The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Strengthening advanced manufacturing innovation ecosystems: The case of Massachusetts
Abstract
Abstract Recent years have brought a renewed focus on the importance of manufacturing to the health and future growth of nations and regions. Several studies have highlighted the need to maintain and build manufacturing capabilities to support economic growth and have linked a nation's as well as region's strength in manufacturing to its ability to innovate. In the U.S., where a manufacturing strategy has largely been absent for the past 25 years, advanced manufacturing capabilities are now seen as essential to the development of new products and processes across a range of industries. Against this backdrop, Massachusetts presents an interesting case since manufacturing in this U.S. state is integral to several of its most important industry clusters, yet it is a high wage, high costs state that must compete globally. This research examines the pathways and opportunities for building and fostering innovation capacity among Massachusetts manufacturers, with a particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). We employ a systems approach to conduct analytic and empirical analyses that consider how knowledge and sources of innovation flow between key participants within the manufacturing innovation ecosystem. We find that the Massachusetts manufacturing innovation ecosystem is rich in terms of assets but relatively poor in terms of interconnectedness between those assets. In addition, rather than being focused on demand-driven innovation and technological upgrading for SMEs, non-market state-supported manufacturing intermediaries are primarily focused on supply-side, point solutions that work with individual firms rather than at a systems level.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Localization of Knowledge and the Mobility of Engineers in Regional Networks
Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. (1999) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.45.7.905 · Cited by 2,565
Industrial Policy for the Twenty-First Century
Rodrik, D. (2004) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.617544 · Cited by 1,623
Cited by
Sima, V., Gheorghe, I. G., Subić, J., & Nancu, D. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12104035 · Cited by 786
Industry 4.0 innovation ecosystems: An evolutionary perspective on value cocreation
Benitez, G. B., Ayala, N. F., & Frank, A. G. (2020) · International Journal of Production Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107735 · Cited by 508
Ghobakhloo, M., Iranmanesh, M., Grybauskas, A., Vilkas, M., & Petraitė, M. (2021) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.2867 · Cited by 462
Autonomous experimentation systems for materials development: A community perspective
Stach, E., DeCost, B., Kusne, A. G., Hattrick-Simpers, J., Brown, K. A., Reyes, K. G., Schrier, J., Billinge, S., Buonassisi, T., Foster, I., et al. (2021) · Matter · doi:10.1016/j.matt.2021.06.036 · Cited by 398
How can open innovation ecosystem modes push product innovation forward? An fsQCA analysis
Xie, X., & Wang, H. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.011 · Cited by 325
Metadata
- Authors
- Reynolds, E. B., & Uygun, Y.
- Venue
- Technological Forecasting and Social Change
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-11
- Volume
- 136
- Pages
- 178-191
- ISSN
- 0040-1625 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2626399753
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 17.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.