A place-based policy for promoting Industry 4.0: the case of the Castellon ceramic tile district

Abstract

Digitization and its impact on regions and clusters remains overlooked in the literature, and constitute this present paper's goal. How does an industrial district transit collectively to the adoption of new radical changes brought about by Industry 4.0? This study explores the role of collective actors and innovation platforms during the early stages of a pilot policy to stimulate a collective transition of an entire MID (Marshallian Industrial District) into Industry 4.0. We posit that institutional isomorphism and the existent social capital in MIDs is a double-sword phenomenon that can also positively constitute an enabler for fostering change on a collective-basis. Technology transitions, such as Industry 4.0, can be supported and led by collective actors that are central in facilitating the adoption of Industry 4.0 in MIDs, enticing innovative firms to engage in that transition, establishing, legitimizing, and embedding a new set of processes, practices and inter-firm arrangements for digitizing and then promoting imitation: the positive leverage of isomorphism. Thus, MID transition is facilitated through capitalizing on the MID logic of cooperation-competition and isomorphism, by developing and promoting a collective understanding of the new paradigm, building a supportive infrastructure, educating in the new technology and avoiding cognitive inertia.

Impact of Resources on the Development of Local Entrepreneurship in Industry 4.0

“…Given the opportunities that industrial development 4.0 opens up for agglomeration areas, it is also necessary to take the emerging requirements for these areas into account-the need for adequate infrastructure and basic resources, such as water and energy and warning systems [84]. A very interesting observation also refers to the possibility of switching entire clusters (Marshall's industrial districts) to 4.0 solutions [85]. Institutional isomorphism, conditioned by adequate social capital, can play a key role here [85].…”

“…A very interesting observation also refers to the possibility of switching entire clusters (Marshall's industrial districts) to 4.0 solutions [85]. Institutional isomorphism, conditioned by adequate social capital, can play a key role here [85].…”

The dissemination mechanisms of Industry 4.0 knowledge in traditional industrial districts:evidence from Italy

“…First, it provides further research on I4.0 and IDs and clusters (Götz and Jankowska, 2017;Hervas-Oliver et al, 2019), developing an in-depth analysis of the variety of knowledge dissemination processeswhere both institutions and firms are involvedmapped through the ARA framework able to highlight key actors, activities and resources (Håkansson and Snehota, 1995). Notably, our study on the traditional Pesaro ID points out three main patterns:…”

“…Notably, the forms of "collective cooperation" in I4.0 projects represent innovative mechanisms linking traditional ID actors to technologically advanced firms and organizations, fostering open localized learning and exploiting localized social ties. These "collective" mechanisms could represent one key driver to renew the cooperative interaction in IDs and clusters (Hervas-Oliver et al, 2019) and promote local initiatives inspired to "open innovation" logics (Leckel et al, 2020), pushed by the selfinterest of those local firms available to commit time and resources (Munksgaard and Medlin, 2014) to improve their absorptive capacity to join and exploit "selected" business networks within and outside the ID (Belussi and Sedita, 2012). Each initiative could be considered as a "temporary resource constellation and activity pattern in which the actors form a distinct logic and develop new solutions in relation to each other" (Ingemansson Havenvid et al, 2016, p. 86).…”

“…Companies understand the relevance of the I4.0 change, but they are still not able to foresee its possible future developments. Indeed, I4.0, as a set of new technologies, does not constitute a disruptive change per se; nonetheless, the use of I4.0 technologies implies a disruptive change in firms that is related to the set of external and internal managerial implications to achieve major business improvements (Hervas-Oliver et al, 2019). Internal changes refer mainly to changes in operations, production lines, technical and digital tools (Frank et al, 2019), whereas external changes concern changes in relationships with suppliers and customers, the integration of new subjects as consultants or KIBS and the changing roles of firms in their networks (Hein et al, 2019;Sklyar et al, 2019aSklyar et al, , 2019b.…”