Use of Patterns for Knowledge Management in the Ceramic Tile Design Chain

Knowledge Management (KM) is a complex objective, especially in the instance of extended enterprises consisting of SMEs, and critical in new product design and development (NPD). The use of patterns is essential to get KM in collaborative NPD processes. This paper presents the use of patterns adopted in the CE-TILE project to standardize information and knowledge in collaborative work. The different types of patterns and models established for the knowledge capture, formalization and configuration are also described

Managing mechanisms for collaborative new-product development in the ceramic tile design chain

This paper focuses on improving the management of New-Product Development (NPD) processes within the particular context of a cluster of enterprises that cooperate through a network of intra- and inter-firm relations. Ceramic tile design chains have certain singularities that condition the NPD process, such as the lack of a strong hierarchy, fashion pressure or the existence of different origins for NPD projects. We have studied these particular circumstances in order to tailor Product Life-cycle Management (PLM) tools and some other management mechanisms to fit suitable sectoral reference models. Special emphasis will be placed on PLM templates for structuring and standardizing projects, and also on the roles involved in the process.This work was partially supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología; Dirección General de Investigación under the Plan Nacional de I+D+i programme for Research Promotion (Project DPI2002_02141. CE-TILE). We also acknowledge the help given by Capgemini España S.L.U., TAU Cerámica S.A., Esmalglass S.A., Macer S.A. and Cerámica Kersa S.L. in the new ceramic product design and development pilot experience, which was carried out within the framework of the project

Ceramic Tile Design: a Case Study of Collaborative New-Product Development in Fashion-Driven Chains

This paper studies ceramic tile design chains, as representative of those collaborative New-Product Development (NPD) processes where the presence of very different origins of designs and the fast changes of the market strongly condition the process. We have studied this particular circumstance by way of what we have called the “stimulators and stimuli framework” that proved helpful to obtain computer supported NPD models for ceramic tile clusters.This work was partially supported by the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología; Dirección General de Investigación under the Plan Nacional de I+D+i programme for Research Promotion (Project DPI2002_02141. CE- TILE). We also acknowledge the help given by Capgemini España S.L.U., TAU Cerámica S.A., Esmalglass S.A., Macer S.A. and Cerámica Kersa S.L

John Hinchcliffe

This is a monograph on the designer-maker John Hinchcliffe and charts his work from textiles to ceramics. This was published to coincide with a major exhibtion of his work at the Crafts Study Centre. The book is written by Simon Olding the Director of the Centre

Innovaciones tecnológicas disruptivas como nuevas oportunidades para los clústeres industriales maduros. El caso de la tecnología de impresión digital en el clúster cerámico español

Over the last few decades, many studies have focused on the role that incremental innovations play in cluster contexts. However, few authors have analysed the impact of disruptive innovations on these entities. The present research analyses the emergence, development and dissemination of a disruptive technological innovation in an industrial cluster. In particular, we study the case of the introduction of inkjet printing technology in the Spanish ceramic cluster as a paradigm of how a disruptive innovation can impact the industry’s value chain. This technological change ended up revolutionizing what was considered a mature and stable sector. In short, we will describe how a disruptive technological innovation is capable of renewing the life cycle of a cluster favouring the recovery of competitiveness and, even, creating new opportunities for diversification.En las últimas décadas, muchos estudios se han centrado en el papel que desempeñan las innovaciones incrementales en el ámbito de los clústeres. Sin embargo, pocos autores han analizado el impacto que las innovaciones disruptivas o radicales han tenido en estas agrupaciones territoriales. La presente investigación analiza la generación, desarrollo y difusión de una innovación tecnológica disruptiva en el seno de un cluster industrial. En particular, estudiamos el caso de la introducción de la tecnología de impresión digital en el clúster cerámico español como paradigma del impacto que una innovación tecnológica disruptiva puede tener sobre la cadena de valor de una industria. Este cambio tecnológico ha revolucionado lo que se había considerado un sector maduro y estable. En conclusión, vamos a analizar cómo una innovación tecnológica disruptiva es capaz de renovar el ciclo de vida de un cluster, favoreciendo así la recuperación de la competitividad e, incluso, creando nuevas oportunidades para la diversificación de las empresas integrantes

The role of a firm's absorptive capacity and the technology transfer process in clusters: How effective are technology centres in low-tech clusters?

This paper analyses how the internal resources of small- and medium-sized enterprises determine access (learning processes) to technology centres (TCs) or industrial research institutes (innovation infrastructure) in traditional low-tech clusters. These interactions basically represent traded (market-based) transactions, which constitute important sources of knowledge in clusters. The paper addresses the role of TCs in low-tech clusters, and uses semi-structured interviews with 80 firms in a manufacturing cluster. The results point out that producer–user interactions are the most frequent; thus, the higher the sector knowledge-intensive base, the more likely the utilization of the available research infrastructure becomes. Conversely, the sectors with less knowledge-intensive structures, i.e. less absorptive capacity (AC), present weak linkages to TCs, as they frequently prefer to interact with suppliers, who act as transceivers of knowledge. Therefore, not all the firms in a cluster can fully exploit the available research infrastructure, and their AC moderates this engagement. In addition, the existence of TCs is not sufficient since the active role of a firm's search strategies to undertake interactions and conduct openness to available sources of knowledge is also needed. The study has implications for policymakers and academia

Disruptive Innovation in Traditional Clusters: The Case of the Kerajet Ceramic Tile Cluster in Spain

[EN] Academic literature has often emphasized how firms in regional clusters exploit both place-specific local resources and external, world-class knowledge to strengthen their competitiveness by expanding the influence of regional systems of innovation. Innovation based on more complex and disruptive technologies tends to also be based on more open systems that utilize the clusters¿ external networks. However, most of the literature has associated clusters with incremental innovation. This paper will analyze the determinants of disruptive innovation development in traditional (low and medium tech) clusters caused by high-tech entrepreneurs. It will analyze the case of the development of breakthrough innovation, its diffusion in the Spanish ceramic tile cluster, and its consequent diffusion in the industry worldwide. It will examine how market demands, customer orientation, technology diffusion from other industries, industry competitiveness, as well as internal and external networking of clusters can facilitate the development of complex technology within a common set of social capital goals, cognitive schemes, and knowledge. The paper is based on a case study and field work carried out over10 years in the field in the Italian and Spanish tile ceramic clusters. The main contribution of this paper to technology strategy theory will be thorough the utilization of the disruptive technology paradigm in explaining industry changes and sustainability.Albors Garrigós, J.; Hervás Oliver, JL. (2019). Disruptive Innovation in Traditional Clusters: The Case of the Kerajet Ceramic Tile Cluster in Spain. Applied Sciences. 9(24):1-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9245513S119924Asheim, B. T., & Coenen, L. (2005). Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters. Research Policy, 34(8), 1173-1190. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.013Asheim, B. T., Smith, H. L., & Oughton, C. (2011). Regional Innovation Systems: Theory, Empirics and Policy. Regional Studies, 45(7), 875-891. doi:10.1080/00343404.2011.596701Lissoni, F. (2001). Knowledge codification and the geography of innovation: the case of Brescia mechanical cluster. Research Policy, 30(9), 1479-1500. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(01)00163-9Belussi, F., & Sedita, S. R. (2012). Industrial Districts as Open Learning Systems: Combining Emergent and Deliberate Knowledge Structures. Regional Studies, 46(2), 165-184. doi:10.1080/00343404.2010.497133Steinle, C., & Schiele, H. (2002). When do industries cluster? Research Policy, 31(6), 849-858. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(01)00151-2Giuliani, E. (2007). The wine industry: persistence of tacit knowledge or increased codification? Some implications for catching-up countries. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 3(2/3), 138. doi:10.1504/ijtg.2007.014330Hervas-Oliver, J.-L., & Albors-Garrigos, J. (2008). The role of the firm’s internal and relational capabilities in clusters: when distance and embeddedness are not enough to explain innovation. Journal of Economic Geography, 9(2), 263-283. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbn033Grashof, N., Hesse, K., & Fornahl, D. (2019). Radical or not? The role of clusters in the emergence of radical innovations. European Planning Studies, 27(10), 1904-1923. doi:10.1080/09654313.2019.1631260Dubé, & Paré. (2003). Rigor in Information Systems Positivist Case Research: Current Practices, Trends, and Recommendations. MIS Quarterly, 27(4), 597. doi:10.2307/30036550Molina-Morales, F. X. (2002). Industrial districts and innovation: the case of the Spanish ceramic tiles industry. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 14(4), 317-335. doi:10.1080/08985620210144992Estudio Económico del Sector del Azulejo 2018, Castellón (Spanish) http//www.ascer.esHervás-Oliver, J. L., & Albors-Garrigós, J. (2007). Do clusters capabilities matter? An empirical application of the resource-based view in clusters. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 19(2), 113-136. doi:10.1080/08985620601137554Oliver, J. L. H., Garrigós, J. A., & Porta, J. I. D. (2008). External Ties and the Reduction of Knowledge Asymmetries among Clusters within Global Value Chains: The Case of the Ceramic Tile District of Castellon. European Planning Studies, 16(4), 507-520. doi:10.1080/09654310801983308Assopiastrelle and Asia Observatore, Corporate Information www.assopiastrelle.itAlbors, J. G. (2002). The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(3), 263-273. doi:10.1023/a:1015600521407Belussi, F., & Rita Sedita, S. (2008). The Symbiotic Division of Labour between Heterogeneous Districts in the Dutch and Italian Horticultural Industry. Urban Studies, 45(13), 2715-2734. doi:10.1177/0042098008098202Breschi, S., Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. (2000). Technological Regimes and Schumpeterian Patterns of Innovation. The Economic Journal, 110(463), 388-410. doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00530Iammarino, S., & McCann, P. (2006). The structure and evolution of industrial clusters: Transactions, technology and knowledge spillovers. Research Policy, 35(7), 1018-1036. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.05.004Robertson, P. L., & Patel, P. R. (2007). New wine in old bottles: Technological diffusion in developed economies. Research Policy, 36(5), 708-721. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.008JOHN, C. H., & POUDER, R. W. (2006). Technology Clusters versus Industry Clusters: Resources, Networks, and Regional Advantages. Growth and Change, 37(2), 141-171. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2257.2006.00313.xBeckman, C. M., & Haunschild, P. R. (2002). Network Learning: The Effects of Partners’ Heterogeneity of Experience on Corporate Acquisitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(1), 92. doi:10.2307/3094892Abernathy, W. J., & Clark, K. B. (1985). Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14(1), 3-22. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(85)90021-6Ettlie, J. E., Bridges, W. P., & O’Keefe, R. D. (1984). Organization Strategy and Structural Differences for Radical Versus Incremental Innovation. Management Science, 30(6), 682-695. doi:10.1287/mnsc.30.6.682Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439. doi:10.2307/2392832Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. (1986). The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Innovations: An Empirical Analysis. Management Science, 32(11), 1422-1433. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.11.1422Green, S. G., Gavin, M. B., & Aiman-Smith, L. (1995). Assessing a multidimensional measure of radical technological innovation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 42(3), 203-214. doi:10.1109/17.403738Coccia, M. (2015). Radical innovations as drivers of breakthroughs: characteristics and properties of the management of technology leading to superior organisational performance in the discovery process of R&D labs. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28(4), 381-395. doi:10.1080/09537325.2015.1095287Adner, R. (2002). When are technologies disruptive? a demand-based view of the emergence of competition. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 667-688. doi:10.1002/smj.246Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. (2015). Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: Re-examining technology S-curves. Strategic Management Journal, 37(4), 625-648. doi:10.1002/smj.2363Danneels, E. (2004). Disruptive Technology Reconsidered: A Critique and Research Agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(4), 246-258. doi:10.1111/j.0737-6782.2004.00076.xMarkides, C. (2006). Disruptive Innovation: In Need of Better Theory*. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 19-25. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2005.00177.xTellis, G. J. (2006). Disruptive Technology or Visionary Leadership?*. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(1), 34-38. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2005.00179.xVon Hippel, E. (1986). Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts. Management Science, 32(7), 791-805. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.7.791Chesbrough, H. (2010). Business Model Innovation: Opportunities and Barriers. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 354-363. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.010Schmidt, G. M., & Druehl, C. T. (2008). When Is a Disruptive Innovation Disruptive? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(4), 347-369. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00306.xIsaksen, A. (2018). From success to failure, the disappearance of clusters: a study of a Norwegian boat-building cluster. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 11(2), 241-255. doi:10.1093/cjres/rsy007Glasmeier, A. (1991). Technological discontinuities and flexible production networks: The case of Switzerland and the world watch industry. Research Policy, 20(5), 469-485. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(91)90070-7Hervas-Oliver, J.-L., & Albors-Garrigos, J. (2014). Are technology gatekeepers renewing clusters? Understanding gatekeepers and their dynamics across cluster life cycles. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 26(5-6), 431-452. doi:10.1080/08985626.2014.933489Hervas-Oliver, J.-L., Sempere-Ripoll, F., Estelles-Miguel, S., & Rojas-Alvarado, R. (2019). Radical vs incremental innovation in Marshallian Industrial Districts in the Valencian Region: what prevails? European Planning Studies, 27(10), 1924-1939. doi:10.1080/09654313.2019.1638887Albors, J., & Hervás, J. L. (2006). La industria cerámica europea en el siglo XXI. Retos tecnológicos y desafíos de la próxima década. Boletín de la Sociedad Española de Cerámica y Vidrio, 45(1), 13-21. doi:10.3989/cyv.2006.v45.i1.323Utterback, J. M., & Abernathy, W. J. (1975). A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega, 3(6), 639-656. doi:10.1016/0305-0483(75)90068-7Assink, M. (2006). Inhibitors of disruptive innovation capability: a conceptual model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(2), 215-233. doi:10.1108/14601060610663587Munari, F., Sobrero, M., & Malipiero, A. (2011). Absorptive capacity and localized spillovers: focal firms as technological gatekeepers in industrial districts. Industrial and Corporate Change, 21(2), 429-462. doi:10.1093/icc/dtr053Landry, R., Amara, N., & Lamari, M. (2002). Does social capital determine innovation? To what extent? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 69(7), 681-701. doi:10.1016/s0040-1625(01)00170-6Angel, D. P. (2002). Inter-firm Collaboration and Technology Development Partnerships Within US Manufacturing Industries. Regional Studies, 36(4), 333-344. doi:10.1080/00343400220131115Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., Henry, N., & Pinch, S. (2004). Knowledge, Clusters, and Competitive Advantage. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 258-271. doi:10.5465/amr.2004.12736089Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128. doi:10.2307/239355

Software Market Configuration: A Socio-Technical Explanation

In the case presented herein, two three-dimensional rendering software products coexist without competing, though they present similar characteristics and rely on competitive technological architectures. The market configuration for these two software products thus appears largely determined by socio-technical elements, not just the technical characteristics of the software architecture. The socio-technical regime within which the technology is embedded shapes the boundaries of the markets for both software products. Therefore, the concept of path dependency appears insufficient to explain the nature of the competition. To explain the factors that determine the market configuration, the authors introduce the concept of socio-technical regimes

Taking the customer into account in collaborative design

This article describes the improvement of a model of collaborative design for the ceramic industry. A new stakeholder playing a crucial role is now included in the design process, i.e. the customer. Specifically, we present a pilot validation study for the framework that aims to analyse how the environment, experiences and reference criteria of different types of the customers (commercial dealers, final users, architects and interior designers, etc.) can affect their preferences. Information about these customer preferences could be very useful for designers during the early stages of product development. A multidisciplinary approach to the problem can introduce substantial improvements in defining a truly collaborative design chain

Inspirations from the development of the Spain ceramic cluster for the Foshan ceramic cluster in China

Treball Final de Màster Universitari en Direcció d'Empreses / Master in Management. Codi: SRO011. Curs acadèmic 2022/202