IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mod/depeco/506.html

Incorporating a new technology into agent-artifact space. The case of control systems automation

Author

Listed:
  • Federica Rossi

  • Paolo Bertossi

  • Paolo Gurisatti

  • Luisa Sovieni

Abstract

We contribute to the debate on innovation theory and policy by exploring, through the interpretative framework provided by Lane and Maxfield’s theory of innovation (1997; 2005), a set of case studies concerning the implementation of a new technology for system automation and its incorporation into the structure of agent-artifact space (Lane and Maxfield, 1996). Our purposes are, on the one hand, to illustrate to what extent this theoretical approach can help us make sense of innovation processes, and, on the other, to derive some general implications for innovation theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Federica Rossi & Paolo Bertossi & Paolo Gurisatti & Luisa Sovieni, 2008. "Incorporating a new technology into agent-artifact space. The case of control systems automation," Department of Economics 506, University of Modena and Reggio E., Faculty of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    • Handle: RePEc:mod:depeco:506
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.dep.unimore.it/materiali_discussione/0506.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marghertta Russo & T. P. Hughes, 2000. "Complementary Innovations And Generative Relationships: An Ethnographic Study," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(6), pages 517-558.
    2. Mytelka, Lynn K. & Smith, Keith, 2002. "Policy learning and innovation theory: an interactive and co-evolving process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8-9), pages 1467-1479, December.
    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. David A. Lane, 2011. "Complexity and Innovation Dynamics," Chapters, in: Cristiano Antonelli (ed.), Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Matilde Casuccio & Enrico Giovannetti, 2008. "The Cooperative Movement in Bolivia: Fair Trade in Amazzonia Nuts," Department of Economics 0592, University of Modena and Reggio E., Faculty of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    3. Annachiara Casalini & Guido Fioretti & Andreas Pyka, 2016. "Playfulness, ideology and the technology of foolishness in the creation of a novel market niche for distributed control: The case of iPLON," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 5(1), pages 1-16, December.

    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. Russo, Margherita & Rossi, Federica, 2008. "Cooperation networks and innovation: A complex system perspective to the analysis and evaluation of a EU regional innovation policy programme," MPRA Paper 10156, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Braun, Dietmar & Benninghoff, Martin, 2003. "Policy learning in Swiss research policy--the case of the National Centres of Competence in Research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1849-1863, December.
    3. Dodgson, Mark & Hughes, Alan & Foster, John & Metcalfe, Stan, 2011. "Systems thinking, market failure, and the development of innovation policy: The case of Australia," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1145-1156.
    4. Szarka, Joseph, 2006. "Wind power, policy learning and paradigm change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(17), pages 3041-3048, November.
    5. Elvira Uyarra & Kieron Flanagan & Edurne Magro & James R Wilson & Markku Sotarauta, 2017. "Understanding regional innovation policy dynamics: Actors, agency and learning," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(4), pages 559-568, June.
    6. Nill, Jan & Kemp, Ren, 2009. "Evolutionary approaches for sustainable innovation policies: From niche to paradigm?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 668-680, May.
    7. Khraisha, Tamer, 2020. "Complex economic problems and fitness landscapes: Assessment and methodological perspectives," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 390-407.
    8. Azevedo, Isabel & Delarue, Erik & Meeus, Leonardo, 2013. "Mobilizing cities towards a low-carbon future: Tambourines, carrots and sticks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 894-900.
    9. Gordon Wilson, 2007. "Knowledge, innovation and re-inventing technical assistance for development," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 7(3), pages 183-199, July.
    10. Antonio Adrián Arciénaga Morales & Janni Nielsen & Hernán Alberto Bacarini & Silvia Irene Martinelli & Sergio Takeo Kofuji & Juan Francisco García Díaz, 2018. "Technology and Innovation Management in Higher Education—Cases from Latin America and Europe," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-34, April.
    11. Thanos Fragkandreas, 2023. "Case study research on innovation systems: paradox, dialectical analysis and resolution," Working Papers 65, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised 15 May 2023.
    12. Elizabeth Rough, 2011. "Policy Learning through Public Inquiries? The Case of UK Nuclear Energy Policy 1955–61," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 29(1), pages 24-45, February.
    13. Evert-Jan Visser & Oedzge Atzema, 2007. "Beyond clusters: Fostering innovation through a differentiated and combined network approach," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 0705, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jun 2007.
    14. Lingjuan Zhao & Kent Ngan-Cheung Hui & Feng Xiong & Yuxin Xia, 2023. "When and Why Do Innovation Policies Change? A Performance Feedback Perspective," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(1), pages 21582440231, March.
    15. Isabel Maria Freitas Bodas & Nick von Tunzelmann, 2008. "Mapping public support for innovation: a comparison of policy alignment in the UK and France," Grenoble Ecole de Management (Post-Print) hal-01487464, HAL.
    16. Cristiano Antonelli & Federico Barbiellini Amidei, 2011. "The Dynamics of Knowledge Externalities," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13292, June.
    17. repec:osf:thesis:7zprk_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Sandrine Labory, 2014. "Determining Industrial Policy in Current Conditions of Competition," QA - Rivista dell'Associazione Rossi-Doria, Associazione Rossi Doria, issue 4, December.
    19. Behnam Taebi & Jan H. Kwakkel & Céline Kermisch, 2020. "Governing climate risks in the face of normative uncertainties," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(5), September.
    20. Tim Flink, 2022. "Taking the pulse of science diplomacy and developing practices of valuation [The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(2), pages 191-200.
    21. Cai Qian Qiu & Mandy Mok Kim Man, 2023. "The Challenges and Solutions for Digital Entrepreneurship Platforms in Enhancing Firm’s Capabilities," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 16(11), pages 1-21, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:mod:depeco:506. 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: Sara Colombini (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/demodit.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.