IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/masjnl/v4y2010i12p17.html

Multi-criteria Assessment of Innovative Technology in the Beef Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Hayley Moreland
  • Paul Hyland

Abstract

In Australia rural research and development corporations and companies expended over $AUS500 million on agricultural research and development. A substantial proportion of this is invested in R&D in the beef industry. The Australian beef industry exports almost $AUS5billionof product annually and invest heavily in new product development to improve the beef quality and improve production efficiency. Review points are critical for effective new product development, yet many research and development bodies, particularly publicly funded ones, appear to ignore the importance of assessing products prior to their release. Significant sums of money are invested in developing technological innovations that have low levels and rates of adoption. The adoption rates could be improved if the developers were more focused on technology uptake and less focused on proving their technologies can be applied in practice. Several approaches have been put forward in an effort to improve rates of adoption into operational settings. This paper presents a study of key technological innovations in the Australian beef industry to assess the use of multiple criteria in evaluating the potential uptake of new technologies. Findings indicate that using multiple criteria to evaluate innovations before commercializing a technology enables researchers to better understand the issues that may inhibit adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Hayley Moreland & Paul Hyland, 2010. "Multi-criteria Assessment of Innovative Technology in the Beef Industry," Modern Applied Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 4(12), pages 1-17, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:masjnl:v:4:y:2010:i:12:p:17
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/mas/article/download/7619/6259
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/mas/article/view/7619
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard A. Wolfe, 1994. "Organizational Innovation: Review, Critique And Suggested Research Directions," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 405-431, May.
    2. Gopalakrishnan, S. & Damanpour, F., 1997. "A review of innovation research in economics, sociology and technology management," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 15-28, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Dedy Dewanto Soeprapto, 2022. "The characteristic of follower’s personal mastery: A case in Indonesian construction industry," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 11(6), pages 657-669, September.
    2. Dedy Dewanto, 2022. "The characteristic of leader innovativeness, a case in Indonesian’s construction industry," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 11(8), pages 153-165, November.
    3. Anil Nair & Orhun Guldiken & Stav Fainshmidt & Amir Pezeshkan, 2015. "Innovation in India: A review of past research and future directions," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 32(4), pages 925-958, December.
    4. Martínez-Román, Juan A. & Gamero, Javier & Tamayo, Juan A. & Delgado-González, Loreto, 2020. "Empirical analysis of organizational archetypes based on generation and adoption of knowledge and technologies," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 96.
    5. Hervas-Oliver, Jose-Luis & Sempere-Ripoll, Francisca, 2015. "Disentangling the influence of technological process and product innovations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 109-118.
    6. Lamprinakis, Lampros, 2012. "Organizational Innovation in the Face of Institutional Change: The Case of the Finnish Dairy Sector," 2012 International European Forum, February 13-17, 2012, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 144952, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    7. Mary M. Crossan & Marina Apaydin, 2010. "A Multi‐Dimensional Framework of Organizational Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Literature," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(6), pages 1154-1191, September.
    8. Černe, Matej & Kaše, Robert & Škerlavaj, Miha, 2016. "Non-technological innovation research: evaluating the intellectual structure and prospects of an emerging field," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 69-85.
    9. Lamprinakis, Lampros, 2012. "Organizational Innovation and Institutional Change: The Case of Valio in Finland," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 3(2), pages 1-11, December.
    10. Kurt Hornschild & Stephan Raab & Jörg-Peter Weiß, 2005. "Die Medizintechnik am Standort Deutschland: Chancen und Risiken durch technologische Innovationen, Auswirkungen auf und durch das nationale Gesundheitssystem sowie potentielle Wachstumsmärkte im Ausland ; Forschungsprojekt im Auftrag des Bundesminist," DIW Berlin: Politikberatung kompakt, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, edition 2, volume 10, number pbk10.
    11. Danny Samson & Marianne Gloet & Prakash Singh, 2017. "Systematic Innovation Capability: Evidence From Case Studies And A Large Survey," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(07), pages 1-43, October.
    12. Sony, Michael & Naik, Subhash, 2020. "Industry 4.0 integration with socio-technical systems theory: A systematic review and proposed theoretical model," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    13. Mario Corona & Youngjung Geum & Sungjoo Lee, 2017. "Patterns of Protecting Both Technological and Nontechnological Innovation for Service Offerings: Case of the Video-Game Industry," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 192-204, September.
    14. Jan Jöhnk & Malte Weißert & Katrin Wyrtki, 2021. "Ready or Not, AI Comes— An Interview Study of Organizational AI Readiness Factors," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 63(1), pages 5-20, February.
    15. Darius Sargautis, 2014. "Increasing Bioethanol Producers’ Technological Innovation Capacity Through R&D Organisation," SBS Journal of Applied Business Research (SBS-JABR), SBS Swiss Business School, vol. 3, pages 7-27.
    16. Varabyova, Yauheniya & Blankart, Carl Rudolf & Greer, Ann Lennarson & Schreyögg, Jonas, 2017. "The determinants of medical technology adoption in different decisional systems: A systematic literature review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 230-242.
    17. Saleem Gul & Muhammad Nouman, 2009. "Innovation In Pakistan's SMES: Making The Case For Coupling Model And Looking Beyond," Business & Economic Review, Institute of Management Sciences, Peshawar, Pakistan, vol. 1(1), pages 20-25, April.
    18. Maxim Kotsemir & Alexander Abroskin & Dirk Meissner, 2013. "Innovation concepts and typology – an evolutionary discussion," HSE Working papers WP BRP 05/STI/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    19. Ferdaws Ezzi & Mohamed Ali Azouzi & Anis Jarboui, 2015. "Environmental performance indicators of Tunisian companies: Analysis via the decision tree," Asian Journal of Empirical Research, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 5(8), pages 114-127, August.
    20. Cevahir Uzkurt & Halil Semih Kimzan & Cengiz Yılmaz, 2016. "A Case Study of the Mediating Role of Innovation on the Relationship Between Environmental Uncertainty, Market Orientation, and Firm Performance," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 13(06), pages 1-21, December.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ibn:masjnl:v:4:y:2010:i:12:p:17. 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: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    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.