A Structured Systematic Review Of The Emerging And Disruptive Technology Literature

i
ABSTRACT
A structured systematic review has been adopted to investigate methodological issues
within the emerging and disruptive technology literature. The foremost research
objective is to inform new researchers in this area about methodologies used to date,
and the challenges they pose to researchers. The secondary objective was to trial the
use of a structured systematic literature review of this area of research. An important
part of this review concerns the assimilation of key findings within the field of
emerging and disruptive technology literature. The potential significance of this work
is to offer a new research methodology that is suitable for the exploration of a new
research topic which lacks existing structured literature reviews. A number of key
findings are assimilated from the reviewed papers. In order to be successful when
developing emerging and potentially disruptive technologies: (1) separate
organisational units provide the flexibility and freedom required for the innovation
process; and (2) organisations must be willing to abandon existing investments
(cannibalise) and have the ability to learn. A key citation review was performed upon
30 carefully selected papers, and a resultant list of the most influential authors within
the area was produced. This resource aims to benefit new researchers in this field and
assist the focus of their initial reading. Furthermore, three categories of
methodological appreciation are proposed, in order to assist researchers in the
appraisal of published papers.

1
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background and Motivation
Product technology is becoming more complex every day, and with reduced trading
boundaries and the increased globalisation of business, the manufacturing sector has
become more competitive. The Government’s Innovation Review (DTI, 2003, p.8)
purports factors such as ‘trade liberalisation and a rapid fall in communication and
transport costs’ as reasons why the UK finds it increasingly hard to compete against
countries with far lower labour costs and well-educated labour forces. In fact, ‘wages
in China are less than 5% of those in the UK.. [and those in] Korea are just over half
UK levels, and the proportion of graduates in the working age population is almost
identical’ (Ibidem.).
UK companies are competing in this global economy and manufacturing is
increasingly tough. The UK companies are burdened with a cost structure that
prevents them from reducing product prices by using low-cost labour or low-cost
infrastructure. Porter (1990) suggest in his structural industry analysis that firms can
compete on the basis of cost or differentiation. If UK companies cannot compete on
cost alone, then there needs to be a way of differentiating their products in the
marketplace. The UK Government industry policies are focussed on differentiating
products through improved innovation (DTI, 2000). Innovation is defined as ‘the
successful exploitation of new ideas’ (DTI, 2003; and Dodgson et al. 2005). In
particular, innovative technologies involve new technologies or technological
applications. The UK ‘will need to innovate continuously in the future so that.. [the

2
UK ].. can hold ..[its].. own against fastmoving new economies’ (Ibidum). A
distinction is made between innovative technologies, and those used for mass
produced commodity goods, in that the increased manufacturing cost is offset by the
increased benefits to consumers; in turn, these benefits are translated into higher
profits (Jianxin, 2003).
The development of disruptive technologies is one way that companies can apply
innovation in order to increase their global competitiveness. During his two year
experience of working as a Research Officer for the Manufacturing Advisory Service
(MAS), the researcher conducted commercial research and design work at over 30
different manufacturing firms. During this research the researcher was subject to
observations of firms developing innovative technologies. Many of the firms that
worked with him were actively involved in developing new technologies or products
that had the potential to emerge into new markets. In one or two companies, the
technologies being developed had the potential to disrupt existing markets. One
company had developed a unique water purification system and the other a novel use
of microwave technology. Having gained insight into these organisations via
collaborative research and design work, the author became interested in the issues that
companies face whilst in the development stage. Reading of key authors within the
area, such as Foster (1987) and Christensen (1997) clarified the topic of interest for
this study. The location of this study is within the academe of emerging and disruptive
technologies.

3
The key theory of disruptive innovation is taken from Christensen’s work:
‘Disruptive innovation: an innovation that cannot be used by customers in
mainstream markets. It defines a new performance trajectory by introducing
new dimensions of performance compared to existing innovations. Disruptive
innovations either create new markets by bringing new features to
nonconsumers or offer more convenience or lower prices to customers at the
low end of an existing market’ (Christensen et al. 2004).
This study adopts the term disruptive technology within the fields of engineering and
manufacturing; many authors within this field extend this definition to include
investment firms, service organisations, managerial processes and more. This creates a
problem of focus within this research topic. Furthermore, a range of research
approaches are commonly adopted, making it difficult for new researchers to the area
to know the most appropriate way to take this research forward.
The motivation of the researcher for this study is to use the skills and knowledge
learnt on the research methods course to investigate the research approaches adopted
within the area of disruptive technology. This provides the opportunity for the author
to identify current thinking within this area, along with understanding the research
methods applied. The results of this study will hopefully sharpen up or modify the
research questions that the author will adopt for future PhD study,
The inclusion of the term ‘emerging’ technologies within this study is used, since the
very nature of disruptive innovation purports ex-post applications only (i.e. the

4
concept is applied once an innovation has been observed as disruptive). The inclusion
of technologies that are being developed as high value-added technologies, and that
are emerging and potentially disruptive, is important. Technologies that are emerging
have the potential to become disruptive.

5
1.2 Emerging and Disruptive Technologies
Literature within this area (Christensen 1997, 2004; Foster 1987; Danneels 2004,
2006) commonly talks about the aforementioned disruptive technologies, along with
sustaining technologies. Sustaining (or incremental) technologies are different as they
typically offer improved product performance, and profit margins, but following an
incremental development approach (see Abernathy and Utterback, 1998).
Christensen’s proposition of disruptive innovation entered the subject area of
innovation ten years ago. Since then this area has developed, but is still relatively
under-researched. A number of authors have recently challenged this theory (see
Danneels, 2004; Govindarajan, 2006; Markides, 2006; Tellis, 2006); in particular the
explanation used to describe a disruptive technology is described as too wide-ranging,
and ‘lacking’. Danneels (2004) suggests that a disruptive technology is ‘a technology
that changes the basis of competition by changing the performance metrics along
which firms compete’. Tellis (2006) goes further by proposing new terms to aid
clarification of disruptive technologies (i.e. those which are platform innovations,
technology innovations and component innovations). The terminology used within
this area is inconsistent; in addition, the scope and application of the term ‘disruptive’
has been blurred somewhat with authors using it to describe anything from magnetic
disk drives (Christensen, 1997) the internet (Faletra, 2005) and large supermarkets.
.

6
1.3 Research Objectives
After becoming interested in the topic of emerging and disruptive technologies, the
researcher conducted an initial review of the key articles in this body of literature
(Christensen 1997, 2004; Foster 1987; Danneels 2004, 2006). Several of the opening
issues have been discussed in section 1.2. Having read deeper into this material the
researcher noticed a number of more common issues: 1) a lot of the contributions to
the research area are from practitioner consultants; 2) there were practical and
methodological weaknesses in the work; and 3) there are few comprehensive literature
reviews or assimilations of key findings. The methodological weaknesses may be a
result of a number of studies coming from the practitioner consultant, i.e. mode 2
research1
. The range of research methods makes it difficult for new researchers in the
area to know which ones to select and choose. There appears to be a gap in the
literature for discussing the suitability of research approaches adopted when
investigating emerging and disruptive technologies. The foremost research objective
for this study will aim to address this gap, and hopes to inform new researchers in this
area of which methodologies they should select to further the research in the area.
The secondary research objective concerns the lack of structured literature reviews
within this area, along with assimilations of key findings for this topic. Therefore, the
aim of this research is to carry out a methodological evaluation of carefully selected
pieces of research within the academe of emerging and disruptive technologies, along
with analysing the key research findings.
1
Mode 1 concerns theoretical knowledge and applied knowledge that is the traditional university-based
model. Mode 2 describes the case where research boundaries become blurred, and findings link closely
to context, and cannot easily be replicated. Tranfield and Starkey (1998), cited in Bryman and Bell
(2003, p.5) describe management and business research as more suited to mode 2.

7
The foremost research objective presents an opportunity for the methodologies
employed to be categorised. The consequence of such categorisation should hopefully
provide a means for future researchers to further consider the methodological that they
make in this area.
The secondary research objective aims to assimilate the main research findings within
the topic of emerging and disruptive technologies; a structured selection process will
be used to identify focal research papers, along with a systematic review approach to
collect data. The resultant findings aim to be a useful reference for researchers within
this topic area, and to highlight potential gaps for future research.

8
1.4 Dissertation Structure
The conventional structure of a research dissertation is often as follows; ‘Introduction,
theoretical chapter, evidential chapter 1, evidential chapter 2, evidential chapter 3,
and conclusion’ Mounsey (2002). Further details for conventions when writing
dissertations are outlined by Turabian (1987). There is no universally accepted
structure for a dissertation, and the researcher recognises the aforementioned
approaches. The key objectives of this dissertation are achieved by carrying out a
structured and critical literature review. As a consequence, a non-conventional
documentation process is required, that will better convey the research study. Figure
1.1 outlines the steps used to design this study, and inform the overall structure of the
study document.

9
On the surface this process appears simple, however a number of iterations were
involved and not all of the steps were followed in the strict linear fashion as
illustrated. Steps 1) to 3) have been outlined in this chapter. Chapter two is non-
conventional in that it describes the research methodology (and not a literature
review). This chapter introduces the theoretical perspectives of researchers, with
supporting literature, selection of research methods and a thorough understanding and
justification of the reasons for carrying out such a review, leading to this non-
conventional structure. The selected research method is that of a systematic review.
Research design
Figure 1.1 – Research Process
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Initial research
Knowledge gaps
Research purpose
Research questions
Research execution
Chapter 1
Introduction
Chapter 2
Methodology
Chapter 3
Results
7) Analysis Chapter 4
Analysis
8) Conclusion
Chapter 5
Conclusion

10
Justification of Approach
The selection of a systematic review has made it possible to carry out a structured
critical review and evaluation of research within the topic of emerging and disruptive
technologies, whilst at the same time communicating the researcher’s understanding
of the methodological issues taught during the social science research methods course.
A straightforward literature review would not typically be regarded as a sufficient
research study in itself when addressing methodological issues. However, having
explicitly looked at the methodological literature concerning systematic reviews and
meta-analyses, the research design adopted by the researcher and outlined in chapter
2, can clearly be seen as a ‘research method’. This systematic review goes
significantly beyond a standard literature review, and aims to add to the research gaps
already outlined. A review of existing literature has not revealed any systematic
literature reviews in the topic area, and as such it is hoped this study will be able to
provide new insight into structured reviewing within this area.
The results of this study will be used to inform and sharpen up or modify the research
questions that the author will adopt for future PhD study.

11
2.0 Methodology
This chapter has two main purposes; firstly to introduce the common research
positions and methods that are commonly used within the area of social science
(business management). Secondly, to outline the methodological choices made and the
research process followed within this research project. Outhwaite (2006) defines
methodology as:
‘the critical activity directed by scientists toward the procedures, theories,
concepts and/or findings produced by scientific research. Methodology is
important [because]; in the social and human sciences as well as in the
natural sciences, it represents an essential path through which scientific
progress is brought about)’ (Outhwaite, 2006).
This study aims to progress the body of literature upon emerging and disruptive
technologies, by summarising the salient methodological issues and key findings of a
sample of selected papers. By contrast, a research design provides a framework for the
collection and analysis of data. The choice of research design reflects decisions about
priorities given to the components of the research process (Bryman and Bell, 2003). A
research method on the other hand describes a tool or technique that is used to collect
data; for example, a structured interview template or a survey questionnaire.
This chapter is organised into three main sections. The first section outlines the
research purpose and introduces the research questions in table 2.1. The second
section reviews the research perspectives2
used within the social science business
management field. The third section evaluates the conventional research methods used
in business management research. The concept of qualitative, quantitative and the
theoretical perspectives of inductive and deductive research are introduced. The fourth
2
The term research perspective is used within this study to include the ontological and epistemological
standpoints of a researcher, i.e. what they consider to be reality and how they measure it.

12
section justifies the selected research design used to analyse the social science data in
relation to the research questions.
2.1 Research Purpose and Research Questions
The initial literature review revealed that a range of methodological approaches are
adopted by authors in the field of emerging and disruptive technology. This lack of
commonality may be an indication of the relative newness of this research area. In
addition, the author has also observed a paucity of structured systematic literature
reviews. An example of a structured literature review in the wider field of
management is that of Bessant (2005) who reviews the role of external knowledge in
relation to business growth. This is an example of what might be termed the
qualitative form of literature review: ‘These provide a narrative along with a
chronological discourse on previous findings’ (Yousafzai, 2007). Within the area of
emerging and disruptive technologies, there are a number of qualitative reviews,
however their quality and range, including sampling procedures, varies greatly. A
number of papers adopt a narrative/ anecdotal style compared to others using well-
reasoned arguments and appropriate citations. Petticrew and Roberts (2006, p.5)
describe the potential downfalls of such approaches:
‘Literature reviews, even those written by experts, can be made to tell any
story one wants them to, and failure by literature reviews to apply
scientific principles to the process of reviewing the evidence, just as one
would to primary research, can lead to biased conclusions, and to harm
and wasted resources’ (Petticrew and Roberts, 2006, p.5).
The author hopes to explore this void by bringing together current research in this
field, by adopting a structured scientific approach. Clearly, these initial observations
originate from the researcher’s understanding of a general literature review. As such
the research purpose of this study is to conduct a structured review to investigate the

13
key methodologies within this topic area. The range of research methods makes it
difficult for new researchers in the area of emerging and disruptive technologies to
know which ones to select and use. One of the research objectives of this study is to
categorise these key methodologies, in order to aid new researchers to make more
informed decisions when selecting their methods. The following research questions
are derived from the research purpose:
Table 2.1 – Research Questions
RQ1 What are the key methodologies used within the emerging and disruptive
technologies literature?
RQ2 What are the key findings of researchers within the field of emerging and
disruptive technologies?
RQ3 How could the (key) methodologies be categorised for use by future
researchers?

14
2.2 Ontology and Epistemology
- Review of the Social Science Research Perspectives
Ontology
Ontology, put simply, is how we picture reality. It is concerned with the nature of
existence. The main point concerning ontology is ‘whether social entities can and
should be considered objective entities that have a reality external to social actors, or
whether they can and should be considered social constructions built up from the
perceptions and actions of social actors’ (Bryman and Bell, 2003, p.19). There are
two main ontological positions: objectivism and constructionism.
Objectivism - social phenomena and their meanings exist independently of social
actors, e.g. the dissertation you are reading now really exists, and you can see it and
feel it.
Constructionism – social phenomena and their meanings are a direct result of social
actors. Constructionism implies that social phenomena and categories are not only
produced through interaction but that they are constantly being altered, e.g. Is this
table really here? Or has it been created by my perception of my surroundings, and
what I understand to constitute a table?
In summary, ontological assumptions are the foundations for theories about what
exists (i.e. ‘what is reality?’).

15
Epistemology
Epistemology concerns the question of what is regarded as acceptable knowledge in a
discipline. It is the theory of knowledge; moreover, it is used to refer to the methods of
scientific procedure which lead to the acquisition of knowledge (how we come to have
knowledge of the external world). An important issue within this context is the
‘question of whether the social world can and should be studied according to the same
principles, procedures, and ethos as the natural sciences’ (Bryman and Bell, 2003,
p.13).
Within social science business research there are some key epistemologies to be
considered; these are now discussed.
Positivism
Positivism is often described as the main philosophy of management (Duberley,
2005). Positivism and its roots in social science are explored by Halfpenny (1982),
who concludes that positivism throughout history can be classified into twelve sub-
groups.

16
This illustrates how wide ranging people’s views are as to what is meant by adopting a
positivist epistemology. In order to make sense of this position for Business
Management research, a number of additional definitions can be considered:
‘In its broadest philosophical sense, positivism refers to the theory of
knowledge proposed by Francis Bacon, John Locke and Isaac Newton
which asserts the primacy of observation and the pursuit of causal
explanation by way of inductive generalisation’ (Kolakowski, 1966).
‘In the social sciences .. [positivism].. has become associated with three
related principles; phenomenalism [the founding of knowledge on
experience alone, i.e. sense data]; unity of the scientific methods..[that is]
procedures of natural science are directly applicable to the social world
with the goal of establishing …lawlike generalizations about social
phenomena; neutrality.. [that is, maintaining] a rigid separation between
facts and values [i.e. value free science]’ (Outhwaite, 2006).
Positivism is ‘objectivity, prediction, researcher detachment, the production of true
and wide ranging laws, [allowing] generalisation from a sample to make universal
claims’ (Gurney, 2006). Within positivism, human behaviour is described in terms of
cause and effect (Ibidum). Duberley (2005) adds to the above definitions suggesting
that for positivists quantitative methods (e.g. surveys) are far more important than
qualitative methods.
Typical methods employed by positivist researchers include; self-completion
questionnaires, structured interviews, simulation, experiments, and use of secondary
data (Wass and Wells, 1994, p.9). Positivists are concerned with sample size, i.e. the
larger the sample the better the generalisability of the results; as such they are keen on
statistical methods to apply their results to the wider populations, and validate their
data sets.

17
Positivists use deductive approaches to gather data. i.e. they make theories and test
them. In addition, there is little consideration of political or emotional perspectives at
different stages (reflexivity); i.e. who you are, your culture, expectations etc. which all
can have an affect upon research design.
Realism
Like positivism, realism believes that the social science world can and should apply
the same approach as the natural sciences to data collection and explanation (Bryman
and Bell, 2003, p.15). Furthermore, realism asserts that there is an external reality
towards which scientists focus their attention, i.e. reality exists separately from how
we describe it. For example, rocks exist and are there, regardless of how we describe
them. There are two forms of realism; empirical realism and critical realism.
Empirical realism – Empirical realists assume that through the use of scientific
research methods we can understand and explain reality. Subsequently, realists do not
entertain the beliefs that there are underlying structures and generative mechanisms
that can product observable events. Generally speaking, empirical realists can only
have a conversation about something they can actually see and point to. The empirical
part of the term refers to the ‘actual’.
Critical realism – Critical realists subscribe to two main concepts; (1) ‘science.. is the
systematic attempt to express in thought the structure and ways of acting of things that
exist and act independently of thought.(2).. unlike positivists, critical realists are
perfectly content to admit into their explanations theoretical terms that are not

18
directly amenable to observation’ (Bhaskar 1975, cited in Bryman and Bell 2003,
p.15).
Critical Realists (also described as ‘transcendental realists’) assert that ‘there is an
invisible structure or causal force underlying the surface of appearances; they ‘are
united by a rejection of the view that the world is created by the minds of human
observers’. Moreover, as Trigg observes, a key characteristic of realism is ‘the notion
of objectivity – of things being the case whether people recognize them or not’ (Trigg
1980, cited in Duberley, 2005).
Critical realists start from a key assumption that there is a clear distinction between
the objects that exist independently of the scientists who study them. Critical realists
collect data in a ‘retroductive’ way, i.e. they take an outcome and try and explain it in
the way it came about and evolved. Critical realists attempt to explain observable
phenomena and their relations by identifying underlying structures; such structures are
often unobservable, e.g. labour markets. Models are created of these structures to
explain for things in an historical way, and links outcomes/phenomena to the
structures or mechanisms that produce them (Reed, 2006). They are then tested and if
reasonably successful then this suggests grounds to believe in the underlying structure.
Critical realists tend to favour ‘intensive’ (rather than ‘extensive’) research strategies
and designs: that is, they are primarily concerned with what makes things happen in
specific cases rather than demonstrating how extensive certain phenomena and
patterns are in a population (Sayer, 2000). Subsequently, data is more limited and
constrained by an historical process; explanations are contextualised, and specific.

19
Realists are not interested in backing up general laws, they are interested in how
things come to be in certain contexts due to underlying structures.
Reed provides examples of questions posed by a critical realist:
ƒ How does a process work in a particular case or small number of
cases?
ƒ What produces a certain change?
ƒ What did the agents actually do?
These questions involve the study of agents in their ‘causal contexts’ through the use
of interactive interviews, detailed observations, historical reconstructions and
organisational narratives (Reed, 2006).
Positive Realism – Positive realists believe that ‘the real world is made up of
concrete objects which exist independently and before a person comprehends them,
however, the possibility of a person’s perception of the real world impacting upon
their actions is recognised’ (Wass and Wells, 1994). The difference between this and
critical realism is that there is a slight leaning more toward positivism. Due to this
leaning, it is suggested that they are more likely to look for generalisations.
Interpretivism – Interpretivism is at the other extreme end of the spectrum to
positivism. Interpretivists ‘share a view that the subject matter of the social sciences –
people and their institutions- is fundamentally different from that of the natural
sciences. The study of the social world therefore requires a different logic of research
procedure, one that reflects the distinctiveness of humans as against the natural
order’ (Bryman and Bell, 2003, p.15). Social reality has a meaning for people and
their behaviour alters relative to their actions and those of others. The researcher in
this case is interested in getting into the head of the people to interpret their actions
and their view of the world that they live in.

20
Research Strategy
Research strategy refers to the general orientation of the conduct of business research.
It is useful to distinguish research strategies along the lines of quantitative and
qualitative approaches. Generally speaking the main distinction between the two is the
fact that quantitative researchers employ measurement (i.e. numbers) and qualitative
researchers do not.
Typically quantitative research is a research strategy that is concerned with collecting
and analysing data. Characteristically, qualitative research is interpreted as a research
strategy with the emphasis on words rather than quantities in the way it collects and
analyses data. However, it is not as clear-cut as this. Bryman and Bell (2003, p25)
provide a concise summary of the differences in table 2.2.
Table 2.2 – Fundamental differences between quantitative and qualitative
research strategies.
Quantitative Qualitative
Principle orientation to the
role of theory in relation to
research
Deductive; testing of
theory
Inductive; generation of
theory
Epistemological
orientation
Natural science model, in
particular positivism
Interpretivism
Ontological orientation Objectivism Constructionism
Source: Bryman, A., and Bell, E. 2003. Business Research Methods. (Oxford: Oxford
University Press), p.25.

21
2.3 Ethical Considerations
The consideration of ethical issues in business and management is an essential part of
a robust research study. Important considerations of ethics in business are outlined by
Bryman and Bell (2003b). Ethical principles that they regard as particularly important,
are the consideration of: 1) harm to participants; 2) lack of informed consent; 3)
invasion of privacy; 4) deception. Initially the research ethics information and
guidelines for Cardiff Business School were obtained and studied (Bragg, 2006a;
2006b). The supervisor for this masters dissertation was consulted and was happy that
there were no ethical concerns out of the ordinary. The Cardiff Business School
Ethical Approval Form was then completed and approval granted shortly afterwards.
Points 1) to 3) of the aforementioned ethical principles were redundant for this study,
as the research method selected and justified later in this chapter does not involve
human participants. Some of the main points for ethical consideration therefore are to
ensure that work of other authors is portrayed fairly within this study, and that claims
and findings are clearly cited (i.e. be aware of plagiarism). Furthermore, the
professional code of ethics from the Academy of Managment will be referred to where
relevant (AOM, 2005).

22
2.4 Research Methods
A wide range of research methods exist within Business Research; Wass and Wells
(1994) explain that business and management research does not follow a strict school
of thought, but rather, a common subject of study. By reviewing literature within this
subject area it is clear that theoretical knowledge and practice is often borrowed from
a variety of academic disciplines (Easterby et al. 1993; Wass and Wells, 1994). This
presents a dilemma for management researchers; should a single disciplinary
approach be adopted, or a cross-disciplinary approach? The findings from Research
Questions 1 and 3 aim to help researchers make this decision, by observing the
approaches other authors have taken. A description of some of the key research
designs follow.
Experimental Research Design – this type of design is typical of the scenario where
two groups are established. This forms the basis for experimental manipulation of the
independent variable. The experimental group (or treatment group) receives the
treatment and it is compared against the control group which does not receive the
treatment. The dependent variable is measured before and after the experimental
manipulation, so that a before-and-after analysis can be conducted. An example of a
business application of this might be investigating the following research question:
‘which type of leadership is more effective, charismatic or considerate?’
Cross-sectional (or Social Survey) - The collection of data on more than one case
and at a single point in time in order to collect a body of quantitative or quantifiable
data in connection with two or more variables. Usually more than one case is

23
researched along with more than two variables. These variables are then examined to
detect patterns of association.
Survey - Survey research comprises a cross-sectional design in relation to which data
are collected predominantly by questionnaire or by structured interview on more than
one case (usually quite a lot more than one) and at a single point in time in order to
collect a body of quantitative or quantifiable data in connection with two or more
variables (usually many more than two), which are then examined to detect patterns of
association.
Longitudinal – This type of research is typically used to map change in business and
management research over time. Emphasis is placed on understanding organisations
as a way of providing data on the mechanisms and processes through which changes
are created. As the name suggests a large amount of time is necessary for this type of
research, which vastly increases the costs of this type of research. Longitudinal
research is usually in the form of self-completion questionnaires or structured
interviews within a cross-sectional design. Nevertheless, instances of longitudinal case
study research are also common, and provide in-depth analysis over a period of time.
Case Study – The basic case study entails the detailed and intensive analysis of a
single case. The researcher is concerned with the complexity and particular nature of
the case in question. ‘In general, case studies are the preferred strategy when "how"
or "why" questions are being posed, when the investigator has little control over
events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life
context’ (Yin, 2003, p.1). Multiple case studies provide opportunities for triangulation

24
of data, bearing in mind the contextual issues that case studies present. However,
triangulation is one way to increase external validity.
Comparative - This design entails the study using more or less identical methods on
two or more contrasting cases. It embodies the logic of comparison in that it implies
we can understand social phenomena better when they are compared in relation to two
or more meaningfully contrasting cases or situations. Comparative research may be
carried out in the context of quantitative or qualitative research.
Meta-analysis – Meta analysis is concerned with combining results from a large
number of studies that deal with the same topic. A meta-analysis can be seen as a
quantitative literature reviewing technique. It differs from the more common
qualitative form of literature reviewing, which provides a narrative along with a
chronological discourse on previous findings (Yousafzai, 2007). Rosenthal (1984)
describes the issue of poor cumulation within the social sciences: ‘The newer work of
the physical sciences builds directly upon the older work of those sciences. The social
sciences, on the other hand, seem almost to be starting anew with each succeeding
volume of our scientific journals’ (Rosenthal, 1984, p.10). Research methods such as
meta-analysis provide a systematic, quantitative research method that enables
cumulative research to take place.
Systematic reviews - Systematic reviews – as the name suggests - are a way of
systematically reviewing the research within an area. They differ from standard
literature reviews because they adopt a structured approach to the comparison of
studies, instead of simple narratives, which can often be biased (by the author, their

25
selection of review papers, or by the journal editor’s selection process etc.). Archie
Cochrane was the founder of the systematic literature review with his research in the
late 1970s (for example: Cochrane, 1979). He believed that research work pooled
from a number of sources is far more powerful than single data sets. The Cochrane
Collaboration was set-up in the early 1980’s, and an electronic database of systematic
reviews is now easily accessible and available (Wiley InterScience, 2007). Systematic
reviews are highly developed and respected within the health sector and intervention
policy research. This type of review is spreading to other areas of social science
research such as transport, housing and urban policy research. The need for a
systematic research method that assimilates data from a wide range of studies was one
of the main factors that brought about this approach.
Strategies and Situations
Yin (2003) provides a useful guide that highlights relevant situations for different
research strategies, this is reproduced in table 2.3. Table 2.3 includes archival analysis
and historical analysis as additional research methods. These are simply secondary
research methods that gather historical data for analysis.

26
Table 2.3– Relevant Situations for Different Research Strategies.
Strategy Form of Research
Question
Requires Control
of Behavioural
Events?
Focuses on
Contemporary
Events?
Experiment How, why? Yes Yes
Survey Who, what, where,
how many, how
much?
No Yes
Archival analysis Who, what, where,
how many, how
much?
No No
History How, why? No No
Case study How, why? No Yes
Source: Yin, R. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Mehods. (London: Sage
Publications), p.5.
Theoretical Perspectives: Inductive and Deductive Research
Researchers generally adopt one of two theoretical perspectives when carrying out
their investigations; inductive or deductive. Inductive theory is the outcome of
research, i.e. the process of induction involves drawing generalizable inferences out of
observations (i.e. theory building). Deductive theory is made on the basis of what is
known the researcher creates a hypothesis, and then tests it. The hypothesis is
confirmed or unconfirmed, and then the theory is revised (i.e. theory testing, and
modifying).

27
2.5 Research Design
Research Position
A researcher’s ontological and epistemological viewpoints are crucial in terms of how
they view the world; this in turn will affect the way they design and carry out their
research, and the theoretical frameworks that they adopt.
Coming from a design engineering background, which in the main would be described
as cultivating the natural science epistemology, my natural leaning is toward
positivism. However, having recently carried out more ‘qualitative’ research (e.g.
focus groups, interviewing, visual mapping and forecasting workshops), my views
have moved away from a purely natural science/ positivist stance to a positive realist
position (refer to section 2.5 for a description of this).
As a positive realist, I have adopted methodological pluralism for this research
project; that is, I am interested in carrying out a qualitative and quantitative approach
to data collection. I believe that such a quasi approach reflects the difficulty of
researching a relatively new area such as this - which integrates management of
technology and business – which has a fairly mixed approach to research
methodology.
Having reviewed the key research methods in section 2.3, along with my research
position, and the research questions that this project aims to answer, I decided that a
meta-analysis or structured systematic review would be the most suitable approach.

28
Meta-analysis lends itself to a more quantitative approach, and is often used in areas
such as marketing, where there is a large enough pool of research papers that have
looked at corresponding variables, using similar research methods (Yousafzai, 2005).
Unfortunately within the area of emerging and disruptive technologies there is not a
large pool of such papers. Therefore this is not appropriate within this field.
I then further investigated systematic reviews. Firstly I looked for an example in the
area of emerging and disruptive technologies but found no studies. I then widened the
search to look at the innovation management literature, but again could not find any.
Subsequently an even wider search led me to the Cochrane library of systematic
reviews (Wiley InterScience, 2007) and a large number of health and intervention
policy research studies. the question of whether such an approach would be suitable to
this study was then explored. New areas such as systematic reviews for road safety
policy research (Bunn et al. 2003) appear to be successfully adopting these methods.
Subsequently it was decided that a structured literature survey would be the best
method to answer the research questions.
Research Design for the Systematic Review
An initial search was carried out to find any systematic reviews that may have already
taken place in the area of emerging and disruptive technologies. The basic search term
of ‘systematic review’ AND ‘emerging’ or ‘disruptive’ and ‘technology/ technologies’
was used for this. Only narrative literature reviews were found; reinforcing the
opportunity for this gap to be addressed with a systematic review. Furthermore, this
suggests that this project would not be duplicating any existing work. The author

29
believes a systematic review will be useful as a frame of reference for future research
studies, particularly when other authors are looking for background analyses prior to
doing their own reviews. This research concerns the business management and
exploitation aspects of emerging and disruptive technologies. As such it is positioned
within the context/ realm of social science business research.
Systematic reviews often employ the techniques of meta-analysis and other statistical
methods;
‘However, in social science systematic reviews, the studies are sometimes
too heterogeneous to permit such a statistical summary, and, in the case of
qualitative studies in particular, different methods of synthesis are more
appropriate’ (Petticrew and Roberts, 2006).
Therefore as Petticrew and Roberts (2006) point out, ‘there is no definitive approach,
as the organisation and choice of meaningful categories will be driven in part by the
review [research] question’.
Initial research has shown that the studies within this area are not suitable for a meta-
analysis; unlike other well-established research areas, there are not a large number of
studies replicating the same studies, and using the same research methods. Meta-
analyses are often used within certain disciplines, because the increased sample is
believed to increase power.
By adopting a structured systematic review, the findings of this work have the
potential to signify the common/ favoured research methods in this area, which can
help inform future investigation in the field of emerging and disruptive technologies.
Furthermore, systematic reviews have not been used in this area before. This provides

30
an opportunity to test this approach within a new area. Systematic reviews provide the
opportunity to use both qualitative and quantitative research methods; this is an
approach that appeals to the researcher’s position as a positive realist.
Figure 2.1 displays an overview of the research process.

31
1) Develop
systematic review
questions
− What questions will be addressed, and why?
3) Electronic
databases
− Identify key words
− Search main databases using keywords
− De-select review papers (by reading abstracts)
that are not appropriate to answering the
questions.
− Use of further selection criteria to moderate the
range of papers for review.
2) Develop
instrument for
systematic
literature review
− Link research questions with research
instrument
− How will data be collected?
− 1:1 application of instrument to review papers
- at the end of step 3).
4) Draw a macro
literature map (key
citations)
− Aim of this is to show a high-level view of the
links between different authors and debates.
5) Results − Present the key results.
Primary research
motivation
Reflection
− What does this project contribute?
− What are the (PhD) outcomes?
− How has this review affected the researcher’s initial views of
the emerging and disruptive technology research area?
Figure 2.1 - Research Process.
6) Discussion
− Relate findings to research questions
− Who are the key authors?
− What are the key gaps?
Targeting
strategy
developed
for review
papers

32
The rest of this section will outline the steps of the research process in more detail.
Data Collection Instrument
Having decided upon the research questions, a data collection instrument (or protocol)
was the next step. The term protocol is often used when considering a systematic
review because it conjures up the image of a detailed plan, outlining the procedures
that need to be adopted in order to identify, appraise and bring together all of the data
or evidence. In addition it can outline how the findings will be disseminated. Within
this study the term instrument and protocol will be used interchangeably. In larger
research projects protocols are often peer reviewed before research begins.
A pilot version was tested and reviewed by the author’s supervisor. Minor
amendments were suggested and the final version of the data collection instrument can
be seen in Appendix A. The headings (or associated research questions) used have
been included to reflect the key methodological issues introduced within this chapter.
Tables 2.4 and 2.5 outline these headings, and additional comments are provided for
their selection. The questions to be asked have predominantly been selected to provide
a holistic view of an author’s methodological approach, along with the main claims
and findings. To enable repeatable and systematic reviewing, each associated research
question has a list of multiple choice answers, where appropriate (see Appendix A).

33
Table 2.4 – Justification of the General Research Questions used in the
Research Instrument.
Associated Research Question Comments
Ontological & epistemological
stance?
(interpretation required)
This links the paper back to the research
perspectives introduced in section 2.3.The
author’s world view is very important as it
influences their methodological approach.
This will require an interpretation by the
researcher (Appendix B provides the
objective criteria produced for this).
Research designs used? The method of measurement that the
author(s) have used (i.e. research methods).
Comments on research design used? Any additional comments to be noted here.
Sample size This will vary according to the approach,
and may in some cases be zero (e.g. a
narrative paper).
Theoretical approach Are the authors building theory or testing
theory?
Technology origins? This will show if studies are concerned with
commercial technologies or those in
research organisations.
Definition of disruptive technologies To ascertain how the definition of disruptive
technologies has been interpreted.
Technology focus Are authors interested in specific
components or technologies in general?
Note: the definitions of different
technologies have been adopted from Tellis,
(2006)3
.
Key findings The assimilation of the key findings in the
sample will contribute to the area of
emerging and disruptive technologies. There
are no studies that do this at present.
Impact – (Number of times cited) This will be a useful measure of how
important other authors have perceived the
study to be as a reference point in their
work.
Study objectives clearly stated? Are the authors clear about why they are
doing the study? This will help to indicate if
they have a clear methodological approach.
3
‘Platform: Emergence of entirely new scientific principle to solve a problem, e.g. CD using laser
optics. Technology: A means of solving a problem based on a distinct platform or scientific principle.
Component: the use of new parts/materials within the same technological platform, e.g. magnetic tape,
floppy discs. End product: where an entire product is described as disruptive’ (Tellis, 2006).

34
Table 2.5 - Justification of the Validity Research Questions in the
Research Instrument.
Validity Comments
Sufficient data? Is there enough data to validate the
conclusions? e.g. direct quotes as
opposed to reported and interpreted
speech, or statistics tables etc.
Internal validity (high, medium or low) Assessment based on the quality of
the sampling and response and the
treatment of confounding factors.
External validity Can the findings be generalised?
Electronic Databases – Developing a Search Strategy
One of the key advantages of a structured systematic review is the ability to develop a
clear search strategy. This avoids the biased retrieval of searching only the main
journal or those which are familiar (or easy to access). Firstly the key electronic
databases for the subject area needed to be identified using MetalibTM
(MetaLibTM
,
2007) MetalibTM
is a meta-search engine that searches across a wide range of
electronic databases simultaneously. The resources available can be grouped
according to subject area (in this case Business) and the key resources are displayed.
Having looked at this along with discussing the research area with the Business
School librarians, the top databases were selected; these are: ABI/INFORM
(Proquest), Business Source Premier (EBSCO), Emerald Library (Emerald) and
Scopus. These electronic references are all accessed via MetaLibTM
(2007).

35
Table 2.6 – A Synopsis of the Selected Electronic Databases.
Electronic
database
Description
ABI/INFORM
(Proquest)
− contains citations, abstracts and some full text articles from
nearly 1,800 business, management and trade journals
− from 1971 onwards.
− information provided on business, company information,
industries, management and marketing.
Business Source
Premier
(EBSCO)
− full text access to scholarly journals, trade publications and
popular business magazines in nearly all areas of business, for
over 7,400 sources.
− Relevant subjects include: business, management, marketing
and technology.
− Includes hundreds of peer-reviewed journals.
Emerald Library
(Emerald)
− Over 40,000 searchable full text articles from over 100
Emerald journals
− Subjects include all major management disciplines from
marketing to human resource management to quality and
operations management.
− Full text access is available back to 1994 with abstracts back to
1989.
− Key journals include: European Journal of Marketing,
Management Decision and International Journal of Operations
and Production Management.
Scopus − According to Scopus, this is one of the largest abstract and
citation databases of research literature (including quality web
sources).
− Covers 29 million abstracts of over 15,000 peer-reviewed titles
from more than 4,000 publishers, and 265 million references.
− Unlike the other search engines, Scopus searches 265 million
quality web pages (using Scirus' web search which covers the
scientific web).
Search Methods
Having carefully selected the key electronic databases, the next step was to decide on
the search terms and strategy. Each database has slight idiosyncrasies in the keywords/
codes that are used for searching. The specific search instructions were printed off for
each database; one example for ABI/INFORM can be seen in Appendix B.

36
Search Terms
Initial pilot searches were conducted using each database and a number of initial
search terms. The first few articles returned were scanned for relevance, and the terms
adjusted as necessary. Specific text indicators (or trackers) were also searched for in
each database to help increase the relevance of the returned items. It is important to be
aware that not all databases use the same text indicator terms. The results can be seen
in table 2.7.

37
Table 2.7 – Investigation of Indicator/ Limiting Terms Specific to Each
Electronic Database.
Database Keyword Indicator terms found:
Emerging Emerging AND markets
Disruptive None, it suggested ‘Innovation’
Innovation AND Technological Change
ABI/INFORM
(Proquest)
Technology Technology
Technology AND technological Change
Technology AND Information Technology
Technology AND Innovation
Technology AND Product Introduction
Emerging EMERGING markets
Disruptive No matches
EBSCO Host
(use of
‘subject’ tab =
‘thesaurus’
tab).
Technology TECHNOLOGY innovations
TECHNOLOGY transfer
TECHNOLOGY revolution
TECHNOLOGY consultants
TECHNOLOGY obsolescence
NANOTECHNOLOGY
TECHNOLOGICAL forecasting
TECHNOLOGICAL revolution
Avoid:
TECHNOLOGY - - information services
TELECOMMUNICATION
COMPUTER SCIENCE
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Using the ‘term contains radio button’ gives:
EMERGING markets
(no additional terms for the others)
Emerald
Library
(Library)
(style limiter
tab can be
used, e.g.
literature
reviews etc.)
Browsed by subjects:
ENGINEERING & MATERIALS SCIENCE
- no relevant titles amongst these
GENERAL MANAGEMENT
- Handbook of Business Strategy
- International Journal of Emerging Markets
- International Journal of Entrepreneurial behaviour and
research.
Scopus Disruptive
technologies
Delimit further using numerous search radio buttons
(very user friendly).
Again, due to the heterogeneity of the electronic databases, the search terms varied in
order to achieve relevant samples (often called ‘hit rates’).

38
Scoping Exercise for Keywords
The keywords below were used to begin a quick searching exercise within the
databases to discover if any additional terms or keywords were used for this area
within them.
#1 disruptive
#2 emerging
#1 or #2
Exclude:
#3wireless network
#4 IT
#5 systems
#4 or #5
Following this, any additional terms were included with the limiters from table 2.7,
and the searches were carried out. The relevance of the articles returned was
determined by scanning the abstracts; if the search was still identifying too wide a
sample, then additional search terms were used, and limiting strings such as ‘NOT
telecommunications’ were included. In certain databases it was possible actually to
limit the results to manufacturing, and avoid service sector data. Refer to Appendix F
for further justification of terms included or not included to further limit the searches.
It is also important to note that the paper targeting strategy included only scholarly
journals, and peer-reviewed articles when carrying out the searches; this increases

39
the quality of the sample that is returned for review. According to the ABI/INFORM
electronic database guidelines; ‘a publication is considered to be scholarly if it is
authored by academics for a target audience that is mainly academic, the printed
format isn't usually a glossy magazine, and it is published by a recognized society
with academic goals and missions. In addition, a publication is considered to be peer
reviewed if its articles go through an official editorial process that involves review
and approval by the author's peers (people who are experts in the same subject area.)
Most (but not all) scholarly publications are peer reviewed’ (ProQuest, 2007).
Appendix D provides an example of notes taken during a typical search (including
screen captures). The search information for each database has been converted into a
Quorum flow chart to summarise the main details (Petticrew and Roberts, 2006,
p.259). An example is provided below for the ABI/INFORM database search. The
other Quorum flow charts are provided in Appendix E.

40
Potentially relevant studies identified for
retrieval (n= 20,299)
Ineligible studies excluded, using search
terms ‘NOT wireless/ information
services’ (n=9,004)
Additional studies excluded, using ‘NOT
IT’, no book reviews and no dissertations
or newspapers. (n=5,167)
Abstracts of studies (n=6,058) Classify by industry type using ‘cc(86*)’.
This excludes non- manufacturing
industries (n=5,417)
Abstracts of studies (n=641)
Final search string:
(disruptive technology) OR SU(technological change) OR SU(innovations) AND
CC(cc(86*)) AND NOT AT(book review) AND NOT (financial OR systems OR process OR
elect* OR services) AND NOT (wireless OR food OR supply chain) AND NOT (information
services OR strategic alliances OR meat) AND NOT (IT OR transport* )
All full text and Scholarly
(n=204)
Studies manually evaluated to determine relevance to inclusion criteria. Exported
into EndNote Web*: (n=42)
Figure 2.2 - Flow Diagram for Searching of the ABI/INFORM
(Proquest) Database.
Note: *End Note Web Reference: The Thompson Corporation (2007).

41
Steps 1) to 3) of figure 2.1 have now been outlined. Following the searches within the
databases, a large sample of papers was collected. These were exported into the
EndNote Web bibliographic database (The Thompson Corporation, 2007), along with
their abstract details, in order to provide a searchable database of key texts.
Subsequently, a manual search of the abstracts was carried out to whittle down the
sample from 72 to 30 relevant and reviewable texts. Refer to Appendix F for the
inclusion criteria used to help refine the selected articles.
Where there was any ambiguity in the relevance of the returned paper, the full text of
the article was obtained, and read to confirm whether it should be included. Having
done this, the next step was to carry out the systematic review using the research
instrument mentioned in step 2). A list of the final 30 papers for review can be seen in
Appendix G (from Endnote).

42
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Systematic Review Process
The researcher believes that it is useful to reflect upon the strengths, weaknesses and
limitations of the systematic review approach before moving onto the results chapter.
Furthermore, the use of a structured systematic review process is considered to enable
a more objective research study. Petticrew and Roberts (2006) describe this in detail:
‘Systematic reviews are literature processes that adhere closely to a set of
scientific methods that explicitly aim to emit systematic error (bias), fairly
by attempting to identify, appraise and synthesize all relevant studies (of
whatever design) in order to answer a particular question (or set of
questions). In carrying out this task they set out their methods in advance,
and in detail, as one would … any piece of social research’ (Petticrew and
Roberts, 2006)
Systematic reviews are very common within medicine and policy making areas of
research. As such, search strategies used for identifying particular studies (e.g.
controlled studies) in medical databases are able to achieve high sensitivity, and a
positive predictive value. This is because the terms describing the study methodology
are included within indexing (descriptor) terms of these databases. Upon carrying out
a systematic review within the business management field, it becomes clear that this is
less developed. Therefore the searches are more reliant on the nature of the search
strings used and understanding of the databases.
Another weakness of carrying out a systematic review as part of a dissertation study,
is that there are far fewer resources available than in a larger research project. In
particular there is only one researcher. In an ideal world, it would be sensible to use
one researcher to decide if articles meet the inclusion criteria, and then another

43
reviewer would check this. This would help to triangulate the data and sample
selected. Furthermore, there is the added time constraint when one researcher is
carrying out the investigation. With more resources, it would have been possible to
search ‘hard copy’ articles, business reports and other sources than those retrieved
from electronic databases, to provide further scope to this study. However the nature
of this approach facilitates future research that can directly add to the results of this
study (due to the structured use of the research instrument).
When using the Emerald electronic database, it was not possible to access the articles,
which meant an additional source was not permissible. This is an issue with resources,
and access.
A key strength of the systematic review method is that it can be repeated in the future,
to add to the data set already collected and analysed (i.e. it is cumulative). The clear
research method allows this to happen; however, it would need to be noted that the
actual researcher might be different, in which case some subjectivity could be added.
This introduces another key point; if another researcher were to replicate this research
design, would they come out with the same sample? This is unlikely, but the chances
of this happening have been reduced by using a research instrument and inclusion
criteria for final selection of the sample.
A number of noteworthy authors observed during the initial literature review also
appeared in the final sample. These were Govindarajan and Kopalle, 2006; Foster,
2000; Danneels, 2004; Christensen, 2002; Christensen and Craig, 2001. This adds to
the validity of the research method, and is considered further in Chapter 4.

44
3.0 Systematic Review Results
Having outlined the research design in 2.4, this section presents the results from the
data collection instrument (Appendix A) used to gather data from the thirty targeted
research papers and articles. All articles searched for were specified as ‘peer
reviewed’ and ‘scholarly’ to increase the quality of the information returned. Table 3.5
lists the thirty targeted papers (p.58), and Table 3.6 lists the resulting key citations
(p.59). The complete spreadsheet of data is located in Appendix M for reference.
3.1 Composition of Full Data Set
On compiling the sample of thirty suitable papers for review, they were then
individually, systematically reviewed using the data collection instrument. A list of
these papers can be seen in Appendix F. The papers were printed off in hard copy, and
the instrument completed by hand (see Appendix I for an example). This process was
given sufficient time to ensure that the key points from each paper required by the
instrument were not missed. At the end of this process the handwritten review sheets
were input into a spreadsheet. This enabled the entire data set to be viewed together,
searched, and sorted by column headings (for analysis). Codes were applied to
multiple choice responses. Table 3.1 shows an example of how the data for research
design was input using codes.

45
Table 3.1 – Example of Codifying Data within the Data Set for Further Analysis
Research Design Code
experimental 5
cross-sectional 6
survey 7
longitudinal 8
case study 9
comparative 10
process analysis 11
anecdotal/ narrative 12
literature review 13
other 14
anecdotal /narrative & literature 15
The use of codes means that functions in spreadsheet software can be used to sort the
findings by the codified variables, or calculations can be carried out, for example, the
proportion of comparative reviews as a percentage of the population.
3.2 General Methodological Findings
The initial search strings identified 24,280 papers and articles from all three databases
(i.e. 20,299: ABI/ ProQuest; 17: EBSCO: 3,965 Scopus). These were reduced using
the paper targeting strategy as outlined in section 2.4, to 72 papers (i.e. 42; 17; 13
respectively), which were then exported into End Note Web (The Thomson
Corporation, 2007), and manually searched through for relevance, until 30 which met
the refined search terms and inclusion criteria were left. This section now provides an
outline of the general findings; the headings are used as a reference to the instrument
questions.

46
Authors
Papers from key authors such as Foster (2000), Christensen (2002), and Utterback and
Acee (2005) were amongst these, which helped provide confidence in the search,
because these are some of the key authors within this area. If papers had not
successfully been returned from them, then the search strategy would have needed re-
evaluating.
Year
Papers were selected from the year 1995 with the most recent being from 2006. The
area of emerging and disruptive technologies is still very new, and as such an 11 year
range was believed to be reasonable for analysis.
Source
The source journals that appeared the most in the sample were ‘Research Technology
Management’ with five articles each, and the ‘Journal of Product Innovation
Management’. Other frequently targeted journals were the ‘Journal of technology
transfer’ and the ‘European Journal of Innovation Management’ (both the source of
three articles each).
Study Objectives
The majority of authors made the study objectives clear in their work; 23 out of 30.

47
Research Perspectives
16 out of the 30 authors were considered to have a critical realist perspective (53%).
In addition, 5 were considered positivists (20%), and 3 positive realists (10%), and
17% were not easily interpreted and as such classed as ‘not obvious’. There were no
interpretivists. Appendix B shows the guidance criteria used to assess the research
perspectives adopted in an objective way.
Theoretical Approach
17 of the studies were considered to take an inductive theoretical approach (i.e. theory
building) and 9 adopted a deductive theoretical approach (i.e. test a theory, and then
revise a theory as necessary). It was difficult to fit the remaining 4 into either
theoretical approach.
Figure 3.1 - Research Perspectives Adopted by authors of 30 Reviewed Papers in the
Area of Disruptive Technology
20%
10%
53%
0%
17%
Positivist
Positive Realist
Critical Realist
Interpretivist
Not obvious

48
Technology Origins
With a total of 28, nearly all of the studies were focussed on emerging and disruptive
technologies from commercial environments. One study focussed on technology
originating from commercial and university origins (investigating technology
transfer), and only one on university technology alone.
Research Methods Used
The majority of studies can be classed as anecdotal/ narrative research studies (some
with more literature reviews than others); they comprise 13 out of the 30 studies. The
next popular were cross-sectional studies (of secondary data), surveys, case studies
and pure literature reviews (all contributing 10% of the sample). The least frequent
research methods adopted were process analysis4
and experimental research (with a
score of one each).
4
more specifically forecasting in this case

49
Note: the category anecdotal/narrative was given an additional category to include
those that were more than just a narrative, and had engaged with literature within the
area. This distinction is useful, as some authors just gave their ‘view’ of the world; for
example, refer to ‘c3’ in table 3.3 where claims are made by the author but not backed
up.
Sample Size:
Sample size varied along with the research method adopted, as one might expect. The
data for this can be seen in Appendix H. For a case based approach, case numbers up
to 13 can be seen, and for cross-sectional survey based approaches, there are some in
the hundreds and some in the thousands (e.g. Kash & Rycroft 2003, Libaers, 2006 and
Bartoloni 2001, respectively).
Figure 3.2 - Research Methods used by the 30 Sampled Papers
3%
10%
10%
10%
3%
24%
10%
3%
20%
7%
experimental
cross-sectional (secondary
data set)
survey (includes interviewing)
case study
process analysis
anecdotal/narrative
literature review
other (mathematical modelling)
anecdotal/narrative & literature
mixed method

50
Technology Focus:
In the main, the studies were concentrated on the ‘general’ area of the technology
focus groupings, with a frequency of 17 (over half). The next largest technology focus
was on the end products, scoring 7. Note: some papers were very specific in their
technology focus, whereas others were more concerned with discussing emerging and
disruptive technologies in general.
Definitions of Disruptive Technology
13 out of 30 authors used the same definition of disruptive technologies as proposed
by Christensen in The Innovator’s Dilemma (1997). The salient points of
Christensen’s theory of disruptive innovation are outlined by Tellis (2006) in box 3.1.
This was used as the reference definition for this question of the instrument.
Figure 3.3 - The Technology Focus of the Reviewed Papers
49%
3%
21%
6%
6%
3%
3% 9%
General
Component
End Product
Process
Not Clear
Platform
Service
Technology

51
Many authors chose to propose their own (new) categorisations of disruptive
technologies, a summary of these are provided in table 3.2.
Table 3.2 – Additional Categories for Disruptive Technologies.
Proposed categories Authors
Technological business models & new to
the world product innovations
Markides (2006)
Platform innovation, technology,
component innovation, design innovation
Tellis (2006)
Low end (simple) = less radical
High end (complex)= technologically
more radical
Kash & Rycroft (2003), Govindarajan
and Kopalle (2006).
Incremental and discontinuous both
required.
Kaplan (1999)
The full list of definitions that each paper provides for ‘disruptive technologies’ can
be seen in Appendix J.
1. A new disruptive technology initially underperforms the dominant one along the
dimensions mainstream customers in major markets have historically valued.
2. But the disruptive technology (a) has other features a few fringe (and generally new)
customers value. Products based on disruptive technologies are typically (b) cheaper,
(c) simpler, (d) smaller, or (e) more convenient than those established on the dominant
technology.
3. (a) The leading firms’ most profitable customers generally do not want and indeed
initially cannot use products based on disruptive technologies. So (b) disruptive
technologies are first commercialized in emerging or insignificant markets. (c)
Incumbents conclude that investing in disruptive technologies is not a rational
financial decision for them.
4. The new disruptive technology (a) steadily improves in performance until (b) it meets
the standards of performance demanded by the mainstream market.
5. At that point, (a) the new (disruptive) technology displaces the dominant one and (b)
the new entrant displaces the dominant incumbent(s) in the mainstream market.
Box 3.1 – Key Points of Christensen’s Theory of Disruptive Innovation (Tellis, 2006)

52
3.3 Key Findings by Author
The key findings and contributions of each paper were recorded. These are taken
directly from the spreadsheet and are located in Appendix L to conserve space. The
results are ordered by year of publication to help the observation of any thematic links
as the years progress. Table 3.3 shows the first portion of this table.

53
Table 3.3 – Key Findings – by Author.
Author Findings/ claims Ref.
Banbury
(1995)
Effective incremental product development and rapid product
introduction are critical to business performance. The value of
adopting a rival’s innovation extends beyond the immediate
impact on market share, because introducing the innovation
will often be necessary if the firm is to introduce subsequent
innovations. In addition this approach can also enable a
business to simply remain in the industry.
[c1]
Kaplan
(1999)
Four discontinuous innovation strategies are as follows;
radical cannibalism, competitive displacement, market
invention and industry genesis. When looking to explore
alternative industries, a qualitative approach is required to
understand how core technologies can provide breakthrough
customer value. Market research alone is not as useful for
discontinuous technologies, because customers do not know
the needs that they don’t yet have. Although the challenge is
immense, continuous innovation and the ability to manage
discontinuous change, is critical to the long-term growth of an
organisation.
[c2]
Foster, R
(2000)
Over the next 25 years, survivors will have to accomplish both
aggressive innovation and operational excellence
simultaneously. The market will make short work of
competitors failing to achieve both objectives. Companies will
need to be prepared to change their line of work as the
strategic potential of their current businesses runs dry.
Successful research and development departments will have
learned how to adapt to play a leadership role.
[c3]
Nault &
Vandenbosch
(2000)
It is important that entrants time it right when attempting to
enter new markets as, under certain conditions, incumbent
pre-emption is also possible. A firm must understand where it
has resources and capability advantages over its rivals.
Market outcomes may be a good mechanism to allow firms to
learn about their resources and capabilities.
[c4]
Palumbo, D
(2001)
An organisation should judge whether a technology fits, show
the consumers the benefits and learn from the market. A
technology should make money, and not be acquired for the
goal of just having new technology.
[c5]
Note: Refer to Appendix L for the full table of findings.

54
3.4 Key Citation Review
Each of the sample papers were searched to identify the most frequently cited
references. On the basis that the more an author cited a paper, then the more important
it was to reinforcing their research. The citation need not necessarily have referred the
landmark piece of research within that area, it may actually be given as an example of
poor research; however, if it is still pivotal to the debate, it is worth investigating. It
should be noted that most papers were positively referencing other authors work, and
looking to build on it.
Table 3.4 displays the research table generated for this key citation review. The
shaded boxes represent the key citations for each of the sample papers. Once all of the
sample papers had been reviewed for key citations, they were cross-referenced with
the accumulated list of other papers key citations. This was carried out by comparing
the generated key citation list with the reference section of each individual sample
paper. The shaded boxes refer to the key citations per paper reviewed (worked
horizontally), and the un-shaded refer to the cross-referencing. Full references for the
key texts can be seen in blue text in the Bibliography.
Macro Literature Mapping
Using the results of the key citation review, the totals of the key citations were
summed, and the macro literature map in Figure 3.1 was created. This visually
displays the importance that key texts have had on the area of emerging and disruptive
technologies, according to the sample within this study.

55
Table 3.4 – Key Citation Review Note: shading denotes key papers for sample texts.
Sample
Texts:
Key
Citations:

56
TIME
Schumpeter
1942
(n, 4)
Foster
1986
(n, 7)
Utterback
1994
(n, 8)
Bower & CC
1995
(n, 5)
CC
1997
(n, 18)
Chandy
& Tellis
1998
(n, 6)
Adner, 2002 (n, 4)
Danneels, 2002, (n, 3)
CC &
Raynor
2003
(n, 8)
Danneels
2004
(n=5)
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Frequency
of
citations
Figure 3-4 - Key Citations Over Time from the 30 Sample Texts in this Study

57
Table 3.5 – List of 30 Sample Papers
Author Year Title of Paper
Adner, R 2002 When are Technologies Disruptive? A Demand-Based View of the Emergence of Competition
Assink, M 2006 Inhibitors of Disruptive Innovation Capability: A Conceptual Model.
Banbury and Mitchell 1995 The Effect of Introducing Important Incremental Innovations on Market Share and Business Survival.
Bartoloni and Baussola 2001 The Determinants of Technology Adoption in Italian Manufacturing Industries.
Christensen, C.M 2002 The Rules of Innovation.
Christensen et al. 2001 The Great Disruption.
Collins, L 2004 Efficient and Effective.
Cravens et al. 2002 The Innovation Challenges of Proactive Cannibalisation and Discontinuous Technology.
Danneels, E 2004 Disruptive Technology Reconsidered: A Critique and Research Agenda.
Drew, S.A.W 2006 Building Technology Foresight: Using Scenarios to Embrace Innovation.
Dyerson and Pilkington 2005 Gales of Creative Destruction and the Opportunistic Incumbent: The Case of Electric Vehicles in California.
Foster, R 2000 Managing Technological Innovation for the Next 25 Years.
Govindarajan and Kopalle 2006 The Usefulness of Measuring Disruptiveness of Innovations Ex Post in Making Ex Ante Predictions.
Hemais et al. 2005 Technology Competitiveness in Emerging Markets: The Case of the Brazilian Polymer Industry.
Henderson, R 2006 The Innovator’s Dilemma as a Problem of Organizational Competence.
Herrmann et al. 2006 Determinants of Radical Product Innovations.
Holmes and Glass 2004 Vital but only one piece of the innovation puzzle.
Hughes and Cosier 2001 What Makes a Revolution? Disruptive Technology and Social Change.
Kaplan 1999 Discontinuous Innovation and the Growth Paradox.
Kash and Rycroft 2003 To Manage Complex Innovation, Ask the Right Questions.
Libaers et al. 2006 The Role of University Spinout Companies in an Emerging Technology: The Case of Nanotechnology.
Loutfy & Belkhir 2001 Managing innovation at Xerox.
Markides, C 2006 In Need of Better Theory.
Nault and Vandenbosch 2000 Disruptive technologies - Explaining entry in next generation information technology markets.
Paap and Katz 2004 Anticipating disruptive innovation.
Palumbo, D 2001 Kodak Embraces Disruptive Technology.
Tellis, G 2006 Disruptive Technology or Visionary Leadership?
Utterback & Acee 2005 Disruptive Technologies: An Expanded View.
White, C 2001 Disruptive Technologies and the Tax Law.
Yonghong et al. 2005 Impact of Technological Innovation on Growth Trajectory of Enterprise’s Technological Capability: A Theoretical Analysis.

58
Table 3.6 – List of Key Citations
Author Year Title of Paper
Schumpeter, J.A. 1942 Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy
Mansfield, E 1968 Industrial Research and Technological Innovation
Rosenberg, N. 1976 Perspectives on Technology
Cohen, W.M., and Levinthal, D.A. 1989 Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D.
Clark, K., and Henderson, R. 1990 Architectural Innovation, the Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and Failures of Established
Firms.
Meyer, M.H., and Utterback, J.M. 1993 The Product Family and the Dynamics of Core Capability.
Utterback, J.M. 1994 Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation.
Bower, K.L., and Christensen, C.M. 1995 Disruptive Technologies: Catching the wave.
Nault, B.R., and Vandenbosch, M.B. 1996 Eating your own lunch: Protection through preemption.
Christensen, C.M., and Bower, J.L. 1996 Customer Power, Strategic Investment, and the Failure of Leading Firms.
Chandy, R.K. 1996 Organizing for radical product innovation.
Cooper, R. 1998 Benchmarking New Product Performance: Results of the Best Practices Study.
Froud, J., Haslam, C., Johal, S., and
Williams, K.
1999 Breaking the chains? A sector matrix for motoring.
Day, G.S., and Schoemaker, P.J.H. 2000 Avoiding the pitfalls of emerging technologies
Acee, H.J. 2001 Disruptive technologies: an extended view
Thurow, L.C. 2001 Building Wealth: New Rules for Individuals, Companies and Countries in a Knowledge-Based Economy.
Adner, Ron. 2002 When Are Technologies Disruptive? A Demand-
Based View of the Emergence of Competition.
Rogers, E.M. 2003 Diffusion of Innovations.
Baker, W.E., and Sinkula, J.M. 2002 Market Orientation, Learning Orientation and Product Innovation: Delving into the Organisation’s Black Box.
Paap, J. and Katz, R. 2004 Anticipating Disruptive Innovation.
Christensen, C.M., Johnson, M.W., and
Rigby, D.K.
2002 Foundations for Growth: How to Identify and Build Disruptive New Businesses.
Danneels, E. 2002 The Dynamics of Product Innovation and Firm Competencies.
Chesbrough, H. 2003 Open Innovation.
Meyer, M., Persson, O., and Power, Y. 2002 Mapping Excellence in Nanotechnologies.
Markides, C., Geroski, P. 2005 Fast Second: How Smart Companies Bypass Radical Innovation to Enter and Dominate New Markets.
Note: Full references are provided in the Bibliography.

59
4.0 Discussion
The research questions were highlighted in table 2.1, and the aim of this chapter is to
address them. The following section discusses the results of each question within the
research instrument, and as a section, aims to provide answers to Research Question 1.
4.1 Research Question 1
What are the Key Methodologies Used within the Emerging and Disruptive
Technologies Literature?
Source Journals
The top five journals in which the reviewed papers were published area as follows:
Research Technology Management, the Journal of Product Innovation Management,
the Journal of Technology Transfer, the European Journal of Innovation Management
and the Strategic Management Journal. Background information on these source
journals is provided in Appendix K.
In order to evaluate and compare the impacts of these journals within the social
science business world, the Journal Citation Reports (JCRs) published by ISI Web of
Science were studied (ISI, 2007). Journal Citation Reports (Ibidem) is a source that
has been created to evaluate and compare journals using citation data taken from over
7,500 scholarly and technical journals from more than 3,300 publishers in over 60
countries. It is said to include virtually all areas of science, technology and social
sciences; therefore it was considered the most appropriate citation resource for the
topic area in question.

60
The journal impact factor is the average number of times articles from the journal
published in the past two years have been cited in the JCR year. In this case the JCR
year is 2006. An impact factor of 1.0 means that, on average, the articles published
one or two years ago have been cited one time. In the case of the strategic
management journal, an impact factor of 2.6 (to 1.d.p.) means that, on average, the
articles published one or two year ago have been cited 2.6 times. Most citing articles
are from different journals, but can also be from the same journal. Table 4..12 shows
the data extracted for three of the journals that appeared in the database. The Journal
of Technology Transfer and the European Journal of Innovation Management may
indicate lower impact rates within the business management field, or they may not be
included in the journal citation database. However, the database does cover over 7,500
journals, which may indicate that they have less impact.

61
Table 4.1 – Citation Data from the Journal Citation Reports in Social Science,
for 2006.
Position*
(out of 64 in
field of
Business )
Journal Title Total cites by
all database
journals in
2006
Impact
Factor
Articles
published in
2006
5 Strategic Management
Journal
8163 2.632 63
15 Journal of Product
Innovation
Management
1319 1.588 26
46 Research Technology
Management
399 0.606 31
Note: Data extracted from the ISI Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Reports, Social
Science Edition, for the year 2006 (ISI, 2007). *Ranking is according to impact factor.
Strategic Management has the highest impact factor of the source journals.
Considering that it has a greater number of articles published than the others, one
might assume that this will bias the result. However, the impact factor looks at the
citations of the record year (2006 in this case) divided by the total of those in the two
previous years. So the impact factor should be relative and unaffected by this.
Strategic Management was fifth out of the 64 journals in the business database, ranked
by impact factor, giving it a very high impact. The Journal of Product Innovation
Management came 15th
, which again shows a relatively high impact. Research
Technology Management on the other hand is far lower, with total cites in the low
hundreds rather than thousands.
Banbury and Mitchell (1995) and Adner (2002) authored the papers published in the
Strategic Management Journal. Their research perspectives were that of positivists;
research methods they used were more akin to a natural science approach using large
datasets and experimental methods (computational modelling in the case of Adner,
2002). This is an American journal, and typically a natural science view of the world
with large samples and quantitative methods are their favoured approach. The view

62
that large samples and positivist research methods add power to a study is often
adopted by such journals.
Table 4.2 displays the five authors who published in the Journal of Product Innovation
Management, along with their research perspectives and research designs. All of the
respective authors adopt a critical realist or positive realist stance, and as one might
expect their research designs are more qualitative in nature.

63
Table 4.2 – Analysis of Authors who Published in the Journal of Product
Innovation Management.
Author Research design Research perspective
Henderson (2006) Anecdotal/narrative & literature Critical realist
Danneels (2004) Anecdotal/narrative & literature Positive realist
Govindarajan and
Kopalle (2006)
Anecdotal/narrative & literature Positive realist
Tellis (2006) Mixed method Positive realist
Markides (2006) Literature review Critical realist
Three of the authors have been classed as positive realists; in general the distinction
that separated them from being critical realists was their systematic approach to the
research, and structured use of citations. These results suggest that if an author wishes
to publish work in this journal then a critical/positive realist view of the world is
required, along with appropriate qualitative research methods.
Table 4.3 displays the five authors who published in Research Technology
Management. All authors have a critical realist research perspective (one was not
clear). All of the research designs are appropriately qualitative. Two of the research
designs are case studies. Therefore this journal may be more focussed on contextual
research methods, however there is not enough data within this study to be conclusive.
Table 4.3 – Analysis of Authors who Published in the Research Technology
Management.
Author Research design Research perspective
Foster, R (2000) Anecdotal/narrative Not clear
Paap, Jay (2004) Anecdotal/narrative & literature Critical realist
Kash & Rycroft
(2003)
Case study Critical realist
Loutfy & Belkhir
(2001)
Case study Critical realist
Holmes, and Glass
(2004)
Literature review Critical realist

64
Research Perspective
‘Some writers have suggested that management research can be understood only as
an applied field because it is concerned not only with understanding the nature of
organisations but also with solving problems that are related to management
practice’ (Bryman and Bell, 2003, p.5).
53% of the reviewed authors were considered to be critical realists and a further 10%
positive realists (refer to Figure 3.1). Critical realists are concerned with cause and
effect in specific cases (rather than generalisation), and the study of actors/ agents in
their causal contexts. 28 out of the 30 research papers focussed on commercial
organisations. Thus, the large number of realists (positive or critical) within the
sample supports this. Researchers with a focus on the commercial world are more
likely to be interested in how processes work, and what causes change.
The results in Figure 3.1 display typical mode 2 research. Mode 2 research
(introduced in Chapter 1) describes the case where research boundaries become
blurred, and the findings link closely to context, and cannot easily be replicated.
Tranfield and Starkey (1998) suggest management research is more suited to this, and
these findings mirror this observation and provide further evidence for this. It is
important to remember that the categorisation of authors into research perspectives is
difficult to achieve objectively, however the selection criteria in Appendix B was used
to make this as objective as possible.

65
Theoretical Approach
17 of the studies adopted an inductive approach (or 57%), i.e. theory building. This
appears to be a common issue. An inductive approach is more suited to a critical
realist perspective, as critical realists are focussed on contextual issues, actors and
organisations. All of which are more suited to theory building than theory testing, for
example, it would be hard to test things like labour markets and underlying structures
etc. (Reed, 2006).
Research Methods Used
Nearly all of the research methods employed were qualitative. This correlates with the
view that most of the authors are positive realists or critical realists. Kaplan explicitly
describes how a qualitative approach is required to ‘understand how core technologies
can provide breakthrough customer value. Market research alone is not as useful for
discontinuous technologies, because customers do not know the needs they don’t yet
have’ (Kaplan, 1999).
The most common research method employed by authors was narrative/anecdotal
descriptions of research (24%). This category describes authors who use their text as a
vehicle for developing theories or presenting their viewpoint to a wider audience. In a
few cases, well-known industry experts outline their vision of the future along with
their didactic advice. For example, Foster (2000) and Christensen (2002) both write
articles that are deficient in references or empirical data to support their findings.
These findings were unexpected; the researcher initially believed that although a

66
number of anecdotal papers would be uncovered, they would have adequate citations
and example evidence, particularly coming from industry experts. A possible
explanation for this is that these articles are in publications aimed more at a business
audience (i.e. Research Technology Management, and Technology Review,
respectively). In these cases there appears to be an implicit assumption that the reader
is familiar with the previous work of the author.
These articles were classed as scholarly and peer-reviewed in the database
classification. This suggests that further checks might be necessary in future, to ensure
that only the highest quality articles are included. Another reason why these papers
were unexpected is that contemporary business management research view that
findings require objective evidence to support a hypothesis rather than relying on
expert opinion alone, then the selection of scholarly and peer-reviewed are not
necessarily reliable selections within database searches.
The next common research method used has been described as narrative/anecdotal
descriptions, with supporting citations. This approach demonstrates how an author has
a deeper appreciation of related literature and uses it to support or build their theories.
This approach represents a more engaging research method, however it is still lacking
somewhat in robustness.
A range of research methods were employed by the next 40% of papers: 10% cross-
sectional, 10% surveys (including interviews), 10% case studies, and 10% literature
reviews. Cross-sectional and survey research was undertaken by positivists in the

67
main, whereas case studies and literature reviews were all undertaken by critical
realists.
One of the main points to observe from Graph 3.2 is that researchers in the field of
emerging and disruptive technologies follow the business management convention in
that they are happy to adopt a range of research methods. These research methods
therefore follow the epistemological perspectives of the authors, as would be
expected..
An unexpected result was that only 3 authors adopted a case study research method.
Particularly when many of the issues the authors are interested in, are contextual and
case-based in nature. Perhaps there is just a lack of case study research in the true
form as defined by Yin (2003), i.e. a case study is ‘an empirical inquiry that
investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when
the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident’ (2003). It
could be argued that the narrative/ anecdotal papers that are common within this topic
can loosely be defined as case studies, but without the rigour and detail a case study
approach requires. A number of authors used observations of cases in the public
domain, for example Holmes and Glass (2004) discussing IBM, and Collins (2004)
with Hewlett Packard.

68
Technology Origins
The vast majority of authors focussed on commercial organisations for their research
(28 out of 30). Only one author focussed on technologies within a research
organisation, and another on technology transfer between industry and research
organisations. Consequently these results display a clear focus on technologies within
commercial organisations. The increased focus may be due to the need to achieve a
return on high R&D investments within commercial organisations. For example,
Kodak spends ‘two thirds of 800million dollars on the R&D budget in
commercialising digital products’ (Palumbo, 2001). This is a vast amount of money,
and return on investment at some level is clearly required.
It is essential for commercial organisations to be aware of potential emerging
technologies that may turn out to disrupt their product range. Moreover, any advice or
observations that can be learnt to give them the edge on competitors is always
welcome.
A clear gap for research into emerging and potentially disruptive technologies within
research organisations is apparent. This may be the function of the goal of many
research organisations which is to develop science for science sake. Research
organisations are less likely to feel the pressure to commercialise new technologies for
profit, as they are funded differently (much research works on a grant funding basis,
which implies different drivers).

69
Technology Focus
Graph 3.3 shows that the majority of research was directed at general technologies. In
some cases, authors selected cross-sector cases and technologies, e.g. Kash and
Rycroft, 2003. They do not explicitly say that they have taken this approach to
validate their findings, rather they inform the reader that their findings result from the
study of a number of technologies. 21% of papers focussed on the end-products; this
may indicate that it is easier to carry out ex-post5
research on products rather than
concentrating on specific technologies. Govindarajan and Kopalle (2006) describe
how ex-post research is carried out on technologies, but ex-ante forecasts are only
considered for the conditions relating to the types of firms likely to develop disruptive
technologies. There appears to be a gap for focussing on ex-ante predictions for
technology; however, such forecasting is likely to be extremely difficult. Christensen
opposes this in the following statement:
‘Although Danneels (2004) and others express concern that the model does
not provide the ability to predict what will happen, their fear is unfounded. It
is true that one cannot think a thought before it has been thought. All that must
be asked of a theory, however, is that it help to evaluate a technology after it
has been conceived or to evaluate a business venture after it has been
proposed or launched. The theory must provide the ability to predict what will
happen to the incumbents and entrants in the future if they take different
actions relative to the innovation. The earlier we these predictions can be
made after conception, of course, the better’. (Christensen, 2006).
Put simply, Christensen is saying that the theory of disruption can evaluate the
potential of a technology (or business venture) after it has been conceived and predict
what may happen to incumbents and entrants if they take alternative actions. The
question raised by this argument is, ‘when is a technology conceived?’ If it is early on
5
Ex-post refers to an event after it has happened; conversely, ex-ante refers to predicting or forecasting
an event. For example, a technology can be described as disruptive once it has happened (ex-post),
however predicting the next potentially disruptive technology (ex-ante) is extremely difficult.

70
in the research and development phase, then Danneels (2004) comments are valid, that
the model does not predict what will happen. In this aforementioned response
Christensen does not appear to answer the query sufficiently.
The range of technologies alone suggests that the theory of disruptive technologies is
considered by authors to be wide-ranging. This provides evidence for the argument
presented by authors such as Danneels (2004) and Tellis (2006) who suggest that the
theory is over-used, and sub-categories need to be defined. Table 3.2 shows additional
categories for the theory of disruptive technology, and Appendix J lists all of the
definitions given by the authors.
‘The term disruptive technology has been used disparately to apply to things such as;
department stores, airlines, power tools, online businesses, and travel agents. A
distinction needs to be made between ‘business model innovations’ and ‘technological
innovations’. The similarities between the two have led some researchers to treat to
types as one and the same’ Markides (2006). In fact, Danneels (2004) attempted to
clarify this definition a few years earlier; ‘the core of the definition of a disruptive
technology is this; a disruptive technology is a technology that changes the basis of
competition by changing the performance metrics along which firms compete’
(Ibidem).
Christensen provided a response to a number of challenges to the theory of disruptive
innovation that he originally published in his recent paper (Christensen, 2006).
Christensen (Ibidem) asserts that his theory has been applied to – and worked in- the
following industries: ‘hydraulic excavators, department stores, steel, computers,

71
motorcycles, diabetes care, accounting software, motor controls, electric vehicles,
education, and financial services’ (Ibidem). However, he does provide the caveat that
his theory can only be tested on a case by case basis. The literature within this study’s
sample indicates that disruption theory would benefit from further categorisation;
however, Christensen’s point is also noted that the extent to which they replace or add
to the disruption theory, cannot yet be judged until deductive research is carried out.
To be precise, Christensen is offering a challenge for either author to validate their
claims with empirical research.
Christensen’s original focus on low-cost, initially inferior products that attack an
incumbent’s products from below has also been challenged by Utterback and Acee
(2005), who make the point that not all disruptive innovations are ‘bottom up’ in their
approach; many, for example calculators, are ‘top-down’. They purport that there
should be a distinction between low-end (simple) disruptive technologies and high-
end ones (technologically more advanced). The addition of high-end technologies
includes products such as calculators that were more expensive, and complex than
alternatives (i.e. slide rules) when they were first introduced; however, they were
disruptive (reference to Utterback & Acee 2005, Table 1, p.8). Christensen has since
acknowledged this in his paper 2006. ‘For example, in about 2000 I realized that the
phenomenon I previously had characterized simply as disruptive technology actually
was comprised of two fundamentally different phenomena, which I characterized as
low-end and new-market disruptions’ (described in Christensen and Raynor, 2003).

A Structured Systematic Review Of The Emerging And Disruptive Technology Literature

A Structured Systematic Review Of The Emerging And Disruptive Technology Literature

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A Structured Systematic Review Of The Emerging And Disruptive Technology Literature

Similar to A Structured Systematic Review Of The Emerging And Disruptive Technology Literature (20)

More from Monica Waters

More from Monica Waters (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A Structured Systematic Review Of The Emerging And Disruptive Technology Literature