In this paper the impact of the adoption of new technology upon the market performance of small and medium-sized manufacturing firms (SMFs) is explored. Data from a six-sector survey of western New York SMFs are presented. The results suggest a series of relationships between the incidence of successful process innovation, new product development, and market performance. Data from the survey are explored in the context of recent perspectives on the economic role of flexible specialisation, new product launch, and regional SMF development. A major finding is that modern production technologies can assist the competitive efforts of small industrial firms, especially those that serve export markets. A further finding is that SMFs in import-sensitive industries can partially counteract external competition by adopting new manufacturing methods. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of the academic and regional policy implications that flow from the survey results.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BessantJHaywoodB, 1986, “Flexibility in manufacturing systems”OMEGA: The International Journal of Management Science14465–473
2.
BessantJHaywoodB, 1988, “Islands, archipelagoes and continents: Progress on the road to computer-integrated manufacturing”Research Policy17349–362
3.
BrittonJ N H, 1991, “Reconsidering innovation policy for small and medium-sized enterprises: The Canadian case”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy9189–206
4.
BruscoS, 1986, “Small firms and industrial districts: The experience of Italy”, in New Firms and Regional Development in Europe Eds KeebleDWeverE (Croom Helm, Andover, Hants) pp 184–202
5.
CalantoneR Jdi BenedettoC AMelocheM S, 1988, “Strategies of product and process innovation: A loglinear analysis”R&D Management1813–21
6.
ChandraB, 1992High-technology Manufacturing in Western New York: An Assessment of the Internationalisation Processes of Innovative Firms unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Geography, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY
7.
ColeS, 1989, “Flexible manufacturing systems and the food processing industry”, discussion paper, Centre for Regional Studies, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY
8.
ColganC S, 1991, “Economic development policies of the American States and Canadian Provinces”, paper presented at the 20th Biennial Meeting of the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States, Boston, MA, 22 November; copy available from C S Colgan, Edmund S Muskie Institute of Public Affairs, University of Southern Maine, Portland, ME
9.
Commerce Register, 1989Upstate New York Directory of Manufacturers New York
10.
Commerce Register, 1990Upstate New York Directory of Manufacturers New York
11.
DichtlEKoeglmayrH GMuellerS, 1990, “International orientation as a precondition for export success”Journal of International Business Studies21 (1) 23–40
12.
GertlerM S, 1988, “The limits to flexibility: Comments on the post-Fordist vision of production and its geography”Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers: New Series13419–432
13.
GertlerM S, 1992a, “Making the transition? Obstacles to a new industrial order”, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of American Geographers, San Diego, CA, 19 April; copy available from M S Gertler, Department of Geography, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
14.
GertlerM S, 1992b, “Implementing the ‘new technologies’: Problems in ‘peripheral manufacturing’”, paper presented at the United States Department of Agriculture USDOA workshop on Rural America and the Changing Structure of Manufacturing, USDOA Economic Research Service, Washington, DC, 24–25 September; copy available from M S Gertler, Department of Geography, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
15.
GoldB, 1983, “Potentials and limitations of robotics: Guides to managerial evaluation”European Journal of Operations Research1413–17
16.
Gros-PietroG MRolfoS, 1989, “Flexible automation and firm sizes: Some empirical evidence on the Italian case”Technovation9493–503
17.
HarveyDScottA, 1989, “The practice of human geography: Theory and empirical specificity in the transition from Fordism to flexible accumulation”, in Remodelling Geography Ed. MacmillanB (Basil Blackwell, Oxford) pp 217–229
18.
KaplanR, 1983, “Yesterday's accounting undermines production”Harvard Business Review (July–August) 7–13
19.
KaplanR, 1986, “Must CIM be justified by faith alone?”Harvard Business Review (March–April) 9–14
20.
KaplinskyR, 1984Automation: The Technology and Society (Longman, Harlow, Essex)
21.
KelleyM RBrooksH, 1991, “External learning opportunities and the diffusion of process innovation to small firms: The case of programmable automation”Technological Forecasting and Social Change39103–125
22.
KnudsenD, 1992, “Flexiblism and manufacturing: A survey”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers, San Diego, CA, April; copy available from D Knudsen, Department of Geography and School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN
23.
KotabeM, 1990, “Corporate product policy and innovative behaviour of European and Japanese multinationals: An empirical investigation”Journal of Marketing5419–33
24.
McGuinnessN WLittleB, 1981, “The impact of R&D spending on the foreign sales of new Canadian industrial products”Research Policy1078–98
25.
McLeanI WRoundD K, 1978, “Research and product innovation in Australian manufacturing industries”Journal of International Economics27 (1) 1–12
26.
MacPhersonA, 1992, “Innovation, external technical linkages and small firm commercial performance: An empirical analysis from Western New York”Entrepreneurship and Regional Development4165–184
27.
MaleckiE, 1991Technology and Economic Development: The Dynamics of Local, Regional and National Change (Longman, Harlow, Essex)
28.
MarkusenA R, 1985Profit Cycles, Oligopoly and Regional Development (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA)
29.
MilgromPRobertsJ, 1990, “The economics of modern manufacturing: Technology, strategy, and organisation”The American Economic Review80511–528
30.
MITT, 1989, “A comparison of Canadian and US technology adoption rates”, Ontario Ministry of Industry, Trade, and Technology, Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario M7A 2E1
31.
OakeyRO'FarrellP N, 1992, “The regional extent of computer numerically controlled machine tool adoption and post-adoption success in small British mechanical engineering firms”Regional Studies26163–176
32.
OakeyR PThwaitesA TNashP A, 1982, “Technological change and regional development: Some evidence on regional variations in product and process innovation”Environment and Planning A141073–1086
33.
PavittK, 1984, “Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory”Research Policy13343–373
34.
PhillipsB DKirchoffB ABrownH S, 1991, “Formation, growth and mobility of technology-based firms in the US economy”Entrepreneurship and Regional Development3 (2) 129–144
35.
PorterM E, 1990The Competitive Advantage of Nations (The Free Press, New York)
ReesJBriggsROakeyR, 1984, “The adoption of new technology in the American machinery industry”Regional Studies18489–504
38.
RosenfeldS A, 1992Competitive Manufacturing: New Strategies for Regional Development (Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ)
39.
RothwellR, 1992, “Successful industrial innovation: Critical factors for the 1990s”R&D Management22221–239
40.
SCC, 1989, “Enabling technologies”, Science Council of Canada, 100 Metcalfe Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5M1
41.
SchoenbergerE, 1989, “Some dilemmas of automation: Strategic and operational aspects of technological change in production”Economic Geography65245–262
42.
SchmandtJ, 1991, “Regional technology policy: A new role for the American States”, in Regional Innovation and Decentralisation Ed. HilpertU (Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Andover, Hants) pp 157–176
43.
ShapiraP, 1990, “Modernizing manufacturing”, Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DC
