Research Project Proposal

Commercialising Disruptive Technologies within established

Companies: Analyzing the impact of technology characteristics/
subsequent time to market and profitability.

Subject

GBAT 9202 Research Project

Academic Supervisor

Dr. Mehreen Faruqui

Subject Matter Supervisor

Dr. Ian Benton

Student

Mr. Jesse Woolaston

GBAT 9202 Research Project Proposal

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

profitability.

Comment [MF1]: Need to look at

other models from literature before
selecting one.

BACKGROUND

Comment [MF2]: Include more

details on this ie is for a soecific
organisation? What type of
organisation?

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

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
1- Legal protection
2- Specialized complementary assets
3- Commercial uncertainty
4- Technological dynamicism

Business Models
1- Creation of new firm
2- Technology transfer agreement
3- Licensing

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.

z2286510 Jesse Woolaston

Semester 2 2011

Page 2 of 6

GBAT 9202 Research Project Proposal

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.
z2286510 Jesse Woolaston

Semester 2 2011

Page 3 of 6

GBAT 9202 Research Project Proposal

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

Comment [MF3]: Need to explain the

aims and purpose of the literature
review and how will this be conducted
ie what databases will be searched etc.

qualitative approach will yield richer data than the survey based research initially conducted by
Comment [MF4]: How big is the
sample size and what are the aims of
the qualitative research?

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

Date

Project Proposal

July

18

Submit Ethics Application

August

Complete Literature Review

August

15

Complete Interviews

August

18

Progress Report

September

12

Submit Final Report

October

17

Final Report Due

November

Comment [MF5]: Too optimistic? May

need to move to September date?

LITERATURE REVIEW LIST

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

z2286510 Jesse Woolaston

Semester 2 2011

Page 4 of 6

GBAT 9202 Research Project Proposal

APPENDIX A: Research Project Gantt Chart

W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6

June

May
Week beginning on
Generate and Gather Ideas
Screen and Rank Concepts
Get Feedback and Select Project
Preliminary Literature Review
Write Detailed Project Proposal
Review, Feedback and Final Edit
Contingency Time
Submit Project Proposal

Date Due Status

17-Jul

Create Progress Report and Final Report Template

Write preliminary abstract, introduction and Conclusions
Continued Literature Review
Write up Literature Review
Identify interview questions
Review interview questions with Ian and Mehreen
Submit Application for ethics approval
Ethics Committee Meeting date
Conduct 1st round of interviews
Analyze Results and write Progress Report
Review and Edit Progress Report
Contingency Time

3-Aug
12-Aug

13

20

27

25

100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
10%
25%
10%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

Submit Progress Report

2nd Literature Review
Write second round of interview questions
Review interview questions with Ian and Mehreen
Perform Interviews
Write up Results
Final Review and Editing
Contingency Time

11-Sep

0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

Submit Complete Report

Contingency Time
Due Date

17-Oct

0%
0%
0%

z2286510 Jesse Woolaston

Semester 2 2011

4-Nov

30

July
11 18

Page 5 of 6

Aug
15 22

29

W7 W8 W9 W10 W11 W12 EW1 EW2

Sep
12 19

26

10

Oct
17

24

31

GBAT 9202 Research Project Proposal

APPENDIX B: Literature Review Texts

Title
A model for technology assessment and commercialization for innovative disruptive
technologies
A Reflective Review of Disruptive Innovation Theory
A transaction cost approach to make-or-buy decisions
Applying multiple perspectives to the design of a commercialization process.Full
Text Available
Appropriating the returns from industrial R&D
Commercializing a disruptive technology based upon University IP through open
innvoation: A case study of Cambridge Display Technology
Commercializing inventions resulting from university research: Analyzing the impact
of technology characteristics on subsequent business models
Comparison of technology transfer from government labs in the US and Vietnam
Competition and Entrepreneurship
Creating technology candidates for disruptive innovation: Generally applicable R&D
strategies
Demystifying Disruption: A New Model for Understanding and Predicting Disruptive
Technologies.
Differentiating market strategies for disruptive technologies
Differentiation Via Technology: Strategic Positioning of Services Following the
Introduction of Disruptive Technology
Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave
Disruptive technology roadmaps
Dynamic business model framework for emerging technologies
Entrepreneurship, Emerging Technologies, Emerging Markets
Equity carve-outs as a technology commercialization strategy: An exploratory case
study of Thermo Electron's strategy
Factors Differentiating the Commercialization of Disruptive and Sustaining
Technologies
How P&G Tripled Its Innovation Success Rate.
How Technology-Based New Firms Leverage Newness and Smallness to
Commercialize Disruptive Technologies
Innovation: mapping the winds of creative destruction
Innovation: The attackers advantage
Innovative science and technology commercialization strategies at 3M: a case study
Marketing and discontinuous innovation: the probe and learn process
Models for the commercialisation of disruptive technologies.
patterns of industrial Innovation
Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration,
licensing and public policy
Public research commercialisation, entrepreneurship and new technology based
firms: an integrated model
Roadmapping a disruptive technology: A case study: The emerging microsystems
and top-down nanosystems industry
Roadmapping: from sustaining to disruptive technologies
Role of university technology transfer offices in unversity technology
commercialization: Case study of the Carleton University foundry program
Strategic interfacing of R&D and marketing
Technological discontinuities and organisational environment
The economics of industrial innovation
The Economics of Technological Change
The great disruption
The Innovation Value Chain
The parenting paradox: How multibusiness diversifiers endorse disruptive
technologies while their corporate children struggle.
The product market and the market for ideas: commercialization strategies for
technology entrepreneurs
The role of small firms in the transfer of disruptive technologies
The Strategy-Technology Firm Fit Audit: A guide to opportunity assessment and
selection
The Theory of Economic Development
Timing technological transitions
When are technologies disruptive? A deman-based view of the emergence of
competition

z2286510 Jesse Woolaston

Year Authors
Kassicieh S, Anderson S, Romig A, Cummings J, McWhorter P,
2000 Williams D
2010 Yu D, Hang C
1984 Walk er G, Weber D
2008 Prebble R, De Waal A, De Groot C,
1987 Levin R, Klevorick A, Nelson, R, Winter S
2007 Minshall T, Seldon S, Probert D
2011 Pries F, Guild P
2011 Tran T, Daim T, Kocaoglu D
1973 Kirzner I
2011 Yu Dan, Hang C
2011 Sood, Ashish, Tellis, Gerard J
2002 Walsh S, Kirchhoff B, Newbert S.
2007
1995
2004
2005
2008

Padgett D, Mulvey M
Bower J, Christensen C
Adner R,
MacInnes I.
Thuk ral I, Von Ehr J, Walsh S, Groen A, Van Der Sijde P, Adha K

2010 Powell B,
Kassicieh S, Walsh S, Cummings J, McWhorter P, Romig A, Williams
2002 D
2011 Brown B, Anthony S
2009
1985
1986
2002
1996
2004
1988
1986

Carayannopoulos S
Abernathy W, Clark , K
Foster
Conceio P, Hamill D, Pinheiro P
Lynn G, Morone J, Paulson A
Kassicieh S, Walsh S
Abernathy W , Utterback J
Teece D

2004 Hindle K, Yenck en J

2004 Walsh T
2004 Walsh S, Linton J
2006
1982
1986
1982
1968
2001
2008

Sharma, Manu, Kumar, Uma, Lalande

Carroad P, Carroad C
Tushman M, Anderson P
Freeman C
Norton W
Christensen C, Craig T, Hart S,
Hansen M, Birk inshaw J

2009 Lange D, Boivie S, Henderson A

2003 Gans J, Stern S
2002 Kassicieh S, Kirchhoff B, Walsh S, McWhorter P
2011 Walsh S, Linton J
1934 Schumpeter J
1986 Moore W, Tushman M
2002 Adner R,

Semester 2 2011

Page 6 of 6