Research Project Proposal

Commercialising Disruptive Technologies within establishedCompanies: Analyzing the impact of technology characteristics/subsequent time to market and profitability.

Subject GBAT 9202 Research ProjectAcademic Supervisor Dr. Mehreen FaruquiSubject Matter Supervisor Dr. Ian BentonStudent Mr. Jesse Woolaston

GBAT 9202 Research Project Proposal

z2286510 Jesse Woolaston Semester 2 2011 Page 2 of 6

AIM

This research project aims to determine whether a good fit between technology characteristics

and commercialisation model, as identified by Pries and Guild (2010), can increase ROI and

profitability.

BACKGROUND

Pries and Guild (2010) investigated the link between technology characteristics and the

business models used to commercialise the technology. The four technology characteristics and

the three commercialisation strategy/business models used in Pries and Guilds (2010) research

are shown in Figure 1 below.

Technology Charactersistics Business Models1- Legal protection 1- Creation of new firm2- Specialized complementary assets 2- Technology transfer agreement3- Commercial uncertainty 3- Licensing4- Technological dynamicism

Figure 1: Technology Characteristics and Business Models

Their research was conducted on University academia using a survey instrument and concluded

that:

- Licensing and technology sales are better suited for well protected technology entering

well understood markets.

- Firm creation is better suited for difficult to protect technology entering less understood

markets.

This research project is important to both academia and industry because it contributes to the

current body of knowledge by extending the existing work performed by Pries and Guild (2010),

providing practical tools and understanding to help enterprises decide how to best

commercialise new technology. Specific benefits to academia and industry are detailed below.

Comment [MF1]: Need to look atother models from literature beforeselecting one.

Comment [MF2]: Include moredetails on this ie is for a soecificorganisation? What type oforganisation?

GBAT 9202 Research Project Proposal

z2286510 Jesse Woolaston Semester 2 2011 Page 3 of 6

Academia Benefits

Academia benefit because this research provides insight on how technology/business

strategy fit affects speed to market and firm performance. It increases the sample size of

Pries and Guilds (2010) work and may be able to provide additional qualitative insights.

It also expands the subset of situations that Pries and Guilds (2010) and subsequent

research is applicable to. Alternatively it may help identify other contingent factors that

affect the commercialisation strategy.

Industry Benefits

Industry benefit from this research because it helps enterprises commercialise new

technology by providing insight on how to shorten time to market and maximize

profitability for a given technology. This derives from the extended applicability of Pries

and Guilds (2010) research to industry. Using this framework shortens decision times,

provides confidence in the commercialisation strategy used and ultimately improves firm

profitability and return on investment.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this research is to understand how the technology/commercialisation

strategy fit according to Pries and Guild (2010) affects firm performance and time to market.

It also seeks to build upon the prior research and to gain additional insights by investigating a

different technology generation mechanism, namely industry vs. academia

SCOPE

The scope of this research consists of The Technology Partnership and its past and present

technology based subsidiaries. Within these companies, the interviews are restricted to Senior

Management as they select the business models used for commercialising the technologies

they develop. As a result of this, the conclusions about ROI and speed to market are only

available for the situations that exist within TTP.

The research is also restricted to the technology characteristic and business models identified

by Pries and Guild (2010). This is a subset of the full number of characteristics available and

also does not explore process factors or non technology factors such as culture and availability

of venture capital that may lead to different commercialisation strategies.

GBAT 9202 Research Project Proposal

z2286510 Jesse Woolaston Semester 2 2011 Page 4 of 6

RESEARCH METHOD

The research will be conducted using both thorough literature review combined with in depth

interviews of senior staff at The Technology Partnership and its current subsidiaries. This more

qualitative approach will yield richer data than the survey based research initially conducted by

Pries and Guild (2010). It is however limited by its sample size.

EXPECTED RESULTS

It is anticipated that the more aligned the commercialisation strategy is with the technology, the

shorter the time to market and greater the profitability will be. It is also expected that the same

conclusions about technology/commercialisation strategy made by Pries and Guild (2010) will

continue to hold true.

PROJECT MILESTONES

Key project milestones are listed below. A detailed Gantt chart can be found in Appendix B.

Milestone DateProject Proposal July 18

Submit Ethics Application August 3

Complete Literature Review August 15

Complete Interviews August 18

Progress Report September 12

Submit Final Report October 17

Final Report Due November 5

LITERATURE REVIEW LIST

A list of key literature for review can be found in Appendix B.

Comment [MF3]: Need to explain theaims and purpose of the literaturereview and how will this be conductedie what databases will be searched etc.

Comment [MF4]: How big is thesample size and what are the aims ofthe qualitative research?

Comment [MF5]: Too optimistic? Mayneed to move to September date?

GBAT 9202 Research Project Proposal

z2286510 Jesse Woolaston Semester 2 2011 Page 5 of 6

APPENDIX A: Research Project Gantt Chart

W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 B W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 EW1 EW2May

Week beginning on Date Due Status 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 3 10 17 24 31Generate and Gather Ideas 100%Screen and Rank Concepts 100%Get Feedback and Select Project 100%Preliminary Literature Review 100%Write Detailed Project Proposal 100%Review, Feedback and Final Edit 100%Contingency Time 100%Submit Project Proposal 17-Jul 100%

Create Progress Report and Final Report Template 0%Write preliminary abstract, introduction and Conclusions 0%Continued Literature Review 10%Write up Literature Review 25%Identify interview questions 10%Review interview questions with Ian and Mehreen 0%Submit Application for ethics approval 3-Aug 0%Ethics Committee Meeting date 12-Aug 0%Conduct 1st round of interviews 0%Analyze Results and write Progress Report 0%Review and Edit Progress Report 0%Contingency Time 0%

Submit Progress Report 11-Sep 0%2nd Literature Review 0%Write second round of interview questions 0%Review interview questions with Ian and Mehreen 0%Perform Interviews 0%Write up Results 0%Final Review and Editing 0%Contingency Time 0%

Submit Complete Report 17-Oct 0%Contingency Time 0%Due Date 4-Nov 0%

June July Aug Sep Oct

GBAT 9202 Research Project Proposal

z2286510 Jesse Woolaston Semester 2 2011 Page 6 of 6

APPENDIX B: Literature Review Texts

Title Year AuthorsA model for technology assessment and commercialization for innovative disruptivetechnologies 2000

Kassicieh S, Anderson S, Romig A, Cummings J, McWhorter P,Williams D

A Reflective Review of Disruptive Innovation Theory 2010 Yu D, Hang CA transaction cost approach to make-or-buy decisions 1984 Walker G, Weber DApplying multiple perspectives to the design of a commercialization process.FullText Available 2008 Prebble R, De Waal A, De Groot C,Appropriating the returns from industrial R&D 1987 Levin R, Klevorick A, Nelson, R, Winter SCommercializing a disruptive technology based upon University IP through openinnvoation: A case study of Cambridge Display Technology 2007 Minshall T, Seldon S, Probert DCommercializing inventions resulting from university research: Analyzing the impactof technology characteristics on subsequent business models 2011 Pries F, Guild PComparison of technology transfer from government labs in the US and Vietnam 2011 Tran T, Daim T, Kocaoglu DCompetition and Entrepreneurship 1973 Kirzner ICreating technology candidates for disruptive innovation: Generally applicable R&Dstrategies 2011 Yu Dan, Hang CDemystifying Disruption: A New Model for Understanding and Predicting DisruptiveTechnologies. 2011 Sood, Ashish, Tellis, Gerard JDifferentiating market strategies for disruptive technologies 2002 Walsh S, Kirchhoff B, Newbert S.Differentiation Via Technology: Strategic Positioning of Services Following theIntroduction of Disruptive Technology 2007 Padgett D, Mulvey MDisruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave 1995 Bower J, Christensen CDisruptive technology roadmaps 2004 Adner R,Dynamic business model framework for emerging technologies 2005 MacInnes I.Entrepreneurship, Emerging Technologies, Emerging Markets 2008 Thukral I, Von Ehr J, Walsh S, Groen A, Van Der Sijde P, Adha KEquity carve-outs as a technology commercialization strategy: An exploratory casestudy of Thermo Electron's strategy 2010 Powell B,Factors Differentiating the Commercialization of Disruptive and SustainingTechnologies 2002

Kassicieh S, Walsh S, Cummings J, McWhorter P, Romig A, WilliamsD

How P&G Tripled Its Innovation Success Rate. 2011 Brown B, Anthony SHow Technology-Based New Firms Leverage Newness and Smallness toCommercialize Disruptive Technologies 2009 Carayannopoulos SInnovation: mapping the winds of creative destruction 1985 Abernathy W, Clark , KInnovation: The attackers advantage 1986 FosterInnovative science and technology commercialization strategies at 3M: a case study 2002 Conceio P, Hamill D, Pinheiro PMarketing and discontinuous innovation: the probe and learn process 1996 Lynn G, Morone J, Paulson AModels for the commercialisation of disruptive technologies. 2004 Kassicieh S, Walsh Spatterns of industrial Innovation 1988 Abernathy W , Utterback JProfiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration,licensing and public policy

1986Teece D

Public research commercialisation, entrepreneurship and new technology basedfirms: an integrated model 2004 Hindle K, Yencken JRoadmapping a disruptive technology: A case study: The emerging microsystemsand top-down nanosystems industry 2004 Walsh TRoadmapping: from sustaining to disruptive technologies 2004 Walsh S, Linton JRole of university technology transfer offices in unversity technologycommercialization: Case study of the Carleton University foundry program 2006 Sharma, Manu, Kumar, Uma, LalandeStrategic interfacing of R&D and marketing 1982 Carroad P, Carroad CTechnological discontinuities and organisational environment 1986 Tushman M, Anderson PThe economics of industrial innovation 1982 Freeman CThe Economics of Technological Change 1968 Norton WThe great disruption 2001 Christensen C, Craig T, Hart S,The Innovation Value Chain 2008 Hansen M, Birk inshaw JThe parenting paradox: How multibusiness diversifiers endorse disruptivetechnologies while their corporate children struggle. 2009 Lange D, Boivie S, Henderson AThe product market and the market for ideas: commercialization strategies fortechnology entrepreneurs 2003 Gans J, Stern SThe role of small firms in the transfer of disruptive technologies 2002 Kassicieh S, Kirchhoff B, Walsh S, McWhorter PThe Strategy-Technology Firm Fit Audit: A guide to opportunity assessment andselection 2011 Walsh S, Linton JThe Theory of Economic Development 1934 Schumpeter JTiming technological transitions 1986 Moore W, Tushman MWhen are technologies disruptive? A deman-based view of the emergence ofcompetition 2002 Adner R,