Management principles for

evaluating and introducing

disruptive technologies: the case of
nanotechnology in Switzerland
Philip Bucher1, Beat Birkenmeier, Harald Brodbeck
and Jean-Philippe Escher
All at the ETH Center for Enterprise Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
(ETH Zurich), Zurichbergstrasse 18, CH-8028 Zurich, Switzerland.
1
philip.bucher@ethz.ch

In this paper we address the issue of evaluating and introducing disruptive technologies. The
empirical data was compiled in an interview-based survey of 20 Swiss organizations of
different sizes and from different industries. All of them have been facing the issue of
evaluating nanotechnology, and most of them are currently dealing with the introduction of
nanotechnology in their products and processes. The underlying framework was elaborated
using approaches mainly found in the following streams of technology management literature:
technology intelligence, technological decision-making, and technological capability building.
The aim of our project was not to advance new management concepts, but to elaborate
management principles allowing the organizations to master the challenges during evaluation
and introduction of disruptive technologies. We dened these principles through identifying
success factors as well as possible pitfalls, and by distilling best management practices in
evaluating and introducing nanotechnology.

1. Introduction jects dealing with nanotechnology are coordinated

and nanced. This paper reports on the results of

T he predicted widespread application of

nanotechnology will lead to a renewal of
various industries. An in-depth understanding of
fundamental scientic connections and the tech-
nologies derived there from represents a precon-
dition to compete in these changing industries.
The Swiss government recognized the need of
fundamental research in the area of nanotechnol-
ogy and its management, and launched the
program TOP Nano 21. Within this program
some 200 industrial and academic research pro-
the TOP Nano 21 project on management princi-
ples for evaluating and introducing nanotechnology.
Technologies such as nanotechnology make
heavydemands on technology management. The
mostly embryonic stage of development makes if
difcult to evaluate the technologies potential
performance. In the case of nanotechnology the
high substitution potential associated with this
disruptive technology, as well as its use in a
multitude of application elds, make its
evaluation and also its introduction even more

R&D Management 33, 2, 2003. r Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2003. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 149
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
Philip Bucher et al.
difcult. Moreover, continuously emerging future
markets complicate the evaluation of the market
potential of those nanotechnology-based products
being introduced in the rather distant future. In a
nutshell, organizations dealing with disruptive
technologies, and nanotechnology in particular,
are facing very high uncertainty and complexity.
It is the goal of this paper to provide guidelines in
terms of management principles for the evaluation
and introduction of disruptive technologies.
We will start with a review of recent literature
on the evaluation and introduction of disruptive
technologies. Promising approaches as well as the
shortcomings in the technology and innovation
management literature are discussed; some of the
gaps are closed using current approaches pro-
vided in strategic management literature. Based
upon the insights, a framework for eld research
is elaborated.
The empirical data was compiled in an on-site
interview-based survey of 20 Swiss organizations
of different sizes and in different industries. All of
them have been facing the issue of evaluating
nanotechnology, and most of them are currently
dealing with the implementation of nanotechnol-
ogy in their products and processes. We identify
success factors and possible pitfalls, and draw up
promising trends.
Finally we derive management principles allow-
ing the organizations to master the challenges
during evaluation and introduction of disruptive
technologies.
2. Elaboration of research framework
Most new technologies foster improved product
performance. Christensen (1997) calls these sus-
taining technologies. Some sustaining technologies
can be discontinuous or radical in character,
while others are of an incremental nature. What
all sustaining technologies have in common is
that they improve the performance of established
products, along the dimensions of performance
that mainstream customers in major markets
have historically valued.
Occasionally, however, disruptive technologies
emerge: technologies that result in worse product
performance, at least in the near-term. Ironically,
in a multitude of cases studied, it was disruptive
technology that precipitated the leading rms
failure (Christensen, 1997).
150 R&D Management 33, 2, 2003
Disruptive technologies bring to market a very
different value proposition than had been avail-
able previously. It is self-evident, that evaluating
and introducing these technologies may cause
troubles to most organizations. Evaluation is
complicated by high uncertainty and complexity.
During introduction internal resistance and
inertia need to be overcome.
In our opinion it is wise to question existing
technology management concepts, and to approach
the research task by dening a broad, neutral
framework. The framework will be elaborated
upon approaches mainly provided in the following
streams of technology management literature:
technology intelligence, technological decision-
making, and technological capability building.
Technology intelligence
Fundamentally, the literature on technology
intelligence consists of the description of two
processes. The technology intelligence process
formulated by Peiffer (1992) focuses on the
initiation of the process and the identication of
the right technology but neglects the further use
of the technology intelligence results, in particular
their integration into the decision-making pro-
cess. The process formulated by Ashton et al.
(1991) represents a more holistic, but rather
formalistic view of the technology intelligence
process, including the acquisition (both, broad
scanning and in-depth monitoring), valuation,
and communication of technology-relevant in-
formation. However, their process seems to be
over-formalized and not able to cope with a
highly dynamic environment.
Neither of the two models appears to picture
the actual course of action, especially in the case
of disruptive technologies. However, both pro-
cesses have similar key elements, which need to
ow into our research framework. These are (1)
the initiation of technology intelligence activities,
(2) the acquisition, (3) valuation, and (4) pre-
selection of technology-relevant information.
Technological decision-making
In current literature, it is common to distinguish
between the content and the process of decision-
making:
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
 Management principles for disruptive technologies

The process of decision-making. The formation
of decisions, especially strategic decisions, was
deeply investigated over the last decades. From
this two fundamentally opposite strategy schools
developed. On the one hand the planning school
(mainly Andrews, 1971, Ansoff, 1965, Porter,
1980), describing strategic decision-making as
well designed, formalized, and analytical process.
On the other hand the learning school (mainly
Mintzberg, 1987, Quinn, 1980, Hamel and
Prahalad, 1994), understanding decision-making
as a dynamic, incremental, and self-organizing
learning process. Members of this school describe
the role of top management as a provider of
appropriate structures for the emergence, devel-
opment, and integration of bottom-up strategic
initiatives. They promote an increase of strategic
exibility of the organization to cope faster with
the dynamic and discontinuous development of
the organizations environment (Brown and
Eisenhardt, 1995). Against the background
of high uncertainty and complexity inherent
to disruptive technologies, the learning
approach to decision-making seems to be more
promising.
The content of technological decision-making.
The technology strategy of an organization
is determined through the whole body of
decisions made with regard to technologies. In
our opinion, there exist three technological
decision tasks of equal priority. They consist of
answering the following questions (Brodbeck,
1999):
1. Which product and process technologies do
we apply now and in the future to meet the
functions demanded by the customers?
2. Which of these technologies do we develop
internally, and which can and should we
acquire externally?
3. Which technologies do we deploy in our own
product and processes, and which do we make
available to other organizations?
These questions are the origin of three techno-
logical decision-making processes that can be
outlined as Which-way-to-go-decision, Make-
or-Buy-decision, and Keep-or-Sell-decision. We
refer to these key decisions in technology
management as trilogy of strategic technological
decisions (see Figure 1). In this project, primarily
the Which-way-to-go-decision and the Make-
or-Buy-decision are considered.
Technological capability building
The most promising approach to capability
building is the concept of dynamic capabilities
presented by Teece et al. (1997). Dynamic
capabilities are dened as: The rms processes
that use resources specically the processes
to integrate, recongure, gain and release reso-

Not Yet Deployed Deployed To Be Developed

Existing Technologies Technologies New Technologies

Which Technologies?
Decision on Required Technology
for Today and Tomorrow

Product Technologies

Make or Buy? Keep or Sell?

Decision on Procurement Decision on Deployment
of Required Technology of Required Technology

Process Technologies

Technology Portfolio

Figure 1. Trilogy of strategic technological decisions.

r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003 R&D Management 33, 2, 2003 151

Philip Bucher et al.
urces to match and even create market change.
Dynamic capabilities thus are the organizational
and strategic routines by which rms achieve new
resource conguration as markets emerge, col-
lide, split, evolve, and die. (Eisenhardt and
Martin, 2000, p. 1107)
Focusing on the management of R&D, a
similar approach was presented by Iansiti (1995,
1998). By describing several organizations that
were outstanding in leveraging the potential of
science and technology, he and his colleagues
signicantly increased our understanding of im-
plementing new technologies into products and
processes.
The evidence he gathered shows that the
emergence of new technologies can provide
dramatic opportunities in dynamic environments.
But to be used effectively and efciently, new
technological possibilities must be carefully and
continuously matched to their application con-
text. Doing this well requires a proactive process
he calls technology integration. Technology inte-
gration activities make up a repeated cycle of
problem choice, potential solution selection,
experiment design and execution, followed by
option elimination (see Figure 2).
Research
Creates Technological Options
Technology Integration
Re-evaluates and Re-selects Options
Figure 2. Technology integration (Iansiti, 1998).
Scanning /
Initiation
Monitoring
Technology Evaluation
Figure 3. A framework for investigating disruptive technologies.
152 R&D Management 33, 2, 2003
As the technological opportunities are greatest
in the case of disruptive technologies, Iansitis
concept of repeated technology-market matching
during a process of incremental technological
capability development needs to be considered in
our research framework.
A framework to investigate the evaluation
and introduction of disruptive technologies
Using the insights gathered during the literature
survey, the broad framework shown in Figure 3
was elaborated.
We understand technology evaluation as a
deliberately or unconsciously initiated process of
technology scanning, monitoring, and valuation
(following Peiffer, 1992, Ashton et al., 1991,
Mintzberg, 1987).
Technology introduction is dened as an incre-
mental and dynamic process of re-valuation and
selection of technological options and their
implementation in products, processes, and ser-
vices (following Quinn, 1980, Brown and Eisen-
hardt, 1995, Brodbeck, 1999, Iansiti, 1998).
In the following, the ve stages specifying the
framework are briey discussed:
Development
Refines and Implements Options
Selection Implemen-
Valuation
tation
Technology Introduction
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

Initiation of technology evaluation. Research has
shown that a self-initiating decision process
requires a high activation level (Pfohl, 1977).
However, by the time this activation level is
reached, the organization may have missed the
opportunity to take a leading role in introducing
a disruptive technology. Therefore, it is essential
not to leave the initiation of technology evalua-
tion to chance. According to Bleicher (1992) there
are two approaches to meet this requirement. (1)
Informational enabling. This requires an informa-
tion system, such as technology intelligence, that
provides the members of an organisation with the
information required to timely initiate the eva-
luation process. (2) Constitutive provocation. This
is a pre-drawing of action workshops with the
goal to articially provoke evaluation and
decision-making processes. It needs to be sup-
ported by organisational structures that allow
technology managers to escape the daily opera-
tional pressure.
Technology scanning & technology monitoring.
The next step after the initiation of the evaluation
process is the acquisition of relevant information.
A useful approach to contain the range of
observation was developed by Peiffer (1992). He
suggests two perspectives of technology observa-
tion: the outside-in- and the inside-out-per-
spective (see Figure 4).
The outside-in-perspective corresponds to
technology scanning, which means continual,
broad surveying and screening of the external
technical environment to identify science and
technology developments from many areas that
may be of further interest (Ashton and Klavans,
1997, p. 16).
The inside-out-perspective corresponds to
technology monitoring, which is dened as in-
Core Technologies White
Current Developing Spaces
Outside-in:
Scanning
Inside-out:
Monitoring
Incremental innovations Radical innovations
Figure 4. Perspectives of technology observation (Lich-
tenthaler, 2000).
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
Management principles for disruptive technologies
depth observation of a phenomena identied
during technology scanning (Krystek and Muel-
ler-Stevens, 1993).
Scanning and monitoring are ideal types of
distinctions, however, there are clear differences
in the knowledge generation process. Monitor-
ing requires meticulous aggregation and analysis
of details, while scanning puts a high premium on
intuition, sixth sense, and pattern recognition
(Wilson, 1983, p. 93).
Technology valuation. In this stage, previously
identied technologies are evaluated with regard
to their future business impact. A survey invol-
ving 130 US organizations carried out by the
Industrial Research Institute suggested that
technology valuation is the weak link in the
technology intelligence chain (Ashton, 1997).
There is a consensus that three basic conditions
need to be established for effective and efcient
valuation. Precise valuation criteria providing
guidelines to the involved persons need to be
dened. Depending on the context, the valuation
methods (how) and form (who, when, where) need
to be selected. However, the detailed design of
criteria, form, and methods of technology valua-
tion is still a subject of research.
Technology selection. We understand the selec-
tion as the act of volition to answer the question
whether or not a technology will be implemented.
Following the trilogy of strategic technological
decisions described above, the selection equates
with the Which-way-to-go-decision. Due to its
signicance, the selection may represent a barrier
during the process of technology introduction.
The valuation of new technologies does not get
over this barrier on its own, it only creates
transparency with regard to the pending decision.
Literature postulates that an effective decision
base is established when some of the decision-
makers have been integrated in the preceding
technology valuation process (Haberfellner et al.,
1992). This is explained by their greater famil-
iarity with technological facts as well as the
possibility of bringing their subjective values and
intuitive views into the valuation process.
Technology implementation. This stage com-
prises the integration of a selected technology
into the organizations technological competence
base. First of all the organization will be
confronted with the Make-or-Buy-decision as
R&D Management 33, 2, 2003 153
Philip Bucher et al.
described in the trilogy of strategic technological
decisions. Basically, there are four possible
options: (1) internal research, (2) allocation of
research assignments, (3) research cooperations,
and (4) acquisitions. Recent studies indicate an
increased signicance of external technology
sourcing in various industries (Tschirky and
Koruna, 1998). Furthermore, it is evident that
even large enterprises are forced to buy technol-
ogies. This tendency is primarily caused by
increasing dynamics and complexity of the
technological change in combination with keen
competition.
In the following section we will apply the
framework shown in Figure 3 to selected Swiss
organizations that have been confronted with the
evaluation and introduction of nanotechnology.
3. The practice of evaluating and
introducing nanotechnology in
Switzerland
We are well aware that nanotechnology per se is
not a disruptive technology as described by
Christensen. Most applications will not change
the value proposition of the customers, even
though they are based on radical innovations
made possible by nanotechnology. However,
some applications, such as exible ceramics or
nanorobots, are highly disruptive and will entail
socio-political discussions. All the 20 interviewed
organizations are doing research with regard to
both, radical and disruptive applications of
nanotechnology.
We will briey discuss the empirical data
drawn from the interviews:
Initiation of technology evaluation
In the course of the entire process of evaluating
and introducing nanotechnology, the design of
the initiation of technology evaluation turned out
to cause the greatest problems. Most of the
interviewed organizations did not dene different
initiation criteria with respect to sustaining and
disruptive technologies. The most common
causes for initiating a process of technology
evaluation are drawn up in Figure 5.
We believe that an initiation caused by
problems formulated by external and internal
154 R&D Management 33, 2, 2003
Problems
during production
Shifting Fascination for
customer demand new technologies
Figure 5. Cause of initiation.
customers does not account for the different
value proposition given rise by disruptive tech-
nologies and the fact that important markets will
emerge in the future. Moreover, in most of the
organizations interviewed neither specic infor-
mational enabling nor constitutive provocation is
perceived as routine management process.
This explains why a majority of those Swiss
organizations that entered a disruptive eld
within nanotechnology are now confronted with
the difcult task of catching up with their foreign
competitors.
Technology scanning and monitoring
We analyzed technology scanning and monitor-
ing with regard to their coordination and the task
bearers. Following Lichtenthaler (2000) we cate-
gorize the coordination as being structural,
project-driven or informal. Typical task bearers
were external and internal technology experts as
well as management representatives for the
purpose of promotion.
The case of nanotechnology in Switzerland
draws up a clear picture of how to successfully
scan and monitor disruptive technologies. On the
one hand, scanning is generally perceived as a
continuous structured process with external and
internal technology experts being responsible for
predened function-based scanning areas. On the
other hand, nanotechnology is monitored within
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
 Management principles for disruptive technologies

the scope of time-limited projects including both
technology experts and promoters (Figure 6).
Technology valuation
There is consensus among the interviewed orga-
nizations that the purpose of technology valua-
tion is to holistically analyze possible future states
with regard to their business impact by using both
technological and environmental aspects.
In the case of nanotechnology we realized that
larger organizations pursue a more structured
approach to technology valuation (Figure 7).
This applies to all the industrial sectors investi-
gated. We measured the structure of valuation
with regard to the transparency during determin-
ing the criteria, methods and form, the possibility
of reconstructing the results, and the evidence of
a deliberate routine during valuation.
It is of interest, that those organizations having
a higher degree of structure during the valuation
of nanotechnology seem to achieve more satisfy-
ing results. Especially in view of disruptive
applications of nanotechnology, we often heard
the call for a standardized valuation process
providing transparency and reconstruction.
Our research didnt make out a difference
between the valuation criteria, methods and form
used for disruptive and sustaining technologies.
Common criteria are strategic t, technology
performance, innovation potential and the effects
on technological resources. Qualitative methods
such as S-curve analysis and technology portfo-
lios and roadmaps, as well as quantitative
methods such as DCF and simulations are used.
Technology valuation typically takes place in
interdisciplinary-staffed routine technology man-
agement meetings.

Technology Scanning Technology Monitoring

informal

structural driven informal

- 3 3 - 1 2
Coordination

Coordination
project-

project-
driven

- - 1 - 9 6
structural

2 8 3 - 2 -

Expert Expert
Promoter Promoter
external internal external internal
Task bearer Task bearer

Figure 6. Number of organizations choosing particular characteristics of technology scanning and monitoring.

The size of the organization is correlating with

the degree of structure in technology valuation
10000
Size of organization

1000
(employees)

Machine industry
100 Chemical industy
Electronic industry
10
other industries
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Degree of structuring
technology valuation

Figure 7. Degree of structure in technology valuation.

r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003 R&D Management 33, 2, 2003 155

Philip Bucher et al.
The case of nanotechnology shows that the
organizations are aware of the crucial role
technology valuation has to play in the course
of evaluating and introducing disruptive technol-
ogies. The results of valuation dene the basis for
the future acceptance of the technology. Conse-
quently, the process is more and more managed
with a clear idea of the desired outcome.
Technology selection
Figure 8 illustrates how the hierarchical level of
the decision-makers is linked up with the size of
the organization and the amount of resources to
be invested during the implementation of nano-
technology.
The top management was involved in the process
of nanotechnology selection whenever the business
strategy got inuenced in some way. In principle,
we observed top management involvement in cases
of disruptive elds of nanotechnology.
Besides designing technology selection as delib-
erate routine management process, it is mainly
the experience and the keenness of judgment of
the decision-makers involved which determines
the success or failure of technology selection.
Moreover, our research conrms the postulation
in literature that an effective decision base is
established when some of the decision-makers
Top management
Decision-level
Upper middle
management,
division managers
Lower middle
management,
project managers
Figure 8. Decision-level depending on the size of the organization.
156 R&D Management 33, 2, 2003
have been integrated in the preceding valuation
process.
Technology implementation
De facto, the phase of technology implementa-
tion starts well before the actual selection. Our
survey has shown that the rst steps of technol-
ogy implementation are taken, at the latest,
during technology monitoring, (Figure 9).
As shown above, the technology implementa-
tion consists of a gradual, iterative accumulation
of technological knowledge and capabilities. In
particular this applies to technology valuation in
the scope of feasibility studies with an incremen-
tally increasing level of detail and resources. The
actual implementation consists of further, in the
case of disruptive technologies, highly resource-
intensive steps of technological competence
building.
Our research has shown that no Swiss organi-
zation, no matter how large, had enough re-
sources of its own to take a leading role in
introducing nanotechnology. Instead, most orga-
nizations had the chance to fall back on a broad
and well-cultivated research network. On the one
hand, a systematic identication and valuation
of cooperation partners with regard to a t
of culture, strategy, and capabilities, on the
Larger
Investments
Smaller
Investments
small large
Size of organization
(employees)
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
 Management principles for disruptive technologies

go-decision
high disruptive innovation
Degree of technology
implementation go-decision
radical innovation

go-decision
incremental innovation

no-go-decision
low

Pre-Selections Selection

Scanning and
Initiation Valuation Implementation
Monitoring

Figure 9. Gradual, iterative accumulation of technological knowledge and capabilities.

Technology Scanning

Innovation-
potential

Technology Evaluation Technology Introduction

Technological
Technology Valuation
Competence Development
Kickoff Technology and Selection
Technology Sourcing
Environmental Monitoring

Technological
Technology Re-evaluation
Decision-making

Innovation-
potential

Environmental Scanning (Economy, Markets, Politics, Society)

Continuous processes

Initiated, discontinuous, project-driven processes

Figure 10. The process of evaluating and introducing disruptive technologies.

other hand, the integration of externally devel- We believe that the evaluation and introduc-
oped technological knowledge into the organiza- tion of disruptive technologies have to be
tions own competence base have proved to be perceived as discontinuous, time-limited pro-
decisive for a successful implementation of cesses. Therefore they are best managed in
nanotechnology. projects. With regard to the high uncertainty
and complexity inherent to disruptive technolo-
4. Management principles for evaluating gies and the internal resistance caused by it, the
and introducing disruptive technologies initiation of the evaluation and introduction
projects is most crucial for their success. We refer
Based upon the insights gathered from the case of to these initiations as kickoff to technology
nano-technology in Switzerland, we will now evaluation and selection of the technology to be
conceptionalize the evaluation and introduction introduced. Depending on their management,
of disruptive technologies (Figure 10). kickoff and selection may represent catalysts

r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003 R&D Management 33, 2, 2003 157

Philip Bucher et al.
but also barriers to the succeeding evaluation and
introduction projects. Therefore, special attention
needs to be paid to these processes.
The effective and efcient evaluation and
introduction of any technology is thwarted when
information on the organizations future environ-
ment is poor or even missing. Since cash ows
back in the rather distant future, this is particu-
larly true in the case of disruptive technologies.
Consequently, an organization that intends to
take a leading role in evaluating and introducing
disruptive technologies needs a state-of-the-art
environmental scanning system, providing infor-
mation on technology and markets, as well as
most important with regard to the different value
proposition given rise by disruptive technologies
on economy, politics and society.
From a technology manager point of view, the
evaluation and introduction of disruptive tech-
nologies can be illustrated as being located in a
eld of tension between an uncertain but promis-
ing technological potential on the one hand, and
environmental constraints on the other hand. In
this sense it is useful to detach technology
scanning, representing a method to continuously
identify new technologies and their future poten-
tial, from other scanning activities, describing the
environmental constraints.
In the following we provide management
principles for each of the processes drawn in
Figure 10:
Technology scanning
The leading organizations in the Swiss nanotech-
nology industry have dened scanning routines
rather than scanning projects. Establishing rou-
tines is of course not trivial and requires rst off all
a common understanding of the tasks to be solved.
With regard to disruptive technologies, technology
scanning should be based on a dual understand-
ing: on the one hand, it has to identify new
technologies and thereby enable a effective and
efcient kickoff to technology evaluation, on the
other hand, it has to continuously provide relevant
information of the organizations technological
environment to the subsequent activities within the
course of technology evaluation and introduction.
The complexity of the organizations techno-
logical environment is reduced by the denition
of function-based scanning areas. It is crucial, that
the scanning areas are dened with regard to the
158 R&D Management 33, 2, 2003
technological functions to be fullled instead of
the actual technologies. To be accepted on a
widespread basis, the scanning areas have to be
derived from forward-looking documents provid-
ing technology strategic information, such as the
organizations business plan, technology strategy,
or technology roadmaps.
Of each of the scanning areas, one person
(typically referred to as gatekeeper) is assigned to
take responsibility. In view of avoiding redun-
dancies it is wise to assign the same gatekeeper to
some related scanning areas. Our research has
shown, that in the case of existing technology and
application elds, the most qualied gatekeepers
are internal professional researchers (technology
experts) that are exempt from about 15% of the
daily business for each of their scanning areas.
However, in the case of disruptive technologies,
outsourcing of technology scanning proved to
have success. Depending of the degree of novelty
and complexity, different scanning cooperation
should be chosen. The employment of postdocs is
most successful to bring latest trends within the
industry-specic technologies into the organiza-
tion, while the use of a network of external
technology experts is promising in the case of
interdisciplinary not industry-specic technolo-
gies. The use of venture capital funds has proved
to be useful to scan the earliest stages of the
technology life cycle. Thus, in the case of
disruptive technologies it is by no means excep-
tional to assign postdocs, external experts and
venture capital funds to the role of gatekeepers.
In any case, a broad network of professional
associations, industrial and academic research
institutes, but also customers and competitors is a
prerequisite for successful scanning.
Crucial for the success of technology scanning
is an institutionalized process of knowledge
sharing between the gatekeepers as well as a
regular renement of the scanning areas. Either is
made possible by means of a regular scanning
workshop including the head of technology
scanning, all gatekeepers, as well as someone
being responsible for technology planning (a
monthly interval proved successful).
Environmental scanning
Besides technology scanning, no scanning activ-
ities have been investigated in our survey, thus we
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

cannot provide any management principles on
their design. However, technology managers
formulated their demands with respect to the
outcomes of these complementary scanning
processes. Their statements can be summarized
in two suggestions:
Promotion of functional thinking. Organizations
need to promote functional thinking in all
scanning disciplines. Consequently, the results
will be more comparable which simplies their
analysis and especially their synthesis. It is self-
evident that a functional supply identied by
technology scanning is easier to match with a
clearly formulated functional demand identied
by environmental scanning. This applies to
customer demand as well as to societal or
political demand.
Scanning the day after tomorrow. To cope with
the challenges caused by disruptive technologies,
scanning activities mustnt only be conned to the
near future, but also to the distant future.
Scanning tomorrow needs to be complemented
by scanning the day after tomorrow. For
instance, it is unsatisfactory to quantify the future
growth rate of a current market; it is essential to
identify or even predict the emerging markets.
Only this allows the organization to effectively
preempt the future, and to perceive the best set of
options offered by a disruptive technology.1
Kickoff to technology evaluation
It is most important that the kickoff to evaluate
disruptive technologies is decoupled from extra-
ordinary incidents. For that purpose, a set of
proactive strategic and operational measures
needs to be taken. These measures will allow an
organization to initiate the evaluation of disrup-
tive technologies more effective (the right tech-
nology) and more efcient (at the right time with
the right priority). In the following, the two most
promising measures are briey described:
The denition of the organizations present and
future core competencies. Core competencies are
the basis of a common and easy to communicate
understanding of the corporate goals and visions.
This common understanding helps to align the
emergence of strategic technology initiatives.
Initiatives are dened as a specic form of
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
Management principles for disruptive technologies
entrepreneurship that starts with the recognition
of an opportunity and ends with a form of
approval (Wielemaker et al., 2001). A strategic
technology initiative can therefore be understood
as a catalyst for technological renewal in a eld of
conict between emerging technological oppor-
tunities and existing technology strategy. In case
an initiative with regard to a disruptive technol-
ogy gets under discussion, it may initiate an in
depth evaluation of the technology in question.
Moreover, well-formulated core competencies
support the denition of the core technologies. It
is the aim of all the interviewed organizations to
balance their core technology portfolio with
regard to the technologies business impact and
their position in the life cycle. Thus, core
technology management draws up the need of a
new, possibly disruptive technology, which again
will kickoff the process of technology evaluation.
The creation of regular interdisciplinary-staffed
innovation meetings. The aim of the innovation
meetings is solely to identify or even generate
promising technology-market combinations.
During these meetings the advantages of func-
tional thinking during technology and environ-
mental scanning take full effect. It is essential for
the success of the innovation meetings to achieve
a consensus concerning the innovation potential
of the technology in question. The participants
need to be aware that the innovation potential
can be dened by the disruptive technology itself
(e.g. disruption in performance) but also by
disrupting markets.
A condition to achieve a consensus that is
acceptable to all persons concerned is an inter-
disciplinary mix of participants. They are tech-
nology and market experts, in particular the
crucial persons in charge of technology and
environmental scanning, but also decision-ma-
kers from the middle- and top-management level
to increase the acceptance of the evaluation
project to be kicked-off. All of the nanotechnol-
ogy pacemakers in Switzerland carry out such
innovation meeting at least once a month, some
of them even weekly.
Technology evaluation
In comparison with sustaining technologies, the
paradigm and the dominant function of technol-
ogy evaluation ought to shift in the case of
R&D Management 33, 2, 2003 159
Philip Bucher et al.
disruptive technologies. The paradigm is no
longer to predict the development of a technology
as precisely as possible, it is rather to determine a
future with is desired by all involved parties2. This
is based on an intense investigation of the
determinant technological, competitive, political,
economical and societal factors. The dominant
function of technology evaluation is therefore no
longer the creation of objective future-related
information; it is rather the achievement of inter-
subjectivity, organizational learning, building of
intention, and communication.
As mentioned in the introduction to this
section, the evaluation of a disruptive technology
is most successful when perceived as a discontin-
uous, time-limited process, and should therefore
be managed within the scope of an evaluation
project. The process of technology evaluation
comprises technology monitoring, technology
valuation, and technological decision-making in
an incrementally increasing level of detail and
therefore represents the rst steps of technologi-
cal capability building.
We understand technology monitoring as an in-
depth observation of the technology in question
which implicitly includes the monitoring of the
affected environment. Thus, the aim of technol-
ogy monitoring is to meticulously aggregate
qualitative and quantitative information required
during the processes of technology valuation and
technological decision-making. As there is gen-
erally only little experience with disruptive
technologies within the organization, it proved
to be crucial to include external experts as early as
possible into the monitoring process.
The purpose for technology valuation is to
holistically analyze possible future states with
regard to their business impact by using both,
technological and environmental aspects. The use
of standardized qualitative and quantitative tools
such as portfolios and value analysis that support
functional thinking and provide transparency and
reconstruction are imperative for the effective
evaluation of disruptive technologies. However,
none of the methods compensates for a poor
ability of judgment, which calls for the participa-
tion of experienced internal and external technol-
ogy experts.
Through detaching the process of technological
decision-making from technology monitoring and
valuation an iterative re-alignment of the activ-
ities in the scope of technology evaluation is made
160 R&D Management 33, 2, 2003
possible. Because of the high uncertainty and
complexity inherent to a disruptive technology we
believe this alignment to be crucial for the success
of the evaluation. Technological decision-mak-
ing, which typically takes place in weekly meet-
ings headed by the evaluation project
management, represents a means to reach inter-
subjectivity in view of the subsequent steps of the
evaluation. This process calls for the participa-
tion of middle or even top managers, providing
the basis for a broad acceptance of the evaluation
results inside as well as outside the organization.
To make monitoring, valuation, and decision-
making successful, the evaluation project needs to
be both, interdisciplinary-staffed and headed by
middle or even top technology and business
managers. In the case of disruptive technologies,
interdisciplinary-staffed means the participation
of internal and external experts possessing the
best available knowledge about the technological,
competitive, economical, political and societal
mid to long range development.
It is crucial, that the evaluation of disruptive
technologies takes an iterative course. On the one
hand, this allows necessary phase-specic coop-
eration with individual experts as well as research
institutes; on the other hand, it enables a gradual
adjustment of the resources3 assigned to the
technology evaluation project.
Technology selection
Technology selection serves a dual purpose. On
the one hand it aims at bringing the outcomes of
technology evaluation into the organizational
consciousness; on the other hand it represents
an attempt to reduce the internal resistance to
technology introduction. This makes it clear that
a well-managed technology selection is crucial for
the success of evaluating and introducing dis-
ruptive technologies.
As mentioned earlier in this paper, we under-
stand technology selection as an act of volition to
answer the question whether a disruptive tech-
nology will be introduced or not. Consequently,
the result of the selection has to be a clear
declaration of intention concerning the technolo-
gical future of the organization.
As selecting a disruptive technology for intro-
duction is likely to disregard existing technology
roadmaps and will entail considerable strategic
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

and operational consequences it is understand-
able that top-management involvement is im-
perative for the success of technology selection.
In addition, we know that an effective decision
base is established when some of the decision-
makers have been integrated in the process of
technology evaluation. Our research has shown,
that the committee to select disruptive technolo-
gies has to consist of at least the following key
decision-makers: the chief technology ofcer
(CTO), the head of R&D as well as representa-
tives from the top-management, marketing, and
nance of those business units being most
concerned, the head of the preceding evaluation
project. Most organizations carry out routine,
monthly technology management meetings. The
selection of disruptive technologies has to be on
the regular agenda of such meetings. On the one
hand, this provides the essential basis for a broad
acceptance of the selection within the organiza-
tion; on the other hand, it casts the selection of
disruptive technologies as a deliberate routine
management process.
Technology introduction
As a logical continuation of technology evalua-
tion, the paradigm and the dominant function of
technology introduction ought to shift in the case
of disruptive technologies. The paradigm is no
longer to develop a new technology in response to
a formulated problem and according to pre-
viously dened specications; it is rather to
further design the future and thereby to continue
the constructivist process initiated in the course
of technology evaluation. The dominant function
of technology introduction is therefore not only
the integration of a selected technology into the
organizations technological competence base; it
is also the joint creation of a future based on
common values elaborated by means of inter-
subjectivity and inter-institutional learning. In
this sense, the introduction of disruptive technol-
ogies is only possible in intense cooperation with
all the parties concerned and by including
trendsetters and opinion-formers originated in
the whole spectrum of technology, competition,
politics, economy and society. Therefore, the
building and cultivation of a broad research
network is crucial for the success of the introduc-
tion phase.
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
Management principles for disruptive technologies
As with the evaluation of disruptive technolo-
gies, and briey indicated at the beginning of this
section, the introduction of a disruptive technol-
ogy is most successful when perceived as a
discontinuous, time-limited process, and as such
should be managed within the scope of an
introduction project. The process of technology
introduction comprises an iterative succession of
technology sourcing, technological competence
development, and technology re-evaluation and
therefore represents further, more resource-in-
tensive steps of technological capability building.
The introduction project has to be headed by a
top R&D manager; in case the organization
strives for a fundamentally new strategy, it is
mandatory that the CTO or the Head of R&D
takes the lead.
Our research has shown that no Swiss organi-
zation, no matter how large, had enough re-
sources by its own to take a leading role in
introducing nanotechnology. We dene technol-
ogy sourcing as the process of determining the
best suitable source of technological knowledge.
In the case of disruptive technologies, the best
source is neither entirely internal (make) nor
external (buy); the technology development gen-
erally takes place within the scope of research
cooperations. The aim of technology sourcing is
therefore to systematically identify, evaluate and
select cooperation partners with regard to a t of
culture, strategy, and capabilities.
By technological competence development we
understand the core process of technological
knowledge accumulation. As its description goes
beyond the scope of this paper, we would like to
refer to the sound work of Marco Iansiti (1998).
We agree that disruptive technological possibili-
ties have to be carefully and continuously
matched to their environmental context. This is
made possible by means of a repeated cycle of
problem choice, potential solution selection,
experiment design and execution, followed by
option elimination. As mentioned earlier in this
section, the development of disruptive technolo-
gies generally takes place within the scope of
research cooperations. Therefore, special atten-
tion needs to be paid to the integration of
externally developed technological knowledge
into the organizations own competence base.
This difcult and crucial task can be solved by the
appointment of technology activists.4 It is their
function to actively enable the process of
R&D Management 33, 2, 2003 161
Philip Bucher et al.
technological knowledge sharing between the
research partners and to promote the results of
the research cooperation within the own organi-
zation.
The technological uncertainty and complexity
might be reduced during introduction, however,
in view of the different value proposition that will
be brought to market, the environmental con-
straints are likely to be changing faster than ever
before. By establishing a routine management
process for the purpose of technology re-evalua-
tion, an iterative adjustment and re-alignment of
the activities in the scope of technology introduc-
tion is made possible. Technology re-evaluation
consists of the same sub processes as the initial
evaluation (monitoring, valuation and decision-
making). The re-evaluation of a disruptive
technology typically takes place in monthly
meetings headed by the introduction project
management. It represents a means to reach
inter-subjectivity among various parties con-
cerned in view of the subsequent steps of the
introduction.
Similar to the evaluation, it is crucial, that the
introduction of disruptive technologies takes an
iterative course. On the one hand, this allows the
denition of milestones providing the basis for
effective and efcient phase-specic research
cooperations; on the other hand, it enables a
gradual adjustment integration, recongura-
tion, gain and release of the resources allocated
to the technology introduction project.
5. Conclusions
We believe that the management of disruptive
technologies ought to be based on sound con-
structivist self-condence. In this context we
propagate a shift of paradigm from anticipating
and adapting towards actively determining and
designing our common future.
In this paper we argue that the evaluation and
introduction of disruptive technologies needs to
be perceived as a deliberately initiated, incre-
mental, and inter-institutional process of techno-
logical capability building.
The process of technology evaluation com-
prises technology monitoring, technology valua-
tion, and technological decision-making in an
incrementally increasing level of detail and
represents the rst steps of technological cap-
162 R&D Management 33, 2, 2003
ability building. Technology introduction com-
prises an iterative succession of technology
sourcing, technological competence development,
and technology re-evaluation and contains
further, more resource-intensive steps of techno-
logical capability building.
Successful evaluation and introduction has to
be enabled by underlying technology and envir-
onmental scanning routines, providing informa-
tion on the near and distant future.
A proactive deliberate initiation of the evalua-
tion and introduction is crucial for their success.
We referred to these initiations as kickoff to
technology evaluation and as selection of the
technology to be introduced. Both, kickoff and
selection need to take place in the scope of
routine technology management meetings. This
allows a decoupling from extraordinary distort-
ing incidents. The participation of top manage-
ment representatives is essential for the broad
acceptance of the disruptive technology and
represents a catalyst for technology evaluation
and introduction.
Both, the evaluation and the introduction of
disruptive technologies are most successful when
carried out in interdisciplinary-staffed projects. It
is crucial, that the evaluation and introduction
take an iterative course. On the one hand, this
allows the denition of milestones providing the
basis for effective and efcient phase-specic
research cooperations; on the other hand, it
allows a deliberate repeated technology-environ-
ment matching and enables a gradual allocation
of resources.
References
Abell, D. (1993) Managing with dual strategies:
mastering the present, preempting the future. New
York: The Free Press.
Andrews, K.R (1971) The Concept of Corporate
Strategy. Homewood, Illinois: Irwin.
Ansoff, H.I. (1965) Corporate Strategy. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Ashton, W.B. (1997) Technology intelligence survey
nds few are world-class. Research Technology
Management, 40, 25.
Ashton, W.B., Kinzey, B.R. and Gunn, M.E. (1991) A
structural approach for monitoring science and
technology developments. International Journal of
Technology Management, 6, 91111.
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003

Ashton, W.B. and Klavans, R.A. (1997) Keeping
abreast of science and technology: technical intelli-
gence in business. Columbus, Ohio: Batelle Press.
Bleicher, K. (1992) Das Konzept Integriertes Manage-
ment. Frankfurt: Campus.
Brodbeck, H. (1999) Strategische Entscheidungen im
Techno-logiemanagement: Relevanz und Ausgestal-
tung in der unter-nehmerischen Praxis. Zurich:
Industrielle Organisation.
Brown, S. and Eisenhardt, K. (1995) Product develop-
ment: past research, present ndings, and future
directions. Academy of Management Review, 20,
343378.
Christensen, C.M. (1997) The innovators dilemma:
When new technologies cause great rms to fail.
Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School
Press.
Eisenhardt, K. and Martin, J. (2000) Dynamic
capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management
Journal, 21, 11051121.
Guice, J. (1999) Designing the future: The culture of
new trends in science and technology. Research
Policy, 28, 1, 8198.
Haberfellner, R., Nagel, P., Becker, M., Buchel, A. and
von Massow, H. (1992) Systems Enginee-ring:
Methodik und Praxis. Zurich: Industrielle Organisa-
tion.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. (1994) Competing for the
future. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business
School Press.
Iansiti, M. (1995) Technology development and in-
tegration: an empirical study of the interaction
between applied science and product development.
IEEE transactions on Engineering Management, 42,
259269.
Iansiti, M. (1998) Technology integration: Making
critical choices in a dynamic world. Boston, Massa-
chusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
Krystek, U. and Muller-Stewens, G. (1993) Fruhaufk-
larung fur Unternehmen: Identikation und Handha-
bung zukunftiger Chancen und Bedrohungen.
Stuttgart: Schaffel-Poschel.
Lichtenthaler, E. (2000) Organisation der Technology
Intelligence: eine empirische Untersuchung in techno-
logie-intensiven, international tatigen Grossunterneh-
men. ETH Zurich, Dissertation 13787.
Mintzberg, H. (1987) The Strategy Concept 1: Five Ps
for Strategy. California Management Review, 30, 1,
1124.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995) The knowledge-
creating company: how Japanese companies create the
r Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003
Management principles for disruptive technologies
dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Peiffer, S. (1992) Technologie-Fruhaufklarung. Ham-
burg: S W Steuer- und Wirtschaftsverlag.
Quinn, J.B. (1980) Strategies for change: Logical
incrementalism. Homewood, Illinois: Irwin.
Teece, D., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997) Dynamic
capabilities and strategic management. Strategic
Managment Journal, 18, 509533.
Tschirky, H. and Koruna, S. (1998) Technologie-
Management: Idee und Praxis. Zurich: Verlag
Industrielle Organisation.
von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I. and Ichijo. K. (2000).
Enabling Knowledge Creation. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Wielemaker, M., Baden-Fuller, C., Elfring, T. and
Volberda, H. (2001). The conditioning and knowl-
edge-creating view: managing the source of the
strategy process. In Proceedings of SMS Mini-
Conference on Strategy Process Research, St. Gallen,
Switzerland.
Wilson, I.H. (1983) The benets of environmental
analysis. In Albert, K.J. The strategic management
handbook, New York: Wiley, pp. 9.19.19.
Notes
1. The concept of dual strategies by Abell (1993) is
based on similar trains of thought. However, in the
context of disruptive technologies, his dual business
strategy for today and tomorrow needs to be
complemented by a dual technology strategy for
tomorrow and the day after tomorrow.
2. This shift of paradigm is building on Guice (1999)
concepts. He describes the development from a
reactive objective towards a proactive constructivist
understanding to deal with the future in science and
technology.
3. Besides the traditional resources (manpower, capital
and property) we also include the new and sole true
resource knowledge (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)
in our understanding of resources.
4. The function of the technology activist is following
the considerations made by von Krogh et al. (2000)
in the scope of the concept knowledge activist,
representing a key enabler for knowledge sharing
and integration.
R&D Management 33, 2, 2003 163