Author:
Andrea Szalavetz
szalavetz.andrea@krtk.hu
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7655-6994
Andrea Szalavetz
Institute of World Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Tóth Kálmán u. 4, Budapest, H-1097 Hungary
Search for other papers by Andrea Szalavetz in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Andrea Szalavetz in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
In a context of rapid technological change, digital manufacturing technologies bear the promise of enabling significant improvement in operational efficiency. However, evidence indicates that investing in smart digital solutions, per se, does not guarantee performance improvement. Smart factory projects may be derailed, failing to realise the expected operational benefits. This study addresses the gap between academic propositions regarding the unequivocally positive impact of digitalisation and the actual evidence.
It draws on data obtained from 18 interviews with technology providers, managers and front-line workers at 12 Hungarian manufacturing companies. We use the concepts of resource complementarity, task–technology misfit, and technology acceptance as a theoretical lens to categorise the seemingly idiosyncratic and context-specific operational problems.
We find that digital technology implementation produces inferior-to-expectations outcomes unless companies invest in and upgrade their complementary intangible resources. Four distinct, albeit strongly interrelated types of complementarities are identified: managerial, organisational, skill-related and technical complementarities. Managerial capabilities to adjust the organisational structure, improve workflows and develop a strategy to address technical problems are found to be paramount to eliminate task-technology misfit and enhance technology acceptance.
ProCite
RefWorks
Reference Manager
BibTeX
Zotero
EndNote
-
Adner, R. – Puranam, P. – Zhu, F. (2019): What Is Different About Digital Strategy? From Quantitative to Qualitative Change. Strategy Science, 4(4): 253–261.
-
Amundson, S. D. (1998): Relationships between Theory‐Driven Empirical Research in Operations Management and Other Disciplines. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4): 341–359.
-
Anvari, F. – Edwards, R. – Starr, A. (2010): Evaluation of Overall Equipment Effectiveness Based on Market. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, 16(3): 256–270.
-
Baldwin, R. (2013): Global Supply Chains: Why They Emerged, Why They Matter, and Where They Are Going. CEPPR Discussion Papers, No. 9103.
-
Barney, J. B. (1986): Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy. Management Science, 32(10): 1231–1241.
-
Barney, J. (1991): Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99–120.
-
Bendoly, E. – Cotteleer, M. J. (2008): Understanding Behavioral Sources of Process Variation Following Enterprise System Deployment. Journal of Operations Management, 26(1): 23–44.
-
Björkdahl, J. (2020): Strategies for Digitalization in Manufacturing Firms. California Management Review, 62(4): 17–36.
-
Blackburn, S. – Bughin, J. – Laberge, L. (2020): How to Restart Your Stalled Digital Transformation. Mckinsey Digital.
-
Braglia, M. – Castellano, D. – Frosolini, M. – Gallo, M. (2018): Overall Material Usage Effectiveness (OME): A Structured Indicator to Measure the Effective Material Usage within Manufacturing Processes. Production Planning & Control, 29(2): 143–157.
-
Braglia, M. – Castellano, D. – Frosolini, M. – Gallo, M. – Marrazzini, L. (2020): Revised Overall Labour Effectiveness. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 70(6): 1317–1335.
-
Brettel, M. – Friederichsen, N. – Keller, M. – Rosenberg, M. (2014): How Virtualization, Decentralization and Network Building Change the Manufacturing Landscape: An Industry 4.0 Perspective. International Journal of Mechanical, Industrial Science and Engineering, 8(1): 37–44.
-
Büchi, G. – Cugno, M. – Castagnoli, R. (2020): Smart Factory Performance and Industry 4.0. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150: 119790.
-
Buer, S. V. – Strandhagen, J. O. – Chan, F. T. (2018): The Link between Industry 4.0 and Lean Manufacturing: Mapping Current Research and Establishing a Research Agenda. International Journal of Production Research, 56(8): 2924–2940.
-
Colledani, M. – Tolio, T. – Fischer, A. – Iung, B. – Lanza, G. – Schmitt, R. – Váncza, J. (2014): Design and Management of Manufacturing Systems for Production Quality. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 63(2): 773–796.
-
Correani, A. – de Massis, A. – Frattini, F. – Petruzzelli, A. M. – Natalicchio, A. (2020): Implementing a Digital Strategy: Learning from the Experience of Three Digital Transformation Projects. California Management Review, 62(4): 37–56.
-
Davenport, T. H. – Westerman, G. (2018): Why So Many High-Profile Digital Transformations Fail. HBR Digital, March, 9.
-
Davis, F. D. – Bagozzi, R. P. – Warshaw, P. R. (1989): User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models. Management Science, 35(8): 982–1003.
-
Demeter, K. (2003): Manufacturing Strategy and Competitiveness. International Journal of Production Economics, 81–82: 205–213.
-
Dobrowolska, M. – Knop, L. (2020): Fit to Work in the Business Models of the Industry 4.0 Age. Sustainability, 12(12): 1–18.
-
Dosi, G. (1988): Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26(3): 1120–1171.
-
Dubey, R. – Gunasekaran, A. – Childe, S. J. – Bryde, D. J. – Giannakis, M. – Foropon, C. – Roubaud, D. – Hazen, B. T. (2020): Big Data Analytics and Artificial Intelligence Pathway to Operational Performance Under the Effects of Entrepreneurial Orientation and Environmental Dynamism: A Study of Manufacturing Organisations. International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, 226.
-
EIB (2021): Building a Smart and Green Europe in the COVID-19 Era. European Investment Bank Investment Report 2020/2021 .https://doi.org/10.2867/904099.
-
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989): Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 532–550.
-
Eisenhardt, K. M. – Graebner, M. E. (2007): Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1): 25–32.
-
Eisenhardt, K. M. – Graebner, M. E. – Sonenshein, S. (2016): Grand Challenges and Inductive Methods: Rigor without Rigor Mortis. Academy of Management Journal, 59(4): 1113–1123.
-
Eisenhardt, K. M. – Martin, J. A. (2000): Dynamic Capabilities: What Are They? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11): 1105–1121.
-
Frank, A. G. – Dalenogare, L. S. – Ayala, N. F. (2019): Industry 4.0 Technologies: Implementation Patterns in Manufacturing Companies. International Journal of Production Economics, 210: 15–26.
-
Freeman, C. – Soete, L. (1997): The Economics of Industrial Innovation. (3rd ed.) The MIT Press.
-
Gebauer, H. – Fleisch, E. – Lamprecht, C. – Wortmann, F. (2020): Growth Paths for Overcoming the Digitalization Paradox. Business Horizons, 63(3): 313–323.
-
Gerth, A. B. – Peppard, J. (2016): The Dynamics of CIO Derailment: How CIOS Come Undone and How to Avoid It. Business Horizons, 59(1): 61–70.
-
Ghobakhloo, M. (2018): The Future of Manufacturing Industry: A Strategic Roadmap toward Industry 4.0. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 29(6): 910–936.
-
Ghobakhloo, M. – Fathi, M. (2020): Corporate Survival in Industry 4.0 Era: The Enabling Role of Lean-Digitized Manufacturing. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 31(1): 1–30.
-
Gillani, F. – Chatha, K. A. – Jajja, M. S. S. – Farooq, S. (2020): Implementation of Digital Manufacturing Technologies: Antecedents and Consequences. International Journal of Production Economics, No. 229.
-
Gioia, D. A. – Corley, K. G. – Hamilton, A. L. (2013): Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the GIOIA Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1): 15–31.
-
Glaser, B. G. – Strauss, A. (1967): Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine Transaction.
-
Goodhue, D. L. – Thompson, R. L. (1995): Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance. MIS Quarterly, 19(2): 213–236.
-
Götz, M. – Éltető, A. – Sass, M. – Vlčková, J. – Zacharová, A. – Ferencikova, S. – Kaczkowska-Serafińska, M. (2020): Effects of Industry 4.0 on FDI in the Visegrád Countries. Final report. Vistula University. https://industry40fdi.com/.
-
Gupta, S. K. – Gunasekaran, A. – Antony, J. – Gupta, S. – Bag, S. – Roubaud, D. (2019): Systematic Literature Review of Project Failures: Current Trends and Scope for Future Research. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 127: 274–285.
-
Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. (2016): Digitization of Industrial Work: Development Paths and Prospects. Journal for Labour Market Research, 49(1): 1–14.
-
Hortoványi, L. – Szabó, Zs. R. – Nagy, S. Gy. – Stukovszky, T. (2020): A digitális transzformáció munkahelyekre gyakorolt hatásai – Felkészültek-e a hazai vállalatok a benne rejlő nagy lehetőségre (vagy a veszélyekre)? (The Impact of Digital Transformation on Workplaces – Are Hungarian Companies Ready for the Inherent Great Opportunity (or Threat)? Külgazdaság, 64(3–4): 73–96.
-
Howard, M. C. – Rose, J. C. (2019): Refining and Extending Task-Technology Fit Theory: Creation of Two Task–Technology Fit Scales and Empirical Clarification of the Construct. Information & Management, 56(6): 103134.
-
Kagermann, H. – Helbig, J. – Hellinger, A. – Wahlster, W. (2013): Recommendations for Implementing the Strategic Initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0: Securing the Future of German Manufacturing Industry. Final Report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group. Frankfurt/Main: Forschungsunion.
-
Kallinikos, J. (2011): Governing through Technology: Information Artefacts and Social Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
-
Kamble, S. S. – Gunasekaran, A. – Sharma, R. (2018): Analysis of the Driving and Dependence Power of Barriers to Adopt Industry 4.0 in Indian Manufacturing Industry. Computers in Industry, 101: 107–119.
-
Lee, Y. – Kozar, K. A. – Larsen, K. R. (2003): The Technology Acceptance Model: Past, Present, and Future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12(1): 752–780.
-
Mikalef, P. – Boura, M. – Lekakos, G. – Krogstie, J. (2019): Big Data Analytics and Firm Performance: Findings from a Mixed-Method Approach. Journal of Business Research, 98: 261–276.
-
Mikalef, P. – Krogstie, J. – Pappas, I. O. – Pavlou, P. (2020): Exploring the Relationship Between Big Data Analytics Capability and Competitive Performance: The Mediating Roles of Dynamic and Operational Capabilities. Information & Management, 57(2): 103169.
-
Milgrom, P. – Roberts, J. (1995): Complementarities and Fit Strategy, Structure, and Organizational Change in Manufacturing. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19(2–3): 179–208.
-
Monostori, L. (2015): Cyber-Physical Production Systems: Roots from Manufacturing Science and Technology. At-Automatisierungstechnik, 63(10): 766–776.
-
Monostori, L. – Kádár, B. – Bauernhansl, T. – Kondoh, S. – Kumara, S. – Reinhart, G. – Sauer, O. – Schuh, G. – Sihn, W. – Ueda, K. (2016): Cyber-Physical Systems in Manufacturing. CIRP Annals Manufacturing Technology, 65(2): 621–641.
-
Negrão, L. L. L. – Godinho Filho, M. – Marodin, G. (2017): Lean Practices and Their Effect on Performance: A Literature Review. Production Planning & Control, 28(1): 33–56.
-
Ohno, T. (1988): Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production .Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
-
Patton, M. Q. (1990): Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
-
Raj, A. – Dwivedi, G. – Sharma, A. – de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L. – Rajak, S. (2020): Barriers to the Adoption of Industry 4.0 Technologies in the Manufacturing Sector: An Inter-Country Comparative Perspective. International Journal of Production Economics, 224.
-
Schilke, O. – Hu, S. – Helfat, C. E. (2018): Quo Vadis, Dynamic Capabilities? A Content-Analytic Review of the Current State of Knowledge and Recommendations for Future Research. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1): 390–439.
-
Schwab, K. (2016): The Fourth Industrial Revolution .Geneva: World Economic Forum.
-
Simões, A. C. – Soares, A. L. – Barros, A. C. (2020): Factors Influencing the Intention of Managers to Adopt Collaborative Robots (Cobots) in Manufacturing Organizations. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 57: 101574.
-
Sony, M. – Naik, S. (2020): Critical Factors for the Successful Implementation of Industry 4.0: A Review and Future Research Direction. Production Planning & Control, 31(10): 799–815.
-
Sousa, R. – Voss, C. A. (2008): Contingency Research in Operations Management Practices. Journal of Operations Management, 26(6): 697–713.
-
Stein, V. – Scholz, T. M. (2020): Manufacturing Revolution Boosts People Issues: The Evolutionary Need for ‘Human‐Automation Resource Management' in Smart Factories. European Management Review, 17(2): 391–406.
-
Szalavetz, A. (2017): Industry 4.0. in ’Factory Economies’. In: Galgóczi, B. – Drahokoupil, J. (eds): Condemned to Be Left Behind? Can Central Eastern Europe Emerge from its Low-Wage FDI-Based Growth Model? Brussels: ETUI, pp. 123–142.
-
Szalavetz, A. (2019): Digitalisation, Automation and Upgrading in Global Value Chains – Factory Economy Actors versus Lead Companies. Post-Communist Economies, 31(5): 646–670.
-
Szalavetz, A. (2020): Digital Transformation and Local Manufacturing Subsidiaries in Central and Eastern Europe: Changing Prospects for Upgrading? In: Drahokoupil, J. (ed.): The Challenge of Digital Transformation in the Automotive Industry. Jobs, Upgrading, and the Prospects of Development .Brussels: ETUI, pp. 47–64.
-
Szalavetz, A. – Somosi, S. (2019): Ipar 4.0-technológiák és a magyarországi fejlődés-felzárkózás hajtóerőinek megváltozása – gazdaságpolitikai tanulságok (Impact of Industry 4.0 Technologies on the Engines of Development and Catch-Up in Hungary – Some Lessons for Economic Policy). Külgazdaság, 63(3–4): 66–93.
-
Szász, L. – Demeter, K. – Rácz, B. G. – Losonci, D. (2020): Industry 4.0: A Review and Analysis of Contingency and Performance Effects. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 32(3): 667–694.
-
Teece, D. J. (2018): Profiting from Innovation in the Digital Economy: Enabling Technologies, Standards, and Licensing Models in the Wireless World. Research Policy, 47(8): 1367–1387.
-
Teece, D. J. – Linden, G. (2017): Business Models, Value Capture, and the Digital Enterprise. Journal of Organization Design, 6(1): 1–14.
-
Teece, D. J. – Pisano, G. – Shuen, A. (1997): Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509–533.
-
Tortorella, G. L. – Giglio, R. – Van Dun, D. H. (2019): Industry 4.0 Adoption as a Moderator of the Impact of Lean Production Practices on Operational Performance Improvement. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 39(6/7/8): 860–886.
-
Váncza, J. – Monostori, L. – Lutters, D. – Kumara, S. R. – Tseng, M. – Valckenaers, P. – Van Brussel, H. (2011): Cooperative and Responsive Manufacturing Enterprises. CIRP Annals, 60(2): 797–820.
-
Venkatesh, V. – Morris, M. G. – Davis, G. B. – Davis, F. D. (2003): User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3): 425–478.
-
Vial, G. (2019): Understanding Digital Transformation: A Review and a Research Agenda. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 28(2): 118–144.
-
Warner, K. S. – Wäger, M. (2019): Building Dynamic Capabilities for Digital Transformation: An Ongoing Process of Strategic Renewal. Long Range Planning, 52(3): 326–349.
-
Welch, C. – Piekkari, R. – Plakoyiannaki, E. – Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, E. (2011): Theorising from Case Studies: Towards a Pluralist Future for International Business Research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(5): 740–762.
-
Wen, X. – Cao, H. – Hon, B. – Chen, E. – Li, H. (2021): Energy Value Mapping: A Novel Lean Method to Integrate Energy Efficiency into Production Management. Energy, 217.
-
Wernerfelt, B. (1984): A Resource‐Based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2): 171–180.
-
Womack, J. P. – Jones, D. T. – Roos, D. (1990): The Machine that Changed the World .New York: Rawson Associates.
Please, download the file from HERE.
Please, download the file from HERE.
Corvinus University of Budapest
Department of Economics
Fővám tér 8 Budapest, H-1093, Hungary
E-mail: vanyai.judit@krtk.hu
Indexing and Abstracting Services:
- CABELLS Journalytics
- EconLit
- Elsevier GEO Abstracts
- GEOBASE
- Index Copernicus
- International Bibliographies IBZ and IBR
- JEL
- Referativnyi Zhurnal
- RePEc
- SCOPUS
- Social Science Citation Index
| 2022 | |
|---|---|
| Web of Science | |
| Total Cites WoS |
314 |
| Journal Impact Factor | 0.8 |
| Rank by Impact Factor |
Economics 334/380 |
| Impact Factor without Journal Self Cites |
0.6 |
| 5 Year Impact Factor |
0.8 |
| Journal Citation Indicator | 0.29 |
| Rank by Journal Citation Indicator |
Economics 421/581
|
| Scimago | |
| Scimago H-index |
18 |
| Scimago Journal Rank |
0.23 |
| Scimago Quartile Score |
Economics and Econometrics Q3 |
| Scopus | |
| Scopus Cite Score |
1.1 |
| Scopus CIte Score Rank |
Economics and Econometrics 521/705 (26th PCTL) TBA |
| Scopus SNIP |
0.540 |
| 2021 | |
|---|---|
| Web of Science | |
| Total Cites WoS |
285 |
| Journal Impact Factor | 0,939 |
| Rank by Impact Factor | Economics 326/379 |
| Impact Factor without Journal Self Cites |
0,646 |
| 5 Year Impact Factor |
0,740 |
| Journal Citation Indicator | 0,34 |
| Rank by Journal Citation Indicator | Economics 389/570 |
| Scimago | |
| Scimago H-index |
15 |
| Scimago Journal Rank |
0,285 |
| Scimago Quartile Score | Economics and Econometrics (Q3) |
| Scopus | |
| Scopus Cite Score |
1,4 |
| Scopus CIte Score Rank |
Economics and Econometrics 436/696 (Q3) |
| Scopus SNIP |
0,507 |
| 2020 | |
| Total Cites | 275 |
| WoS | |
| Journal Impact Factor |
0,875 |
| Rank by | Economics 325/377 (Q4) |
| Impact Factor | |
| Impact Factor | 0,534 |
| without | |
| Journal Self Cites | |
| 5 Year | 0,500 |
| Impact Factor | |
| Journal | 0,38 |
| Citation Indicator | |
| Rank by Journal | Economics 347/549 (Q3) |
| Citation Indicator | |
| Citable | 37 |
| Items | |
| Total | 37 |
| Articles | |
| Total | 0 |
| Reviews | |
| Scimago | 13 |
| H-index | |
| Scimago | 0,292 |
| Journal Rank | |
| Scimago | Economics and Econometrics Q3 |
| Quartile Score | |
| Scopus | 225/166=1,4 |
| Scite Score | |
| Scopus | Economics and Econometrics 392/661 (Q3) |
| Scite Score Rank | |
| Scopus | 0,668 |
| SNIP | |
| Days from | 289 |
| submission | |
| to acceptance | |
| Days from | 447 |
| acceptance | |
| to publication |
| 2019 | |
|---|---|
| Total Cites WoS |
212 |
| Impact Factor | 0,914 |
| Impact Factor without Journal Self Cites |
0,728 |
| 5 Year Impact Factor |
0,650 |
| Immediacy Index |
0,156 |
| Citable Items |
45 |
| Total Articles |
45 |
| Total Reviews |
0 |
| Cited Half-Life |
3,9 |
| Citing Half-Life |
9,5 |
| Eigenfactor Score |
0,00015 |
| Article Influence Score |
0,052 |
| % Articles in Citable Items |
100,00 |
| Normalized Eigenfactor |
0,01891 |
| Average IF Percentile |
28,437 |
| Scimago H-index |
12 |
| Scimago Journal Rank |
0,439 |
| Scopus Scite Score |
214/165=1,3 |
| Scopus Scite Score Rank |
Economics and Econometrics 355/637 (Q3) |
| Scopus SNIP |
0,989 |
| Acta Oeconomica | |
|---|---|
| Publication Model | Hybrid |
| Submission Fee | none |
| Article Processing Charge | 900 EUR/article |
| Printed Color Illustrations | 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece |
| Regional discounts on country of the funding agency | World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50% World Bank Low-income economies: 100% |
| Further Discounts | Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50% Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100% |
| Subscription fee 2023 | Online subsscription: 620 EUR / 750 USD Print + online subscription: 724 EUR / 880 USD |
| Subscription Information | Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content. |
| Purchase per Title | Individual articles are sold on the displayed price. |
| Acta Oeconomica | |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Size | B5 |
| Year of Foundation |
1966 |
| Volumes per Year |
1 |
| Issues per Year |
4 |
| Founder | Magyar Tudományos Akadémia |
| Founder's Address |
H-1051 Budapest, Hungary, Széchenyi István tér 9. |
| Publisher | Akadémiai Kiadó |
| Publisher's Address |
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245. |
| Responsible Publisher |
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó |
| ISSN | 0001-6373 (Print) |
| ISSN | 1588-2659 (Online) |
Monthly Content Usage
| Abstract Views | Full Text Views | PDF Downloads | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 2023 | 81 | 4 | 3 |
| May 2023 | 38 | 5 | 4 |
| Jun 2023 | 72 | 1 | 2 |
| Jul 2023 | 67 | 1 | 1 |
| Aug 2023 | 68 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2023 | 41 | 5 | 4 |
| Oct 2023 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Author:
Author:
The system paradigm revisited
Clarification and additions in the light of experiences in the post-socialist region
Author:
Author:
Copyright Akadémiai Kiadó AKJournals is the trademark of Akadémiai Kiadó's journal publishing business branch.
Powered by PubFactory