Advertisement

Early patterns of commercial activity in graphene

  • Philip Shapira
  • Jan YoutieEmail author
  • Sanjay Arora
Research Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Technology Transfer and Commercialization of Nanotechnology

Abstract

Graphene, a novel nanomaterial consisting of a single layer of carbon atoms, has attracted significant attention due to its distinctive properties, including great strength, electrical and thermal conductivity, lightness, and potential benefits for diverse applications. The commercialization of scientific discoveries such as graphene is inherently uncertain, with the lag time between the scientific development of a new technology and its adoption by corporate actors revealing the extent to which firms are able to absorb knowledge and engage in learning to implement applications based on the new technology. From this perspective, we test for the existence of three different corporate learning and activity patterns: (1) a linear process where patenting follows scientific discovery; (2) a double-boom phenomenon where corporate (patenting) activity is first concentrated in technological improvements and then followed by a period of technology productization; and (3) a concurrent model where scientific discovery in publications occurs in parallel with patenting. By analyzing corporate publication and patent activity across country and application lines, we find that, while graphene as a whole is experiencing concurrent scientific development and patenting growth, country- and application-specific trends offer some evidence of the linear and double-boom models.

Keywords

Graphene Commercialization Publication Patent Nanotechnology transfer 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was undertaken with support from the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (sponsored by the National Science Foundation under cooperative agreement #0937591). Additional support was provided through a UK–US Collaboration Development Award (Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office’s Global Partnership Fund); and the UK–US Higher Education, New Partnership Fund (British Council). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors.

References

  1. Abernathy W, Utterback J (1978) Patterns of industrial innovation. Technol Rev 80(7):40–47Google Scholar
  2. Brouwer E, Kleinknecht A (1999) Innovative output, and a firm’s propensity to patent: an exploration of CIS micro data. Res Policy 28(6):615–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cockburn I, Henderson R, Stern S (1999) The Diffusion of science driven drug discovery: organizational change in pharmaceutical research. NBER Working Paper 7359. Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen SS, Di Minin A, Motoyama Y, Palmberg C (2009) The persistence of home bias for important r&d in wireless telecom and automobiles. Rev Policy Res 26(1/2):55–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-1338.2008.00369.x Google Scholar
  5. Cohen W, Levinthal D (1989) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35(1):128–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, W, Nelson, R, and Walsh, J (2000) Protecting their intellectual assets: appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER Working Paper 7552, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. Edquist C (ed) (1997) Systems of innovation. Technologies, institutions and organizations. Pinter Publisher, London, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  8. Grupp H (2000) Learning in a science-driven market: the case of lasers. Ind Corp Change 9(1):143–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Helfat CE, Lieberman MB (2002) The birth of capabilities: market entry and the importance of pre-history. Ind Corp Change 11(4):725–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hobday M (2005) Firm-level innovation models: perspectives on research in developed and developing countries. Technol Anal Strat Manag 17(2):121–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoppe H (2000) Second-mover advantages in the strategic adoption of new technology under uncertainty. Int J Ind Organ 18(2):315–338. doi: 10.1016/S0167-7187(98)00020-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoppe H (2002) The timing of new technology adoption: theoretical models and empirical evidence. Manch Sch 70(1):56–76. doi: 10.1111/1467-9957.00283 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ITRS (2010) International technology roadmap for semiconductors 2010 update overview. http://www.itrs.net/Links/2010ITRS/2010Update/ToPost/2010_Update_Overview.pdf,accessed. Accessed 14 April 2011
  14. Katila R, Ahuja G (2002) Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Acad Manag J 456:1183–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kogut B, Kulatilaka N (2001) Capabilities as real options. Org Sci 12(6):744–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lavie D, Stettner U, Tushman ML (2010) Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Acad Manag Ann 4:109–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lieberman MB, Montgomery DB (1988) First-mover advantages. Strategy Manag J 9:41–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lieberman MB, Montgomery DB (1998) First-mover (dis)advantages: retrospective and link with the resource- based view. Strategy Manag J 19:1111–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liebowitz SJ, Margolis SE (1995) Are network externalities a new source of market failure? Res Law Econ 7:1–22Google Scholar
  20. Lundvall BÁ (ed) (1992) National systems of innovation. Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter Publisher, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Malerba F (2005) Sectoral systems: how and why innovation differs across sectors. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery D, Nelson R (eds) Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  22. March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Org Sci 2:71–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mowery D (2011) Nanotechnology and the U.S. national innovation system: continuity and Change. J Technol Transf. doi: 10.1007/s10961-011-9210-2 Google Scholar
  24. Nelson RR, Winter S (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Google Scholar
  25. Nobelprize.org (2011) The Nobel prize in physics 2010. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2010/. Accessed 2 Sep 2011
  26. Pavitt K (1984) Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Res Policy 13(6):343–373. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(84)90018-0
  27. Porter ME (1990) The competitive advantage of nations. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Porter AL, Youtie J, Shapira P, Schoeneck D (2008) Refining search terms for nanotechnology. J Nanopart Res 10(5):715–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pries F, Guild P (2011) Commercializing inventions resulting from university research: Analyzing the impact of technology characteristics on subsequent business models. Technovation 31(4):151–160. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2010.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Rogers D (2011) Graphene is beginning to revolutionise the market for plastic electronics. Plast Electron 3(6):57–61Google Scholar
  32. Rothaermel FT, Alexandre MT (2009) Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: the moderating role of absorptive capacity. Org Sci 20:759–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schmoch U (2007) Double-boom cycles and the comeback of science-push and market-pull. Res Policy 36(7):1000–1015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schinwald A, Murphy FA, Jones A, MacNee W, Donaldson K (2012) Graphene-based nanoplatelets: a new risk to the respiratory system as a consequence of their unusual aerodynamic properties. ACS Nano 6(1):736–746. doi: 10.1021/nn204229f Google Scholar
  35. Segal M (2009) Selling graphene by the ton. Nat Nanotechnol 4:612–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shapira P, Youtie J, Mohapatra S (2003) Linking research production and development outcomes at the regional level. Res Eval 12(1):105–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shapira P, Youtie J, Kay L (2011) National innovation systems and the globalization of nanotechnology innovation. J Technol Transfer. doi: 10.1007/s10961-011-9212-0
  38. Takeuchi H, Nonaka I (1986) The new product development game. Harvard Bus Rev January–February:137–146Google Scholar
  39. Teece DJ (1986) Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res Policy 15(6):285–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tuppura A, Hurmelinna-Laukkanen P, Puumalainen K, Jantunen A (2010) The influence of appropriability conditions on the firm’s entry timing orientation. J High Technol Manag Res 21:97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Noorden R (2011) Chemistry: the trials of new carbon. Nature 469(7328): 14–16. Nature Publishing Group. doi:  10.1038/469014a Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business SchoolUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Enterprise Innovation InstituteGeorgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USAAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations