IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2019i22p6267-d284793.html

Bridging the Gap in the Technology Commercialization Process: Using a Three-Stage Technology–Product–Market Model

Author

Listed:
  • Minseo Kim

    (Department of Management of Technology, School of Business, Konkuk University, 05029 Seoul, Korea)

  • Hyesu Park

    (Department of Management of Technology, School of Business, Konkuk University, 05029 Seoul, Korea)

  • Yeong-wha Sawng

    (Department of Management of Technology, School of Business, Konkuk University, 05029 Seoul, Korea)

  • Sun-young Park

    (Department of Management of Technology, School of Business, Konkuk University, 05029 Seoul, Korea)

Abstract

This study proposes a new “three-stage technology–product–market” model to analyze the technology commercialization process. This model revises the technology acceptance model to more accurately consider the market potential of new technologies from a consumer perspective. This approach can be used to supplement developers’ own evaluations of technology. To test the model empirically, an online survey of 350 end users was conducted regarding their intention to purchase the “Wireless USB,” which uses “Zing” technology and was developed by the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute. The data was used to test the model using a structural equations approach. We indirectly confirmed the existence of gaps in the technology commercialization process by verifying the mediating effects of the productization stage. Results suggest that end users may not purchase a product, even if they perceive the technology to be innovative; the product purchase intention is significantly influenced by its perceived value. Therefore, developers must understand the concept of technology value for productization in order to refine a technology according to market demand.

Suggested Citation

  • Minseo Kim & Hyesu Park & Yeong-wha Sawng & Sun-young Park, 2019. "Bridging the Gap in the Technology Commercialization Process: Using a Three-Stage Technology–Product–Market Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:22:p:6267-:d:284793
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6267/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/22/6267/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Se-Joon Hong & Kar Yan Tam, 2006. "Understanding the Adoption of Multipurpose Information Appliances: The Case of Mobile Data Services," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 162-179, June.
    2. Wei Gu & Peng Bao & Wenyuan Hao & Jaewoong Kim, 2019. "Empirical Examination of Intention to Continue to Use Smart Home Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-12, September.
    3. Russell Cooper & Andrew John, 1988. "Coordinating Coordination Failures in Keynesian Models," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 103(3), pages 441-463.
    4. Maine, Elicia & Garnsey, Elizabeth, 2006. "Commercializing generic technology: The case of advanced materials ventures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 375-393, April.
    5. Bryan Williams & Hoi Suen & Sarah Rzasa & Tanya Heikkila & Maria Pennock-Roman, 2003. "Diffusion of US army chemical weapons disposal technologies: public perception of technology attributes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(4), pages 499-522.
    6. George, Gerard & Zahra, Shaker A. & Wood, D. Jr., 2002. "The effects of business-university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: a study of publicly traded biotechnology companies," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 577-609, October.
    7. Markus A. Kirchberger & Larissa Pohl, 2016. "Technology commercialization: a literature review of success factors and antecedents across different contexts," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(5), pages 1077-1112, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. JinHyo Joseph Yun & Xiaofei Zhao & KwangHo Jung & Tan Yigitcanlar, 2020. "The Culture for Open Innovation Dynamics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-21, June.
    2. Kiwon Lee & Suchul Lee, 2021. "Knowledge Structure of the Application of High-Performance Computing: A Co-Word Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-20, October.
    3. Paraskevi Giourka & Vasiliki Palla & Ioannis-Athanasios Zornatzis & Komninos Angelakoglou & Georgios Martinopoulos, 2025. "Leveraging Social Innovation Tools for Advancing Innovative Technologies Towards a Just Energy Transition in Greece," Energies, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-27, June.
    4. Seonyeong Lim & Minseo Kim & Yeong-wha Sawng, 2022. "Design Thinking for Public R&D: Focus on R&D Performance at Public Research Institutes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-20, June.
    5. Sandeep Singhai & Ritika Singh & Harish Kumar Sardana & Anuradha Madhukar, 2021. "Analysis of Factors Influencing Technology Transfer: A Structural Equation Modeling Based Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-15, May.
    6. Minseo Kim & Seongbae Lim & Yeong-wha Sawng, 2022. "A Study on Growth Engines of Middle Market Enterprise (MME) of Korea Using Meta-Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-22, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Haessler, Philipp & Giones, Ferran & Brem, Alexander, 2023. "The who and how of commercializing emerging technologies: A technology-focused review," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    2. Chih-Jou Chen & Chia-Chin Chang & Shiu-Wan Hung, 2011. "Influences of Technological Attributes and Environmental Factors on Technology Commercialization," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 104(4), pages 525-535, December.
    3. Markus A. Kirchberger & Larissa Pohl, 2016. "Technology commercialization: a literature review of success factors and antecedents across different contexts," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 41(5), pages 1077-1112, October.
    4. Marius Tuft Mathisen & Einar Rasmussen, 2019. "The development, growth, and performance of university spin-offs: a critical review," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(6), pages 1891-1938, December.
    5. Ardito, Lorenzo & Ernst, Holger & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio, 2020. "The interplay between technology characteristics, R&D internationalisation, and new product introduction: Empirical evidence from the energy conservation sector," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 96.
    6. Klofsten, Magnus & Lundmark, Erik & Wennberg, Karl & Bank, Megan, 2019. "Incubator specialization and size: divergent paths towards operational scale," Ratio Working Papers 326, The Ratio Institute.
    7. Lau, Sau-Him Paul, 2001. "Aggregate Pattern of Time-dependent Adjustment Rules, II: Strategic Complementarity and Endogenous Nonsynchronization," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 199-231, June.
    8. Sniekers, F.J.T., 2013. "Endogenous Beveridge cycles and the volatility of unemployment," CeNDEF Working Papers 13-12, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Center for Nonlinear Dynamics in Economics and Finance.
    9. Di Bella, Gabriel & Grigoli, Francesco, 2019. "Optimism, pessimism, and short-term fluctuations," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 79-96.
    10. Michael T. Kiley, 1997. "Staggered price setting and real rigidities," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 1997-46, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    11. Jonathan Heathcote & Fabrizio Perri, 2018. "Wealth and Volatility," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 85(4), pages 2173-2213.
    12. repec:tsa:wpaper:00124eco is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Paolo E. Giordani & Nadia Rocha & Michele Ruta, 2012. "Food Prices and the Multiplier Effect of Export Policy," CESifo Working Paper Series 3783, CESifo.
    14. Giovanna Devetag, 2000. "Transfer, Focality and Coordination: Some Experimental Results," LEM Papers Series 2000/02, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    15. Antonio Cabrales & Michalis Drouvelis & Zeynep Gurguy & Indrajit Ray, 2017. "Transparency is Overrated: Communicating in a Coordination Game with Private Information," CESifo Working Paper Series 6781, CESifo.
    16. Mohammad Daradkeh, 2023. "Exploring the Curvilinear Relationship between Academic-Industry Collaboration Environment and Innovation Performance: A Multilevel Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-20, May.
    17. Jianghua Zhou & Rui Wu & Jizhen Li, 2019. "More ties the merrier? Different social ties and firm innovation performance," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 445-471, June.
    18. Kishinchand Poornima Wasdani & Abhishek Vijaygopal & Mathew J. Manimala, 2025. "Business Incubators: A Need-Heed Gap Analysis of Technology-based Enterprises," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 26(6), pages 1556-1578, December.
    19. Pieter A. Gautier, 2009. "Coordination Frictions and The Financial Crisis," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 09-028/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    20. Yen-Chun Chou & Howard Hao-Chun Chuang, 2018. "A predictive investigation of first-time customer retention in online reservation services," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 12(4), pages 685-699, December.
    21. Hajiheydari, Nastaran & Delgosha, Mohammad Soltani & Olya, Hossein, 2021. "Scepticism and resistance to IoMT in healthcare: Application of behavioural reasoning theory with configurational perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2019:i:22:p:6267-:d:284793. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.