, Volume 95, Issue 3, pp 1189–1207 | Cite as

Entry strategies in an emerging technology: a pilot web-based study of graphene firms

  • Sanjay K. Arora
  • Jan Youtie
  • Philip Shapira
  • Lidan Gao
  • TingTing Ma


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.


Emerging technology Graphene Small and medium enterprise Commercialization Market entry Web scraping United States United Kingdom China 

Mathematical Subject Classification


JEL Classification

C81 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.


  1. Abernathy, W., & Utterback, J. (1978). Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review, 80(7), 40–47.Google Scholar
  2. Ahuja, G., Lampert, C. M., & Tandon, V. (2008). Moving beyond Schumpeter: Management research on the determinants of technological innovation. Academy of Management Annals, 2, 1–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. (1994). The changing technology of technological change: General and abstract knowledge and the division of innovative labour. Research Policy, 23, 523–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Autio, E. (1997a). “Atomistic” and “Systemic” approaches to research on new, technology-based firms: A literature study. Small Business Economics, 9(3), 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Autio, E. (1997b). New, technology-based firms in innovation networks symplectic and generative impacts. Research Policy, 26(3), 263–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Autio, E. (2004). Creative tension: the significance of Ben Oviatt’s and Patricia McDougall’s article “toward a theory of international new ventures”. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(1), 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brouwer, E. & Kleinknecht, A. (1999). Innovative output, and a firm’s propensity to patent: An exploration of CIS micro data. Research Policy, 28(6), 615–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Sciences Quarterly, 35(1), 569–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cosh, A., & Hughes, A. (2009). Never mind the quality feel the width: University–industry links and government financial support for innovation in small high technology businesses in the UK and the USA. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(1), 66–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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. Accessed January 20, 2012.
  13. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gabrielsson, M., & Gabrielsson, P. (2011). Internet-based sales channel strategies of born global firms. International Business Review, 20(1), 88–99. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2010.05.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gabrielsson, M., Kirpalani, V. H. M., Dimitratos, P., Solberg, C. A., & Zucchella, A. (2008). Born globals: Propositions to help advance the theory. International Business Review, 17(4), 385–401. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2008.02.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Geim, A. K., & Novoselov, K. S. (2007). The rise of graphene. Nature Materials, 6(3), 183–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilbert, R., & Newbery, D. (1982). Preemptive pantenting and the persistence of monopoly. The American Economic Review, 72(3), 514–526.Google Scholar
  18. Hagen, B., Zucchella, A., Cerchiello, P., & De Giovanni, N. (2011). International strategy and performance—Clustering strategic types of SMEs. International Business Review,. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2011.04.002.Google Scholar
  19. Katz, J. S. (2006). Web indicators for complex innovation systems. Research Evaluation, 15(2), 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Rasmussen E. & Madsen, T. (2002). The born global concept. Presented at the European International Business Academy, 2002. Accessed February 10, 2011.
  22. Malecki, E. J. (1997). Technology & economic development (2nd ed.). Essex, UK: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Michael, S. C., & Pearce, J. A. (2009). The need for innovation as a rationale for government involvement in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 21(3), 285–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miyazaki, K., & Islam, N. (2007). Nanotechnology systems of innovation—An analysis of industry and academia research activities. Technovation, 27(11), 661–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Novoselov, K. S., Fal’ko, V. I., Colombo, L., Gellert, P. R., Schwab, M. G., & Kim, K. (2012). A roadmap for graphene. Nature, 490, 192–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. OECD. (2010). The Impacts of Nanotechnology on Companies: Policy Insights from Case Studies. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Oviatt, B. M., & McDougall, P. P. (2004). Toward a theory of international new ventures. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(1), 29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Rennie, M. W. (1993). Born global. McKinsey Quarterly, 1993(4), 45–52.Google Scholar
  32. Research, Lux. (2007). The nanotech report: Investment overview and market research for nanotechnology (5th ed.). New York: Lux Research.Google Scholar
  33. Sandhu, A. (2007). The birth of nanoChina. Nature Nanotechnology, 2(1), 11–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Segal, M. (2009). Selling graphene by the ton. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(10), 612–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shapira, P., & Wang, J. (2009). From lab to market: Strategies and issues in the commercialization of nanotechnology in China. Asian Business & Management, 8, 461–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shapira, P., & Wang, J. (2010). Follow the money. Nature, 468, 627–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shapira, P., Youtie, J., & Arora, S. (2012). Early patterns of commercialization of graphene. Journal of Nanoparticle Research,. doi: 10.1007/s11051-012-0811-y.Google Scholar
  38. Shapira, P., Youtie, J., & Kay, L. (2011). National innovation systems and the globalization of nanotechnology innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(6), 587–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Van Noorden, R. (2011). Chemistry: The trials of new carbon. Nature, 469, 14–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Porter, A. L. (2008). Nanotechnology publications and citations by leading countries and blocs. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 10(6), 981–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Zhou, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). The emergence of China as a leading nation in science. Research Policy, 35(1), 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sanjay K. Arora
    • 1
  • Jan Youtie
    • 2
  • Philip Shapira
    • 1
    • 3
  • Lidan Gao
    • 4
  • TingTing Ma
    • 5
  1. 1.School of Public PolicyGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAlantaUSA
  2. 2.Enterprise Innovation InstituteGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Business SchoolUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
  4. 4.Chengdu Library of the Chinese Academy of SciencesChengduPeople’s Republic of China
  5. 5.School of Economics and ManagementBeijing Institute of TechnologyBeijingPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations