4.8 Article

Technology Forgiveness: Why emerging technologies differ in their resilience to institutional instability

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120599

关键词

Additive manufacturing; Technological uncertainty; Institutional instability; Latecomer countries; Technology adoption; Technological upgrading

资金

  1. Carnegie Mellon University
  2. CMU-Portugal program
  3. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) [CMUP-ERI/TPE/0011/2013]
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [CMUP-ERI/TPE/0011/2013] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Long-term public support can facilitate the diffusion of emerging technologies, while unexpected policy changes may hinder private investment. Institutional instability in Portugal has led to varying adoption rates of Polymer Additive Manufacturing (PAM) and Metal Additive Manufacturing (MAM).
Long-term public support may encourage the diffusion of emerging technologies by coordinating the generation of knowledge and providing patient funding, but unexpected policy changes may hinder private investment and even lead to situations of technology lockout. Leveraging archival data; insights from 45 interviews across academia, industry, and government; and 75 hours of participant observations, we develop insights about why institutional instability in Portugal affected the adoption of Polymer Additive Manufacturing (PAM) and Metal Additive Manufacturing (MAM) differently. In both cases, Portugal invested in the technology relatively early. While PAM has been widely adopted, including increasingly in high-tech applications, MAM adoption has been modest despite MAM?s potential to greatly improve the performance and competitiveness of metal molds. From the comparison between PAM and MAM, we generate theory about technological and contextual factors that affect ?technological forgiveness?, defined as the resilience of a new technology?s adoption to institutional instability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据