Industry 4.0 innovation ecosystems: An evolutionary perspective on value cocreation

Benitez, G. B., Ayala, N. F., & Frank, A. G. (2020). Industry 4.0 innovation ecosystems: An evolutionary perspective on value cocreation. International Journal of Production Economics228, 107735.

Mots-clés : Industrie 4.0, Écosystème d’innovation, Fournisseurs de technologie, PME

L’étude porte sur l’évolution de l’industrie 4.0 à travers la cartographie technologique de 87 entreprises, de 37 entretiens avec les parties prenantes et d’un suivi de 2,5 ans d’un projet de banc d’essai mené par 8 entreprises.

L’industrie 4.0 permet un réseau de systèmes technologies complexes interconnectés entre eux avec une complémentarité des compétences et des technologies (Dalenogare et al., 2018 ; Reischauer, 2018 ; Rübmann et al., 2015).

Le premier aspect structurel est le cycle de vie de l’écosystème.

L’évolution d’un écosystème d’innovation se traduit en 4 étapes (naissance, expansion leadership, mort) Moore (1993). La naissance se concentre sur la proposition de valeur de la part des acteurs suivi de l’expansion lorsque l’ecosystème s’attaque à de nouveaux niveaux de concurrence. Le leadership quant à lui est définit par la gouvernance de l’écosystème par les principaux producteurs. La mort survient quand l’écosystème est menacé par de nouveaux entrants sur un marché mature pouvant amener une certaine innovation.

L’industrie 4.0 n’échappe pas à ce cycle de vie des produits.

Le second aspect structurel des éconosytèmes d’innovation est la composition des éléments structurels nécessaires au maintien de l’écosystème. Selon Rong et al. (2015), il y a 6 dimensions principales interdépendantes appelées les 6C : Contexte, Configuration, Capabilité, Coopération, Construction et Changement.

Ces écosystèmes d’innovations sont déterminant pour cocréer de la valeur.

Selon l’auteur, la base de ces écosystèmes d’innovations ainsi que de l’industrie 4.0 doit provenir de la théorie de l’échange social à travers le partage de valeur mutuelle. L’industrie 4.0 comprend des technologies interconnectés entre elles (ERP, robot collaboratif, capteurs, etc.). Cette interdépendance des technologies est très couteuse et complexe à mettre en place. Il faut alors des connaissances dans différents domaines (gestion, logiciels, données, communication, etc.) (Frank, Daleno- gare et Ayala, 2019a).

Les PME n’ont malheureusement pas forcément les moyens d’intégrer étroitement ces dispositifs. Ainsi, dans la chaine d’approvisionnement il est difficile d’instaurer une collaboration réciproque donc une théorie de l’échange social. Pour y remédier, ces PME peuvent proposer des écosystèmes d’innovations liés à des intéractions sociales pour cocréer des solutions complexe de l’industrie 4.0.

En effet, sur les principes de la SET, l’un des principes fondamentaux est le renforcement de la confiance et de la loyauté au fil du temps.

A travers une étude qualitative, l’article démontre comment les éléments d’échange social sont présents et soutiennent la structure de l’écosystème Industrie 4.0.

L’étude a été effectuée au Brésil dans l’une des régions les plus industrialisées dans près de 120 PME rattachées à l’association commerciale. Ces entreprises proposes des solutions d’automatisation innovantes indispensables à l’industrie 4.0.

La collecte des données a été effectuées durant la phase d’expansion de l’industrie 4.0 en 2016.

References

Adner, R., 2017. Ecosystem as structure: an actionable construct for strategy. J. Manag. 43, 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451.

Adner, R., 2006. Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harv. Bus. Rev. 84, 98.

Ayala, N.F., Paslauski, C.A., Ghezzi, A., Frank, A.G., 2017. Knowledge sharing dynamics in service suppliers’ involvement for servitization of manufacturing companies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 193, 538–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.08.019.

Bardin, L., 1977. L’Analyse de Contenu. sl. Presses Universitaires de France.
Blau, P.M., 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. John Wiley & Sons, NY.
Brass, D.J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H.R., Tsai, W., 2004. Taking stock of networks and organizations: a multilevel perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 47, 795–817. https://doi. org/10.2307/20159624.
Buhr, D., 2015. Social Innovation Policy for Industry 4.0. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung,

Division for Social and Economic Policies.
CNI – Confederaç~ao Nacional da Indústria, 2016. Industry 4.0: a New Challenge for

Brazilian Industry. Available at: https://bucket-gw-cni-static-cms-si.s3.amazonaws. com/media/filer_public/54/02/54021e9b-ed9e-4d87-a7e5-3b37399a9030/cha llenges_for_industry_40_in_brazil.pdf.

Cropanzano, R., Mitchell, M.S., 2005. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review. J. Manag. 31, 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602.

Dalenogare, L.S., Benitez, G.B., Ayala, N.F., Frank, A.G., 2018. The expected contribution of Industry 4.0 technologies for industrial performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 204, 383–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.08.019.

Dallasega, P., Rauch, E., Linder, C., 2018. Industry 4.0 as an enabler of proximity for construction supply chains: a systematic literature review. Comput. Ind. 99, 205–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2018.03.039.

Dedehayir, O., M€akinen, S.J., Roland Ortt, J., 2018. Roles during innovation ecosystem genesis: a literature review. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 136, 18–29. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.028.

Emerson, R.M., 1976. Social exchange theory. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2, 335–362. https:// doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.02.080176.002003.

Frank, A.G., Cortimiglia, M.N., Ribeiro, J.L.D., Oliveira, L.S. de, 2016. The effect of innovation activities on innovation outputs in the Brazilian industry: market- orientation vs. technology-acquisition strategies. Res. Policy 45, 577–592. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.11.011.

Frank, A.G., Gerstlberger, W., Paslauski, C.A., Lerman, L.V., Ayala, N.F., 2018. The contribution of innovation policy criteria to the development of local renewable energy systems. Energy Pol. 115 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.01.036.

Frank Dalenogare, L.S., Ayala, N.F., 2019a. Industry 4.0 technologies: implementation patterns in manufacturing companies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 210, 15–26. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.01.004.

Frank Mendes, G.H.S., Ayala, N.F., Ghezzi, A., 2019b. Servitization and Industry 4.0 convergence in the digital transformation of product firms: a business model innovation perspective. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 141, 341–351. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.01.014.

Gawer, A., Cusumano, M.A., 2014. Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. 31, 417–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12105.

Gawer, A.A., Cusumano, M.A., 2002. Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Goffin, K., Åhlstro€m, P., Bianchi, M., Richtn�er, A., 2019. Perspective: state-of-the-art: the quality of case study research in innovation management. J. Prod. Innovat. Manag. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12492.

IBGE, 2015. Demografia das Empresas | IBGE ([WWW Document]).
Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W., Helbig, J., 2013. Recommendations for implementing the

strategic initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0. Final Rep. Ind. 4, 0 WG 82.
Kitzinger, J., 1994. The methodology of Focus Groups: the importance of interaction

between research participants. Sociol. Health Illness 16, 103–121. https://doi.org/

10.1111/1467-9566.ep11347023.
Liao, Y., Deschamps, F., Loures, E. de F.R., Ramos, L.F.P., 2017. Past, present and future

of Industry 4.0 – a systematic literature review and research agenda proposal. Int. J.

Prod. Res. 55, 3609–3629. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1308576. Lu, Y., 2017. Industry 4.0: a survey on technologies, applications and open research

issues. J. Ind. Inf. Integr. 6, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JII.2017.04.005. Lusch, R., Vargo, S., 2014. The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions.
Marodin, G., Frank, A.G., Tortorella, G.L., Netland, T., 2018. Lean product development and lean manufacturing: testing moderation effects. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 203,

301–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.07.009.
Marodin, G.A., Tortorella, G.L., Frank, A.G., Godinho Filho, M., 2017. The moderating

effect of Lean supply chain management on the impact of Lean shop floor practices on quality and inventory. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. https://doi.org/10.1108/ SCM-10-2016-0350.

Moeuf, A., Pellerin, R., Lamouri, S., Tamayo-Giraldo, S., Barbaray, R., 2018. The industrial management of SMEs in the era of Industry 4.0. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56, 1118–1136. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2017.1372647.

Moore, J.F., 1993. Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harv. Bus. Rev. 71, 75–86.

Müller, J.M., Buliga, O., Voigt, K.-I., 2018. Fortune favors the prepared: how SMEs approach business model innovations in Industry 4.0. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 132, 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.12.019.

Osterrieder, P., Budde, L., Friedli, T., 2019. The smart factory as a key construct of industry 4.0: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Prod. Econ. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijpe.2019.08.011.

Piccarozzi, M., Aquilani, B., Gatti, C., 2018. Industry 4.0 in management studies: a systematic literature review. Sustainability 10, 3821. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su10103821.

PINTEC, 2014. Pesquisa de Inovaç~ao – PINTEC | IBGE [WWW document]. Inovaç~ao – PINTEC, Pesqui.

PWC – PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2016. Industry 4.0: Building the Digital Enterprise. Reischauer, G., 2018. Industry 4.0 as policy-driven discourse to institutionalize

innovation systems in manufacturing. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 132, 26–33.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2018.02.012.
Reynolds, E.B., Uygun, Y., 2017. Strengthening advanced manufacturing innovation ecosystems: the case of Massachusetts. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.003.
Rong, K., Hu, G., Lin, Y., Shi, Y., Guo, L., 2015. Understanding business ecosystem using a 6C framework in Internet-of-Things-based sectors. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 159, 41–55.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.09.003.
Rübmann, M., Lorenz, M., Gerbert, P., Waldner, M., Justus, J., Engel, P., Harnisch, M., 2015. Industry 4.0: the Future of Productivity and Growth in Manufacturing

Industries (Boston Consulting Group).
Russell, M.G., Smorodinskaya, N.V., 2018. Leveraging complexity for ecosystemic innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2017.11.024.
Schiele, H., Veldman, J., Hüttinger, L., Pulles, N., 2012. Towards a social exchange

theory perspective on preferred customership — concept and practice. In: Supply Management Research. Gabler Verlag, Wiesbaden, pp. 133–151. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-8349-3928-9_6.

Sklyar, A., Kowalkowski, C., Tronvoll, B., So€rhammar, D., 2019. Organizing for digital servitization: a service ecosystem perspective. J. Bus. Res. 104, 450–460. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.012.

Sommer, L., 2015. Industrial revolution-industry 4.0: are German manufacturing SMEs the first victims of this revolution? J. Ind. Eng. Manag. 8, 1512–1532. https://doi. org/10.3926/jiem.1470.

Tanskanen, K., 2015. Who wins in a complex buyer-supplier relationship? A social exchange theory based dyadic study. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 35, 577–603. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-10-2012-0432.

Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A., 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strat. Manag. J. 18, 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708) 18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z.

Tsujimoto, M., Kajikawa, Y., Tomita, J., Matsumoto, Y., 2018. A review of the ecosystem concept — towards coherent ecosystem design. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 136, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.032.

Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N., Frohlich, M., 2002. Case research in operations management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 22, 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570210414329.

Wang, L., Torngren, M., Onori, M., 2015. Current status and advancement of cyber- physical systems in manufacturing. J. Manuf. Syst. 37, 517–527. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jmsy.2015.04.008.

Wu, I.-L., Chuang, C.-H., Hsu, C.-H., 2014. Information sharing and collaborative behaviors in enabling supply chain performance: a social exchange perspective. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 148, 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.09.016.

Xu, L. Da, Xu, E.L., Li, L., 2018. Industry 4.0: state of the art and future trends. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56, 2941–2962. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1444806.

Yin, R.K., 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Sage, Los Angeles. Cal). Yin, Y., Stecke, K.E., Li, D., 2018. The evolution of production systems from Industry 2.0 through Industry 4.0. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56, 848–861. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00207543.2017.1403664.

Zhao, X., Huo, B., Flynn, B.B., Yeung, J.H.Y., 2008. The impact of power and relationship commitment on the integration between manufacturers and customers in a supply

chain. J. Oper. Manag. 26, 368–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.08.002. Zhong, R.Y., Xu, X., Klotz, E., Newman, S.T., 2017. Intelligent manufacturing in the context of industry 4.0: a review. Engineering 3, 616–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/ J.ENG.2017.05.015.