INTRODUCTION TO THE FIELD OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT

Introduction to the Field of Emerging

Technology Management
A.J. Groen and S.T. Walsh
Many see emerging technologies as a solution vector for the global challenges of the twentyfirst century. Todays emerging technologies include: computational sciences; nanotechnology; micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS); bio-fuels; mobile technologies and a host of
others. Yet an adequate understanding of their commercial, policy, environmental, ethical and
societal implications lags far behind the development of their science and technology. The
authors in this issue discuss the challenges presented by the commercial considerations of
emerging technologies. If emerging technologies are critical to solving the largest problems
facing the world, then better techniques are needed: for their management, to create policy and
educate professionals to commercialize and govern them. This special issue presents the work
of a number of researchers that helps to fill this gap. Some initial solutions such as radically
improving current techniques and generating new ones are presented, and each author provides future research pathways.

he keen interest in emerging technology

stems from both a competitive advantage
standpoint as well as a societal need point of
view (Myers et al., 2002; Ray & Ray, 2011; van
der Valk, Moors & Meeus, 2009; Walsh, 2007).
Emerging technologies are assisting in the
solution of the most challenging problems
of the twenty-first century, including issues
regarding water, health, energy, food and
environmental concerns (Chan, 2008; Tierney,
Hermina & Walsh, 2013). Many people from
developing and developed nations (Pandza,
Wilkins & Alfoldi, 2011; Thukral et al., 2008),
including former Swedish Prime Minister
Gran Persson (Persson, 2012) seek to embrace
emerging technologies as a problem solution
vector. Counterintuitively, they fear the continued use of traditional technologies, which
have often created or contributed to the global
challenges the world faces today.
Technologies, and especially emerging technologies, either improve or have the potential
to improve gross domestic product (Freeman,
1982; Solow, 1957). The interest in creating scientific research and development in emerging
technologies is extreme, but what is the state of
the management and policy knowledge that
must accompany such interest? The management interest in emerging technologies is also

2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

growing. Indeed they are the foundations of

Kondratieff or Schumpeterian economic cycles
(Kondratieff, 1935; Schumpeter, 1937). They
are the true winds of creative destruction
(Abernathy & Clark, 1985).
Similarly, the term emergent technology is
a management designation, yet the term is
more often used by the technical community
than the managerial community (see Figure 1).
Even here, the necessary managerial, policy
and societal (Hung, Gao & Hu, 2009) considerations are lagging the scientific development
by a great amount. Still countries fund and
generate emerging technology-based product
portfolios at an ever increasing rate (Walsh,
2001). Energy, one of the twenty-first centurys
biggest problems, has had few managerial
publications (Kajikawa et al., 2008) compared
to the thousands of technological articles
related to energy development based on
emerging technologies. Management techniques focused on emerging technologies as a
whole, as well as any one specific emerging
technology in particular, are immature.
Figure 1 does not project the true disparity
between the research from social scientists and
that of the physical scientists. Todays emerging
technologies include computational sciences,
micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS),

Volume 22

Number 1

2013

10.1111/caim.12019

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Non-Technical
Publications
Technical Publications

1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011

Publications

Emerging Technology Publications

350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

Year

Figure 1. Summary of the Number of Papers on

the Subject of Emerging Technology as a
Function of Year and Type, Contrasting
Technical and Non-Technical Contributions from
1990 to 2012 Inclusive
Source: Scopus, September 2012.

Technical vs. Non-technical

publicaons
5000
4000
3000

Non Technical

2000

Technical

1000

19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
20
02
20
04
20
06
20
08
20
10

Figure 2. Summary of the Number of Papers on

the Technical Subject of MEMS Contrasted by all
Non-Technical Publications on either the Term
Emerging Technology or MEMS as a Function
of Year and Type from 1990 to 2012 Inclusive
Source: Scopus, September 2012.

nanotechnology, mobile technologies, bio-fuels

and others (Cordero, Walsh & Kirchhoff, 2005;
Elders, Spiering & Walsh, 2001; Kautt, Walsh &
Bittner, 2007). Yet, if we simply plot the number
of economics, finance, business management
and indeed any non-technical articles compared to just one of these emerging technology
fields, the true disparity is revealed. MEMS,
for example, is an emergent technology. In
Figure 2 we plot all non-technical articles on
both MEMS and all non-technical articles on
emerging technology to the single technical
field of MEMS. Figure 2 shows that there is an
over 100-fold higher publication rate for technologists than all social sciences combined.
The relative lack of insight into issues associated to the managerial, policy and societal
impact of emerging technologies is of great
concern because of their potential. Our task,
here, is to improve the tool box that managers
and policy makers have to responsibly and
successfully develop emerging technology-

Volume 22

Number 1

2013

based innovations (Marquis, 1969). Emerging

technologies are often used to develop radically new products with exceptional benefits to
society (Allarakhia & Walsh, 2011; Barras,
1986). Managerial techniques are needed that
would help managers determine the value of
emerging technologies. Emerging technologies are at once often overvalued by the
technologist (Gillier & Piat, 2011) and underappreciated by managers (Linton & Walsh,
2008a, 2008b).
Again, either figure illustrates how the
managerial, policy, entrepreneurial and social
impacts are clearly trailing scientific investigation. There is a need and opportunity for social
sciences to do their share in adding value to
this process. Managers are as a whole uncomfortable with the strategic importance of technology (Christensen, 1997; Linton & Walsh,
2013). The notion of the unknown risk that
emerging technologies pose often causes large
firm strategic managers, already uncomfortable with the importance of technology, to
default the commercialization process of the
even higher risk emerging technology-based
products to entrepreneurs (Kassicieh et al.,
2002; Kirchhoff & Walsh, 2002). One technique
that could be used to diminish these fears
is roadmapping. Roadmaps research that
addresses portions of this concern are in critical need (Cowan, 2013; Tierney, Hermina &
Walsh, 2013; Walsh, 2004).
This special issue contributes to this need in
a number of different ways. One example of
such progress is the improvement in understanding learning curves (Linton & Walsh,
2013) focusing on the technological development nature of emerging technologies.
Another would be to create a deeper understanding of the development of patient
venture capital often required by emerging
technology-based firms (Mahto & Khanin,
2013). Still others search for value that open
innovation (Chiaroni, Chiesa & Frattini, 2011)
or consortia can bring to the management of
the use of emerging technologies (Allarakhia
& Walsh, 2012; Park & Kang, 2013; Ritala &
Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2009). We provide a
brief summary of the authors contributions
below.
Linton and Walsh (2013) extend learning
curve theory to encompass the entire development process, from design through supply
chain and life cycle management. They
develop a framework that illustrates the
complex series of events underlying the seemingly parsimonious learning curve. This is of
exceptional value for firms large and small,
desperately trying to reduce risk in embracing
emerging technology development. By integrating learning curve theory, it is possible to
2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

INTRODUCTION TO THE FIELD OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT

see how they can reduce cost while creating

markets for emerging technology-based
products.
Saner and Stoklosa (2013) embrace the
definitional problems which hamper the
understanding and commercialization of all
emerging technology bases. They speak
directly to the adage that if you cannot manage
it you cannot measure it and you cannot
measure it if you cannot define it, as discussed
in our practitioners introduction (Martinez,
2013). This is especially the case for the emerging technology field of nanotechnology and
its subfields, where populist ideas and nonconvergent technology definitions add to the
social unease associated with its use. The
authors address nanotechnology and add to
the literature by providing a pathway for the
development of a definition of emerging technology. They provide the precision essential to
advance rational dialogue, decision making,
regulation, policy and ethics on emerging
technologies.
Wu and Haak (2013) provide insights into
large firm development of emerging technologies through the use of their corporate R&D
centres. They lean heavily on the competencybased and resource-based strategic views of
the firm in doing so. They suggest that large
firms are trying to differentiate themselves
through R&D development of new differentiating technological competencies which are
often emerging technologies. They show both
how developed and developing countries are
creating their corporate R&D centres for the
advance of emerging technologies.
Park and Kang (2013) examine the utility of
alliances for emerging technology development and commercialization. Large firms
often seek to gain advantage from emerging
technologies by partnering with firms that are
developing them in alliances. They show that
this tried and true managerial pathway to
incorporate emerging technologies into their
innovative product development often limits
firm risk, but does not always positively affect
innovative performance. Specifically, they
propose that firms should adopt technology
alliance with due consideration of its negative
aspects and their firms limited resources.
Cowan (2013) deeply integrates legislation
and policy into a roadmapping process so necessary for many emerging technologies to
advance. Here, he presents a regional smart
grid process that focuses on the world
problem of energy manufacture and distribution. He presents the drivers of the need for
creating a smarter grid. He focuses on the
unique regulatory and market structure that
challenges its implementation. The author
roadmap technique integrates key technology,
2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

business and policy concerns into an emerging

technology roadmapping process.
Mahto and Khanin (2013) address one of the
major commercialization hurdles for emerging
technology-based entrepreneurial enterprises
patient capital acquisition. Traditional
wisdom would suggest that emerging
technology-based
entrepreneurial
firms,
which often are lead by technologists with
limited prior interaction or reputation with
venture capitalists, would find difficulties in
both obtaining access to and acquiring capital
in a timely manner from these venture capitalists. Here the authors utilize empirical techniques to analyse data from 140 Internet-based
firms to examine the effect that founder reputation has on an enterprises ability to swiftly
obtain financing. Their results suggest that
founder reputation expedites ventures quick
access to public but not to private financing.
This provides information useful in entrepreneurial team development for emerging
technology-based firms.

References
Abernathy, W.J. and Clark, K.B. (1985) Innovation:
Mapping the Winds of Creative Destruction.
Research Policy, 14, 322.
Allarakhia, M. and Walsh, S.T. (2011) Managing
Knowledge Assets under Conditions of Radical
Change: The Case of the Pharmaceutical Industry. Technovation, 31, 10517.
Allarakhia, M. and Walsh, S.T. (2012) Analyzing and
Organizing
Nanotechnology
Development:
Application of the Institutional Analysis Development Framework to Nanotechnology Consortia.
Technovation, 32, 21626.
Barras, R. (1986) Towards a Theory of Innovation in
Services. Research Policy, 15, 16173.
Chan, M. (2008) Global health diplomacy: negotiating health in the 21st century. Director-General of
the World Health Organization, Address at the
Second High-level Symposium on Global Health
Diplomacy. [WWW document]. URL http://
www.who.int/dg/speeches/2008/20081021/
en/index.html [accessed on 12 June 2011].
Chiaroni, D., Chiesa, V. and Frattini F. (2011) The
Open Innovation Journey: How Firms Dynamically Implement the Emerging Innovation Management Paradigm. Technovation, 31, 3443.
Christensen, C.M. (1997) The Innovators Dilemma.
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Cordero, R., Walsh, S. and Kirchhoff, B. (2005) Motivating Performance in Innovative Manufacturing
Plants. Journal of High Technology Management
Research, 16, 8999.
Cowan, K. (2013) A New Roadmapping Technique
for Creatively Managing the Emerging Smart
Grid. Creativity and Innovation Management, this
issue.
Elders, J., Spiering, V. and Walsh S. (2001) Microsystems Technology (MST) and MEMS Applications:
An Overview. MRS Bulletin, 26, 31218.

Volume 22

Number 1

2013

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Freeman, C. (1982) The Economics of Industrial Innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Gillier, T. and Piat, G. (2011) Exploring Over: The
Presumed Identity of Emerging Technology.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 20, 23852.
Hung, S.H., Gao, J. and Hu, M. (2009) When Technological Uncertainties Meet Social Uncertainties:
Emerging Technologies in Emerging Markets.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76,
1253.
Kajikawa, Y., Yoshikawa, J., Takeda, Y. and Matsushima K. (2008) Tracking Emerging Technologies
in Energy Research: Toward a Roadmap for Sustainable Energy. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 75, 77182.
Kassicieh, S., Kirchhoff, B.A., McWhorter, P.J. and
Walsh, S.T. (2002) The Role of Small Firms in the
Transfer of Disruptive Technologies. Technovation, 22, 66774.
Kautt, M., Walsh, S. and Bittner, K. (2007) Global
Distribution of MicroNano Technology and Fabrication Centers: A Portfolio Analysis Approach.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74,
1697717.
Kirchhoff, B. and Walsh S. (2002) Technology Transfer for Government Labs to Entrepreneurs.
Journal of Enterprise and Culture, 10, 13349.
Kondratieff, N.D. (1935) The Long Waves in Economic Life. The Review of Economics and Statistics,
17, 10515.
Linton, J.D. and Walsh, S. (2008a) A Theory of Innovation for Process-Based Innovations such as
Nanotechnology. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 75, 58394.
Linton J.D. and Walsh, S. (2008b) Acceleration and
Extension of Opportunity Recognition for Nanotechnologies and Other Emerging Technologies.
International Small Business Journal, 26, 8399.
Linton, J.D. and Walsh, S.T. (2013) Extracting Value
from Learning Curves: Integrating Theory and
Practice. Creativity and Innovation Management,
this issue.
Mahto, R.V. and Khanin, D. (2013) Speed of Venture
Financing for Emerging Technology-Based Entrepreneurial Firms as a Function of Founder Reputation. Creativity and Innovation Management, this
issue.
Marquis, D.G. (1969) The Anatomy of Successful
Innovations. In Tushman, M.L. and Moore, W.
(eds.), Readings in the Management of Innovation,
2nd edn. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, pp. 7987.
Martinez, J.L. (2013) Practitioner Introduction:
Learning to Manage Emerging Technologies.
Creativity and Innovation Management, this issue.
Myers, D., Sumpter, C., Kirchhoff, B. and Walsh S.
(2002) A Practitioners View: Evolutionary Stages
of Disruptive Technologies. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 49, 3229.
Pandza, K., Wilkins, T. and Alfoldi, E. (2011) Collaborative Diversity in a Nanotechnology Innovation System: Evidence from the EU Framework
Programme. Technovation, 31, 47689.
Park, G. and Kang J. (2013) Alliance Addiction: Do
Alliances Create Real Benefits? Creativity and
Innovation Management, this issue.
Persson, G. (2012) The Keynote Speech for the
Young Technologist Award. COMS 2012,

Volume 22

Number 1

2013

MANCEF. [WWW document]. URL http://

www.coms2012.com/index.php?mod=pages&
id=108 [accessed on 15 November 2012].
Ray, S. and Ray, P.K. (2011) Product Innovation for
the Peoples Car in an Emerging Economy. Technovation, 31, 21627.
Ritala, P. and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen P. (2009)
Whats in it for me? Creating and Appropriating
Value in Innovation-Related Coopetition. Technovation, 29, 81928.
Saner, M. and Stoklosa, A. (2013) Commercial, Societal and Administrative Benefits from the Analysis and Clarification of Definitions: The Case of
Nanomaterials. Creativity and Innovation Management, this issue.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1937) The Theory of Economic
Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Solow, R. (1957) Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function. Review of Economics and
Statistics, 39, 31230.
Thukral, I., Von Ehr, J., Walsh S., Greon, A., Van de
Sijde, P. and Adham, K.A. (2008) Entrepreneurship, Emerging Technologies, Emerging Markets.
International Small Business Journal, 26, 10116.
Tierney, R., Hermina, W. and Walsh, S. (2013) The
Pharmaceutical Technology Landscape: A New
Form of Technology Roadmapping. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 80, 194211.
van der Valk, T., Moors, E. and Meeus, T.H. (2009)
Conceptualizing Patterns in the Dynamics of
Emerging Technologies: The Case of Biotechnology Developments in the Netherlands. Technovation, 29, 24764.
Walsh, S. (2001) Portfolio Management for the Commercialization of Advanced Technologies. Engineering Management Journal, 13, 3337.
Walsh, S.T. (2004) Roadmapping a Disruptive Technology: A Case Study. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 71, 16185.
Walsh, S. (2007) An Introduction to Nanotechnology Policy: Opportunities and Constraints for
Emerging and Established Economies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74, 163442.
Wu, F.S. and Haak, R. (2013) Innovation Mechanisms and Knowledge Communities for Corporate Central R&D. Creativity and Innovation
Management, this issue.

Dr. Steven Walsh (swalsh91@comcast.net)

is the Regents professor and director of the
Technology Entrepreneurship Program at
the University of New Mexico Anderson
Schools of Management. Dr. Walsh received
his BE, MBA and a Doctorate of Philosophy
in Management of Technology, Strategy
and Entrepreneurship at RPI. He is the
founding President for the Micro and Nano
Commercialization Education Foundation
(MANCEF). He is an area editor for two
journals and has provided special issue
editor service seven times. He was named
as one of 25 technology commercialization
all-stars by the state of New Mexico in 2005,
2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

INTRODUCTION TO THE FIELD OF EMERGING TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT

and in 2006 he won the lifetime achievement award for commercialization of micro
and nano firms by the Micro and
NanoCommercialization Education Foundation. His research focus is on the commercialization of advanced technologies.
Aard Groen (a.j.groen@utwente.nl) is
full professor of Innovative Entrepreneurship and scientific director of NIKOS, the
Netherlands Institute for Knowledge Intensive Entrepreneurship at the University of
Twente, the Netherlands. Groens research
interest focuses on knowledge-intensive
entrepreneurship in networks. NIKOS
research contributes to the Institute for
Innovation and Governance Studies (IGS),
where Groen is leading the research on
Innovation & Entrepreneurship. Groen is
designer and leader of Venture Lab Twente,
an ambitious facility to support high-tech
high-growth enterprises. This is also an
important living lab to teach and research
entrepreneurship. Furthermore, he is one of
the designers of Competencies for Innovations, a project in which we contribute to
better understanding of the enhancement
of innovation competencies in manufacturing industry, by actively working with such
firms. Groen received his BSc, MSc in
public administration from the University
of Twente and his PhD in business administration from the University of Groningen,
both in the Netherlands.

2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Volume 22

Number 1

2013