ABSTRACT
How breakthrough technologies commercialise is also difficult to predict; the tech no logy needs to pass through the “valley of death” (Auerswald & Branscomb, 2003; Branscomb, 2008). Adner and Levinthal (2002) refer to techno logical commercialisations of science in terms of them being evolutionary speciation events. The pro cess alternates between fast and slow evolution; when a crit ical juncture is reached, new species (or technologies) emerge as a result of something new (sci ent ific breakthrough) – but only when this science is applied to the existing science base and then applied in a specific dir ec tion towards an application. This can be a rapid pro cess, with the new tech no logy attached to an existing know ledge in a rel at ively quick manner and then rapidly linked to applica tions (and demand for applica tions). In other circumstances, although these breakthrough technologies have potentially revolu tionary pro spects for industrial de velopment, the pro cess of commercialisation is a long and slow one. The commercialisation pro cess essentially occurs in two phases. The first is in the science base; this is where the linking of new know ledge with the knowledge base takes place. The second is linking the techno lo gical discovery with an applica tion – this two-step pro cess is about knowing something, but then also knowing when to use it, and for what reason, bene fit and cost. As we will see from the LCD case study, these two sets of relationships can occur in mul tiple places (geographically) and at numerous points in time (sometimes with many years in between). They both require different sets of decisionmaking and actors. The second phase of breakthrough tech no logy de velopment is also heavily de pend ent on the resources avail able at that point in time (Adner & Levinthal, 2002), and other techno lo gical advances commercialising or being de veloped at the same time (Powell & Moris, 2004). These pro cesses can happen inde pend ently of one another, and just because the first one happens does not mean the other one has to as well. This know ledge has im plica tions for how breakthrough technologies are incubated through both of these pro cesses – in the LCD case study we see 10-15 years elapsing between sci ent ific breakthrough and commercial breakthrough. This in turn leads us to con sider the ob ject ives of gov ern ment in sup porting and encouraging these ac tiv ities, and where in the long time-line of incubation their role may be best played.
