
    20. Tigabu, Aschalew & Berkhout, Frans & van Beukering, Pieter, 2017. "Development aid and the diffusion of technology: Improved cookstoves in Kenya and Rwanda," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 593-601.
    21. Bergek, Anna & Jacobsson, Staffan & Carlsson, Bo & Lindmark, Sven & Rickne, Annika, 2008. "Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 407-429, April.
    22. Zhang, Huanhuan & Kou, Gang & Peng, Yi, 2019. "Soft consensus cost models for group decision making and economic interpretations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(3), pages 964-980.
    23. Assouline, Dan & Mohajeri, Nahid & Scartezzini, Jean-Louis, 2018. "Large-scale rooftop solar photovoltaic technical potential estimation using Random Forests," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 217(C), pages 189-211.
    24. Jenn-Hwan Wang, 2007. "From technological catch-up to innovation-based economic growth: South Korea and Taiwan compared," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(6), pages 1084-1104.
    25. Sagar, Ambuj D. & van der Zwaan, Bob, 2006. "Technological innovation in the energy sector: R&D, deployment, and learning-by-doing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 2601-2608, November.
    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. Chi-Yo Huang & Min-Jen Yang & Jeen-Fong Li & Hueiling Chen, 2021. "A DANP-Based NDEA-MOP Approach to Evaluating the Patent Commercialization Performance of Industry–Academic Collaborations," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(18), pages 1-26, September.
    2. Yu-Sheng Kao & Kazumitsu Nawata & Chi-Yo Huang, 2019. "Evaluating the Performance of Systemic Innovation Problems of the IoT in Manufacturing Industries by Novel MCDM Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-33, September.
    3. Chi-Yo Huang & Liang-Chieh Wang & Ying-Ting Kuo & Wei-Ti Huang, 2021. "A Novel Analytic Framework of Technology Mining Using the Main Path Analysis and the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory-Based Analytic Network Process," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(19), pages 1-24, October.
    4. Skare, Marinko & PORADA-ROCHON, Małgorzata, 2022. "The role of innovation in sustainable growth: A dynamic panel study on micro and macro levels 1990–2019," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    5. Jhon Wilder Zartha Sossa & Juan Fernando Gaviria Suárez & Natalia María López Suárez & José Luis Solleiro Rebolledo & Gina Lía Orozco Mendoza & Valentina Vélez Suárez, 2022. "Innovation Systems and Sustainability. Development of a Methodology on Innovation Systems for the Measurement of Sustainability Indicators in Regions Based on a Colombian Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-24, November.
    6. Zon-Yau Lee & Mei-Tai Chu & Yu-Ting Wang & Kuan-Ju Chen, 2020. "Industry Performance Appraisal Using Improved MCDM for Next Generation of Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-18, June.
    7. Marco Vacchi & Cristina Siligardi & Fabio Demaria & Erika Iveth Cedillo-González & Rocío González-Sánchez & Davide Settembre-Blundo, 2021. "Technological Sustainability or Sustainable Technology? A Multidimensional Vision of Sustainability in Manufacturing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-18, September.

    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. De Oliveira, Luiz Gustavo Silva & Negro, Simona O., 2019. "Contextual structures and interaction dynamics in the Brazilian Biogas Innovation System," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 462-481.
    2. Haddad, Carolina R. & Bergek, Anna, 2023. "Towards an integrated framework for evaluating transformative innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    3. Dahesh, Mehran Badin & Tabarsa, Gholamali & Zandieh, Mostafa & Hamidizadeh, Mohammadreza, 2020. "Reviewing the intellectual structure and evolution of the innovation systems approach: A social network analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    4. Jhon Wilder Zartha Sossa & Oscar Hernán López Montoya & Julio Cesar Acosta Prado, 2021. "Determinants of a sustainable innovation system," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 1345-1356, February.
    5. Yu-Sheng Kao & Kazumitsu Nawata & Chi-Yo Huang, 2019. "Evaluating the Performance of Systemic Innovation Problems of the IoT in Manufacturing Industries by Novel MCDM Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-33, September.
    6. Ghazinoory, Sepehr & Nasri, Shohreh & Ameri, Fatemeh & Montazer, Gholam Ali & Shayan, Ali, 2020. "Why do we need ‘Problem-oriented Innovation System (PIS)’ for solving macro-level societal problems?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    7. Hellsmark, Hans & Frishammar, Johan & Söderholm, Patrik & Ylinenpää, Håkan, 2016. "The role of pilot and demonstration plants in technology development and innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1743-1761.
    8. Konstantinos Karanasios & Paul Parker, 2018. "Explaining the Diffusion of Renewable Electricity Technologies in Canadian Remote Indigenous Communities through the Technological Innovation System Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-28, October.
    9. Edmondson, Duncan L. & Kern, Florian & Rogge, Karoline S., 2019. "The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(10).
    10. Raven, Rob & Walrave, Bob, 2020. "Overcoming transformational failures through policy mixes in the dynamics of technological innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    11. Reichardt, Kristin & Rogge, Karoline S. & Negro, Simona O., 2017. "Unpacking policy processes for addressing systemic problems in technological innovation systems: The case of offshore wind in Germany," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1217-1226.
    12. Andersson, Johnn & Hellsmark, Hans & Sandén, Björn A., 2018. "Shaping factors in the emergence of technological innovations: The case of tidal kite technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 191-208.
    13. Mohammad Esmailzadeh & Siamak Noori & Alireza Aliahmadi & Hamidreza Nouralizadeh & Marcel Bogers, 2020. "A Functional Analysis of Technological Innovation Systems in Developing Countries: An Evaluation of Iran’s Photovoltaic Innovation System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-20, March.
    14. Jonas Heiberg & Bernhard Truffer, 2021. "The emergence of a global innovation system – a case study from the water sector," GEIST - Geography of Innovation and Sustainability Transitions 2021(09), GEIST Working Paper Series.
    15. Markard, Jochen & Truffer, Bernhard, 2008. "Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: Towards an integrated framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 596-615, May.
    16. Verburg, René W. & Verberne, Emma & Negro, Simona O., 2022. "Accelerating the transition towards sustainable agriculture: The case of organic dairy farming in the Netherlands," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    17. Rohe, Sebastian & Oltmer, Marie & Wolter, Hendrik & Gmeiner, Nina & Tschersich , Julia, 2022. "Forever Niche: Why do organic vegetable varieties not diffuse?," Papers in Innovation Studies 2022/8, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    18. Andersen, Allan Dahl & Markard, Jochen, 2020. "Multi-technology interaction in socio-technical transitions: How recent dynamics in HVDC technology can inform transition theories," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    19. Danish Ahmad Mir & Christopher N.H. Doll & Robert Lindner & Muhammad Tabish Parray, 2020. "Explaining the Diffusion of Energy-Efficient Lighting in India: A Technology Innovation Systems Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-16, November.
    20. Alexandra Gottinger & Luana Ladu & Rainer Quitzow, 2020. "Studying the Transition towards a Circular Bioeconomy—A Systematic Literature Review on Transition Studies and Existing Barriers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-25, October.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:8:p:2342-:d:224164. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.