The Innovation Intermediaries Role in the Adoption of Emerging Technologies in Iran's Automotive Industry

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 MSc., Department of Technology Management, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant Prof., Department of Science and Technology Policy, Research Institute Science and Technology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Objective
The success rate of a type of technology is manifested in its adoption and continued use. In this sense, the condition development, user behavior, and the factors affecting it should be identified. However, this issue has been almost neglected and most of the studies only examined the factors influencing the adoption and use of technology at a particular time. Over the last two decades, scientific research has notably focused on the adoption of theories of emerging technologies within information and industrial systems. Innovation intermediaries are organizations or bodies that act as representatives or agents in every aspect of the innovation process between two parties and are recognized as important actors that can facilitate the innovation process. The combination of these two with the embargoes governing Iran’s industrial environment, imposed with different intentions, has led this research to investigate the effect of innovation Intermediaries on the adoption of emerging technologies in the automotive industry with the moderating role of embargo restrictions.
 
Methods
This research is applied in terms of purpose and descriptive survey in terms of method. Its statistical population includes senior managers (CEO, board members, research and development managers, sales managers, and quality control managers) of Iran’s automotive industry. This paper used the probability sampling method with the available population. Considering the statistical population, 130 people were selected as a sample using Cochran’s formula. The main instrument for gathering information was a questionnaire. The reliability and validity of the research instrument were measured using composite reliability tests, factor loadings, Cronbach's alpha, convergent, and divergent validity. The data were analyzed using SmartPLS 3 and SPSS 24. A key advantage of this approach is its ability to achieve reliable results with a smaller sample size compared to Lisrel modeling. Through SmartPLS modeling, standard regression coefficients can be obtained for paths, coefficients of determination for internal variables, and index sizes for the conceptual model. It is worth mentioning that to test the hypotheses, the t-test was used to determine the validity of the relationship between the constructs.
 
Results
The hypotheses showed that the innovation intermediaries have a significant effect on understanding the ease of use of emerging technologies, perceived usefulness, willingness to adopt emerging technologies, legal support in the adoption of emerging technologies, security concerns in the adoption of emerging technologies, cost savings of emerging technologies in the automotive industry. The F2 test results revealed that sanction restrictions act as a moderating factor in the relationship between innovation intermediaries and the adoption of emerging technologies in Iran's automotive industry.
 
Conclusion
This study strongly showed that innovation intermediaries could provide an effective contribution to innovation processes and the adoption of emerging technologies in automotive companies. The present study has filled a research gap by empirically verifying the relationship between innovation intermediaries and the adoption of emerging technologies in the automotive industry. Innovation intermediaries play an important role in filling the gap between emerging technologies and their successful adoption by businesses and consumers. They act as catalysts, connecting different stakeholders, providing expertise, and fostering collaboration, which in turn paves the way for the adoption of emerging technologies.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

 
Aghaei, M., Rezagholizadeh, M. & Mohammadrezaei, M (2018). Impact of economic and commercial sanctions on Iran's trade relations and their major trading partners. Strategic Studies of public policy, 8(28), 49-68. (in Persian)
Agrawal, A., Bhattacharya, S. & Hasija, S. (2016). Cost-Reducing Innovation and the Role of Patent Intermediaries in Increasing Market Efficiency. Production and Operations Management, 25, 173 - 191. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.12391.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50 (2), 179-211.
Alavi, S, Y. (2013). Analyzing the structure of US banking sanctions and the requirements for its removal in comprehensive nuclear negotiations, Security Horizons, 7(25), 177-212.
(in Persian)
Alexander, A. T. & Martin, D. P. (2013). Intermediaries for open innovation: A competence-based comparison of knowledge transfer offices practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(1), 38-49.
Ansarian, M. (2011). International and unilateral sanctions against Iran from the perspective of human rights: their effects on economic rights and development. Public international law doctoral dissertation, Payam Noor University (in Persian)
Azad, N., & hosseini, H. (2018). Identifying the functions of open innovation intermediaries with the Focus Group approach. Quarterly journal of Industrial Technology Development, 16(33), 65-84. (in Persian)
Barlatier, P., Giannopoulou, E. & Pénin, J. (2019). Exploring the Role of Open Innovation Intermediaries. IGI Global eBooks.
Barnard, A. (1996). Technology and nursing: an anatomy of definition. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 33(4), 433-441.
Batterink, M. H., Wubben, E. F., Klerkx, L. & Omta, S. W. F. (2010). Orchestrating innovation networks: The case of innovation brokers in the agri-food sector. Entrepreneurship and regional development, 22(1), 47-76.
Carter, B. E. (1987). International economic sanctions: Improving the haphazard US legal regime. Cambridge University Press.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.
Clements, K. & Turpin, G. (1996). The life events scale for students: Validation for use with British samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 20(6), 747-751.
Collins, K. L. (2018). A Meso-Level Study of Ohio's Micropolitan Economic Determinants: Comparing Innovation Capacity and Innovation Performance within the Framework of an Innovation Efficacy Index (Doctoral dissertation, Trident University International).
Compeau, D., Higgins, C. A. & Huff, S. (1999). Social cognitive theory and individual reactions to computing technology: A longitudinal study. MIS Quarterly, 23 (2), 145–158.
Dalziel, M. (2010, June). Why do innovation intermediaries exist. In DRUID Summer Conference (pp. 16-18).
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.
De Silva, M., Howells, J. & Meyer, M. (2018). Innovation intermediaries and collaboration: Knowledge–based practices and internal value creation. Research Policy, 47(1), 70-87.
Dehghan Ashkezari, M. J., Miremadi, T. & Ramezanpour Nargesi, G. (2018). The Assessment of International Sanctions on Photovoltaic Innovation System of Iran. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 11(4), 63-77. doi: 10.22034/jstp.2019.10.4.539575 (in Persian)
Ellul, J. (1964). The Technological Society, Trans. John Wilkinson, New York: Alfred A.Knopf.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. United States, Boston: Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
Gangwar, H., Date, H., & Ramaswamy, R. (2015). Understanding determinants of cloud computing adoption using an integrated TAM-TOE model. Journal of enterprise information management, 28(1), 107-130.
Haggar, F. L. (2018). Innovation in Health Science Education: A Delphi Study of Insights from Experts in the Field (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Dakota).
Hajiakhoondi, E., Hashemzadeh Khorasgani, G. & Boushehri, A. (2020). Identify the major factors affecting the success of open innovation in the digital knowledge-based business ecosystem. Industrial Management Journal, 12(2), 344-372. (in Persian)
Hajimohammadi, M., Taherpoor, J., Salem, A. & Morovat, H. (2021). The Impact of Sanction on Technological Changes in Iranian Industries According to the Strategic Position (1995-2015). Geography (Regional Planning), 11(44), 775-797. doi: 10.22034/jgeoq .2021.139404 (in Persian)
Hall, B. H., Moncada-Paternò-Castello, P., Montresor, S. & Vezzani, A. (2016). Financing constraints, R&D investments and innovative performances: new empirical evidence at the firm level for Europe. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 25(3), 183-196.
Hallerstede, S. H. (2013). Open innovation platforms. In Managing the Lifecycle of Open Innovation Platforms (pp. 18-34). Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden.
Hargadon, A. B. (2002). Brokering knowledge: Linking learning and innovation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 41–85.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M. & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New challenges to international marketing, 20, 277-319). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Hermann, R. R., Mosgaard, M. & Kerndrup, S. (2016). The function of intermediaries in collaborative innovation processes: Retrofitting a Danish small island ferry with green technology. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 10(4), 361-383.
Hirad, A., Faghani, M., Pifeh, A. & Payan, A. (2021). Designing a Model for Monitoring the Productivity of the Automotive Industry. Public Management Researches, 14(51), 201-224. doi: 10.22111/jmr.2020.34279.5077. (in Persian)
Howell, R., van Beers, C., & Doorn, N. (2018). Value capture and value creation: The role of information technology in business models for frugal innovations in Africa. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 131, 227-239.
Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research policy, 35(5), 715-728.
Hyvärinen, A. M., Keskinen, M. & Levänen, J. (2024). Intermediaries as drivers of innovation development in resource-constrained environments: Insights from the Kenyan water sector. Technovation, 131, 102956.
Jovanovic, B. & MacDonald, G. M. (1994). Competitive diffusion. Journal of Political Economy, 102(1), 24-52.
Kalil, A., Seefeldt, K. S., & Wang, H. C. (2002). Sanctions and material hardship under TANF. Social Service Review, 76(4), 642-662.
Kanda, W., Hjelm, O., Clausen, J. & Bienkowska, D. (2018). Roles of intermediaries in supporting eco-innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 205, 1006–1016.
Kant, M. & Kanda, W. (2019). Innovation intermediaries: What does it take to survive over time?. Journal of Cleaner Production, 229, 911-930.
Kazerooni, A., & Khezri, A. (2018). The Impact of Economic Sanctions on Import of Iran Capital, Intermediate and Consumer Goods (1981-2013). Majlis and Rahbord, 25(93), 393-420.
Khosravian, E. (2023). Model of Technology Acquisition based on sanction in Iran’s Aviation Industry. Iranian Pattern of Progress, 11(1), 293-314. (in Persian)
Klerkx, L. & Leeuwis, C. (2009). Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technological forecasting and social change, 76(6), 849-860.
Küçüksayraç, E., Keskin, D. & Brezet, H. (2015). Intermediaries and innovation support in the design for sustainability field: cases from the Netherlands, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Journal of Cleaner Production, 101, 38-48.
Kuhn, D. (1988). How do People Know? Psychological Science, 12, 1–8.
Lee, S. G., Chae, S. H. & Cho, K. M. (2013). Drivers and inhibitors of SaaS adoption in Korea. International Journal of Information Management, 33(3), 429-440.
Lichtenthaler, U. (2013). The collaboration of innovation intermediaries and manufacturing firms in the markets for technology. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30, 142-158.
Lin, H., Zeng, S., Liu, H. & Li, C. (2016). How do intermediaries drive corporate innovation? A moderated mediating examination. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4831-4836.
Lin, J. H. (1996). Bisphosphonates: a review of their pharmacokinetic properties. Bone, 18(2), 75-85.
Lin, M. & Wei, J. (2018). The impact of innovation intermediary on knowledge transfer. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 502, 21-28.
Majlis Research Center, Office of Energy, Industry and Mining Studies (2013). Iran's automobile industry; Dos and don'ts. (in Persian)
Martins, C., Oliveiraa, T. & Popovic, A. (2014). Understanding the Internet banking adoption: A unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and perceived risk application. International Journal of Information Management, 34(1), 1–13.
Mashhadi, A. & Rashidi, M. (2015). The Effects of Imposed Sanctions against Iran on Environment, Energy & Technology Transfer in International Law. Public Law Researsh, 16(46), 103-123. (in Persian)
Nag, H., Karthikeyan, M. & Kumar, V. (2020, February). Automation in Audio Enhancement using Unsupervised Learning for Ubiquitous Computational Environment. In 2020 International Conference on Inventive Computation Technologies (ICICT) (pp. 369-375). IEEE.
Naha, R. K., Othman, M. & Akhter, N. (2017). Diverse approaches to cloud brokering: innovations and issues. IJCNDS, 19(1), 99-120.
Nilsson, M. & Sia-Ljungström, C. (2013). The Role of Innovation Intermediaries in Innovation Systems. Proceedings in Food System Dynamics, 160-180.
Oliveira, T., Thomas, M. & Espadanal, M. (2014). Assessing the determinants of cloud computing adoption: An analysis of the manufacturing and services sectors. Information & Management, 51(5), 497-510.
Ortega, B., Martínez, J. & Hoyos, M. (2007). Business Acceptance of Information and Communication Technologies: an Study of the Service Sector. Jistem Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 4, 03-22.
Polites, G. L. & Karahanna, E. (2013). The embeddedness of information systems habits in organizational and individual level routines: Development and disruption. MIS Quarterly 37 (1), 221–246.
Poranki, S. S. (2010). A Framework to Evaluate Growth Potential of Emerging Technologies: A Case of Flexible Electronics. State University of New York at Binghamton, Thomas J. Watson School of Engineering and Applied Science, Department of Systems Science and Industrial Engineering.
Rashadat Jo, H. & Sheikh Hassan, M. (2015). Investigating the impact of IT individual skills on the creativity of employees in the food industry. The third international conference on modern researches in management, economics and humanities. (in Persian)
Razmi, J., Heydaeriyeh, S. A., & Shahabi, A. (2014). Development of technology acceptance model in Iranian banking (Case study: Refah Bank of Semnan province). Industrial Management Journal, 6(3), 471-490. doi: 10.22059/imj.2014.50679. (in Persian)
Rivard, S. & Huff, S. L. (1988). Factors of success for end-user computing. Communications of the ACM, 31(5), 552-561.
Russo, M. & Caloffi, A. (2018). Innovation intermediaries and performance-based incentives: a case study of regional innovation poles. Science and Public Policy, 46 (1), 1-12.
Saengprachatanarug, K., Chea, C., Posom, J. & Saikaew, K. (2022). A review on innovation of remote sensing technology based on Unmanned Aerial Vehicle for sugarcane production in tropical region. Remote Sensing Application: Regional Perspectives in Agriculture and Forestry, 337-350.
Saghafi, F., Nourzad Moghaddam, E. & Seyedin, S. M. (2017). A Model for the Acceptance of Emerging Technology “Pacs” in Iran’s Hospitals. Iranian Journal of Information Processing and Management, 32(2), 491-517. doi: 10.35050/JIPM010.2017.051.
(in Persian)
Secchi, E. (2016). Open Innovation Networks and the Role of Intermediaries: An Agent-Based Simulation. In Agent-Based Simulation of Organizational Behavior (pp. 329-344). Springer, Cham.
Stewart, J. & Hyysalo, S. (2008). Intermediaries, users and social learning in technological innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(03), 295-325.
Tabatabayan, H., Qaderifar, I., Eliassy, M. & Bamdad-Sufi, J. (2019). The emerging knowledge base business technology commerce pattern. Journal of Innovation and Value Creation, 7(13), 25-39. (in Persian)
Vidmar, M., Rosiello, A., Vermeulen, N., Williams, R. & Dines, J. (2020). New Space and Agile Innovation: Understanding transition to open innovation by examining innovation networks and moments. Acta astronautica, 167, 122-134.
Vinzi, V. E., Trinchera, L., & Amato, S. (2010). PLS path modeling: from foundations to recent developments and open issues for model assessment and improvement. Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications, 47-82.
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Van Oppen, C. (2009). Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS quarterly, 177-195.
Wolpert, J. D. (2002). Breaking out of the innovation box. Harvard business review, 80(8), 76-83.
Industrial Management Journal
Volume 16, Issue 1
2024
Pages 1-36

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics