Identification of key actors in Industry 4.0 informal R&D network

Ľ. Kotorová Slušná; M. Balog

doi:10.4108/eetinis.v9i31.1181

Authors

Ľ. Kotorová Slušná Centre of Social and Psychological Sciences, SAS, Šancová 56, 811 05 Bratislava, Slovakia
M. Balog Centre of Social and Psychological Sciences, SAS, Šancová 56, 811 05 Bratislava, Slovakia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4108/eetinis.v9i31.1181

Keywords:

R&D, Network, Industry 4.0

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Industry 4.0 is a concept covering various research areas. Their development depends on the cooperation among several stakeholders, particularly public R&D (Research and Development) organisations.
OBJECTIVES: This article aims to provide a mapping of informal strategic R&D partnerships of public R&D organisations in an ambiguously defined area of Industry 4.0.
METHODS: Scientific collaboration mapping method based on self-identification is used. Moreover, social network analysis is used to discuss patterns and specific characteristics of this network. Empirical data are gathered through a questionnaire survey focused on managers of RD teams in the Slovak Republic.
RESULTS: The resulting network of public R&D organisations operating in the field of Industry 4.0 in the Slovak Republic is connected, though characterised by low density. Intra-regional cooperation prevailed only in the region of the capital city. In other regions, cross-regional cooperation was dominant. Most cooperations occur between universities; cooperation between faculties and within one faculty is less frequent. Key teams of the network were identified based on their performance in three selected indicators of centrality. Three of them represented the first layer or core of the network.
CONCLUSION: Within the network, active actors with a high number of cooperation and those located in its network centre who can support knowledge transfer across the identified R&D network are crucial. Our results confirmed that several variables are important to creating new collaborations and thus not limited to geographical proximity, institutional affinity and size of the workplace.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aldieri L, Kotsemir M, Paolo Vinci C. The impact of research collaboration on academic performance: An empirical analysis for some European countries. Socio-Econ. Plan. Sci. 2018; 62(C): 13-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2017.05.003

Aldieri L, Kotsemir M, Paolo Vinci C. The Effects of Collaboration on Research Performance of Universities: An Analysis by Federal District and Scientific Fields in Russia. J. Knowl. Econ. 2020; 11: 766–787. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-018-0570-9

Balog M, Herčko J. Industry 4.0 - Technological Priorities in the Slovakia. PP: FAR. 2020; 12(1): 5-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31577/PPFAR.2020.12.001

Beaver D. Reflections on Scientific Collaboration (and its study): Past, Present, and Future. Scientometrics. 2001; 52(3): 365-377. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014254214337

Beier G, et al. Industry 4.0: How it is defined from a sociotechnical perspective and how much sustainability it includes - A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020; 259: 120856. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120856

Bozeman B, Corley E. Scientists' collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Res. Policy. 2004; 33(4): 599-616. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.008

Contandriopoulos D, Duhoux A, Larouche C, Perroux M. The Impact of a Researcher’s Structural Position on Scientific Performance: An Empirical Analysis. PLoS ONE. 2016; 11(8): e0161281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161281

Culot G, Nassimbeni G, Orzes G, Sartor M. Behind the definition of Industry 4.0: Analysis and open questions. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020; 226: 107617. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107617

Garg KC, Padhi P. A study of collaboration in laser science and technology. Scientometrics. 2001; 51: 415–427. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012709919544

Giustolisi O, Ridolfi L, Simone A. Embedding the intrinsic relevance of vertices in network analysis: the case of centrality metrics. Sci. Rep. 2020; 10(3297). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60151-x

Hansen D, Shneiderman B, Smith M, Himelboim I. Analyzing Social Media Networks with NodeXL. Insights from a Connected World. Second Edition. Morgan Kaufmann; 2019.

Lee DH, Seo WI, Choe HCH, Kim DH. Collaboration network patterns and research performance: the case of Korean public research institutions. Scientometrics. 2012; 91: 925–942. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0602-8

Liang L, Kretschmer H, Guo Y, Beaver D. Age structures of scientific collaboration in Chinese computer science. Scientometrics. 2001; 52: 471–486. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014252017971

Lotrecchiano GR, et al. Individual motivation and threat indicators of collaboration readiness in scientific knowledge producing teams: a scoping review and domain analysis. Heliyon. 2016; 2(5). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2016.e00105

Muriithi P, Horner D, Pemberton L, Wao H. Factors influencing research collaborations in Kenyan universities. Res. Policy. 2018; 47(1): 88-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.002

National Academy of Science and Engineering: Securing the future of German manufacturing industry. Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0. In: Final report of the Industrie 4.0 Working Group. 2013.

Nosalska K, et al. Industry 4.0: coherent definition framework with technological and organizational interdependencies. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 2020; 31(5). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-08-2018-0238

Opsahl T, Agnessens F, Skvoretz J. Node centrality in weighted networks: Generalizing degree and shortest paths. Soc. Netw. 2010; 32(3): 245-251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2010.03.006

Porac J, et al. Human capital heterogeneity, collaborative relationships, and publication patterns in a multidisciplinary scientific alliance: a comparative case study of two scientific teams. Res. Policy. 2004 ; 33(4): 661-678. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.007

Reji Kumar K, Manuel S. Collaborations of Indian institutions which conduct mathematical research: A study from the perspective of social network analysis. Scientometrics. 2018; 117: 1041–1051. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2898-0

Rigby J, Edler J. Peering inside research networks: Some observations on the effect of the intensity of collaboration on the variability of research quality. Res. Policy. 2005; 34(6): 784-794. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.02.004

Seglen PO, Aksnes DW. Scientific productivity and group size: a bibliometric analysis of norwegian microbiological research. Scientometrics. 2000; 49: 125–143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005665309719

Smit J, et al.: Industry 4.0. DG For Internal Policies. Policy Department A: Economic and scientific policy; 2016.

Tay IS, Chuan LT, Aziati AHN, Ahmad ANA. An Overview of Industry 4.0: Definition, Components, and Government Initiatives. J. Adv. Res. Dyn. Control Syst. 2018; 10(14).

The Royal Society: Knowledge, networks and nations. Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. In: Excellence in Science, London; 2011.

Wowk K, et al. Evolving academic culture to meet societal needs. Comment. Nature. 2017; 3(35). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0040-1

Zitt M, Bassecoulard E, Okubo Y. Shadows of the past in international cooperation: collaboration profiles of the top five producers of science. Scientometrics. 2000; 47: 627– 657. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005632319799