Theories that consider technology as the basis for economic growth focus on products – fundamental innovations. These theories have created much interest due to their ability to explain many economic events. However, technology-based long wave theories have been the subject of much criticism by traditional economists. Many of these concerns are addressed by changing a focus on products to engineering materials and forms of energy that are critical for the success of the fundamental innovations. Changing the focus from product to materials and energy not only addresses concerns of economists, but provides insights to scientists and engineers on the development of materials and energy and the management of research throughout the lifecycle of engineered materials and forms of energy.
Emerging Technology Supply Chains (ETSCs) are critical to economic growth and renewal as they determine the timing and extent to which economic and social benefits are achieved from future industries like additive technologies, advanced materials, alternative energy, and biotechnology. However, little is known regarding this topic and many of the questions underpinning ETSCs remain understudied. Emerging Technology Supply Chains (ETSC) are the relationships and flows between the ‘string’ of operations and processes that initiate, evolve and develop during determination of the art and associated techniques of doing something novel to produce value in the form of new products and new services to the ultimate consumer. The literature on ETSCs is considered and summarized. An interdisciplinary call to research that includes the consideration of over 20 topics and disciplines is provided.
This editorial aims to assist authors in maximizing the impact of their work. While the editorial is written specifically for the journal Technovation, many items of advice are equally applicable to other publishing outlets. While the value of any article is its unique core contribution, the best way to present an article's core value is quite consistent and is the focus of this editorial.
Beauty and the Beast offers wonderful lessons on how to write research papers with greater impact. The story focuses on three characters - two that are beautiful on the outside (Belle and Gaston) and one who is ugly (the Beast). Belle’s beauty is both on the surface and deep-rooted – something rare. However we gradually see the less apparent (internal) beauty of the Beast and how once that hidden beauty is revealed in the correct manner, the Beast is rapidly be transformed into a Beauty (handsome prince). And then of course since Beauty and the Beast is a fairy tail: the important characters all live happily ever after. Too many authors fail to find and release the inner beauty of their papers. Occasionally an editor or a reviewer will attempt to do so. Sometimes this is successful and the paper is transformed - its newfound beauty drawing large numbers of readers to it. Often the author cannot see the hidden beauty in their work and fails to follow the path to improvement that the editor(s)/reviewer(s) hints at. Once this happens the editor(s)/reviewer(s) give up, because they feel that they were mistaken or that the beauty is present but is too much effort to release. Having offered a picture that is both tragic and dreamy, the surface ugliness that can obscure the beauty inside is explored. For academic theory in technology innovation management (and many other areas of social science): Beauty is Novelty and Generalizability. The Beast is Confirmation of existing knowledge and high specificity or contextual dependence. A paper is a Beast if it only provides: confirmation of what already is known, calls for provision of further evidence, offers insight only into a specific location or a specific technology. A paper that provides novel findings that are widely generalizable is a Beauty. For Doctoral theses it might be sufficient to: pose a question, test it with appropriate method and statistical analysis, and report the results. In fact, Sun and Linton (2014) found this approach to dominate in a group of desk-rejected papers. However, the high impact papers were very different. These papers focused on (a) Literature – setting of context and identifying the gap that needs filling – and (b) Discussion – explaining the contribution. The contribution of a high impact research paper requires more physical space. It is in this part of an article in which the inner Beauty is revealed. The detailed discussion (contribution) of a high impact paper reveals the deep Beauty of the paper ‘s contribution in terms of novelty, generalizability and the associated implications: 1) Novelty 2) Generalizability 3) Implications