Entry strategies in an emerging technology: a pilot web-based study of graphene firms
We explore pilot web-based methods to probe the strategies followed by new small and medium-sized technology-based firms as they seek to commercialize emerging technologies. Tracking and understanding the behavior of such early commercial entrants is not straightforward because smaller firms with limited resources do not always widely engage in readily visible and accessible activities such as publishing and patenting. However, many new firms, even if small, present information about themselves that is available online. Focusing on the early commercialization of novel graphene technologies, we introduce a “web scraping” approach to systematically capture information contained in the online web pages of a sample of small and medium-sized high technology graphene firms in the US, UK, and China. We analyze this information and devise measures that gauge how firm specialization in the target technology impacts overall market orientation. Three groups of graphene enterprises are identified which vary by their focus on product development, materials development, and integration into existing product portfolios. Country-level factors are important in understanding these early diverging commercial approaches in the nascent graphene market. We consider management and policy implications of our findings, and discuss the value, including strengths and weaknesses, of web scraping as an additional information source on enterprise strategies in emerging technologies.
KeywordsEmerging technology Graphene Small and medium enterprise Commercialization Market entry Web scraping United States United Kingdom China
Mathematical Subject Classification91
JEL ClassificationC81 D22 M13 O32 O32 O57 Z18
Support for this research was provided through the Center for Nanotechnology in Society at Arizona State University (National Science Foundation Award 0531194). Additional support was provided by the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, the Georgia Tech Program in Science, Technology and Innovation Policy, and the Manchester-Atlanta-Beijing Innovation Co-Lab (with support from the British Council UK-US New Partnership Fund—Prime Minister’s Initiative for International Education). The findings in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation, the authors’ institutions, or the other sponsors.
- Abernathy, W., & Utterback, J. (1978). Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review, 80(7), 40–47.Google Scholar
- Auerswald, P. E. (2007). The simple economics of technology entrepreneurship: Market failure reconsidered. In D. B. Audretsch, I. Grilo, & A. R. Thurik (Eds.), Handbook of research on entrepreneurship policy (pp. 18–35). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
- Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. (2011, Oct. 3). £50 million hub to commercialise Nobel Prize winning material. Central Office of Information, News Distribution Service. http://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/Detail.aspx?ReleaseID=421451&NewsAreaID=2. Accessed January 20, 2012.
- Gilbert, R., & Newbery, D. (1982). Preemptive pantenting and the persistence of monopoly. The American Economic Review, 72(3), 514–526.Google Scholar
- Kim, J. H. (2012). A hyperlink and semantic network analysis of the triple helix (University-Government-Industry): The interorganizational communication structure of nanotechnology. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(2), 152–170. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01564.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rasmussen E. & Madsen, T. (2002). The born global concept. Presented at the European International Business Academy, 2002. http://www.sam.sdu.dk/~era/EIBA%20Rasmussen%202002%20.pdf. Accessed February 10, 2011.
- Malecki, E. J. (1997). Technology & economic development (2nd ed.). Essex, UK: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
- Davis P., Maslov, A., & Phillips, S. (2005). Analyzing history in hypermedia collections. In Proceedings of the sixteenth ACM conference on hypertext and hypermedia (pp. 171–173).Google Scholar
- Mowery, D., & Sampat, B. (2006). Universities in national innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. Mowery, & R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 209–239). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- OECD. (2010). The Impacts of Nanotechnology on Companies: Policy Insights from Case Studies. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
- Porter, A. L., Guo, Y., Huang, L., & Robinson, D. K. R. (2010). Forecasting Innovation Pathways: The Case of Nano-enhanced Solar Cells. In International conference on technological innovation and competitive technical intelligence (ITICTI), Beijing.Google Scholar
- Rennie, M. W. (1993). Born global. McKinsey Quarterly, 1993(4), 45–52.Google Scholar
- Research, Lux. (2007). The nanotech report: Investment overview and market research for nanotechnology (5th ed.). New York: Lux Research.Google Scholar
- Tripsas, M. (1997). Unraveling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management Journal, 18(S1), 119–142.Google Scholar
- Walker, W. (1993). National innovation systems: Britain. In R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems: A comparative analysis (pp. 158–191). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Wessner, C. (2007). Government programs to encourage innovation by start-ups and SMEs: The role of US innovation awards. In D. B. Audretsch, I. Grilo, & A. R. Thurik (Eds.), Handbook of research on entrepreneurship policy (pp. 172–185). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
- Youtie, J., Hicks, D., Shapira, P., & Horsley, T. (2012). Pathways from discovery to commercialization: Using web sources to track small and medium-sized enterprises strategies in emerging nanotechnologies. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 24(10), 981–995.Google Scholar
- Yu, J., Stough, R. R., & Nijkamp, P. (2009). Governing technological entrepreneurship in China and the West. Public Administration Review, 69(S1), S95–S100.Google Scholar