Commercialization Networks in Emerging Technologies: The Case of UK Nanotechnology Small and Midsize Enterprises

The Journal of Technology Transfer
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09923-3
Commercialization networks in emerging technologies: the

case of UK nanotechnology small and midsize enterprises
Fatemeh Salehi1 · Philip Shapira2,3 · Judy Zolkiewski4
Accepted: 19 January 2022

© The Author(s) 2022
Abstract
This paper investigates how small and midsize enterprises (SMEs) utilize networks to
commercialize emerging technologies. We build on literature on SMEs and innovation,
networks, and how innovation occurs within collaborative arrangements. Contrasting net-
work types and their influences on commercialization outcomes are probed in the context
of SME value chain positions. An exploratory study is undertaken to offer a framework
and findings that provide context and insight. We consider roles of SME agency and
strategy to put forward a framework of network types. Using a multiple case approach of
a sample of UK nanotechnology SMEs, value-chain positions and networks for commer-
cialization are examined. Data are collected through semi-structured primary interviews
with managers and informants and from secondary business databases and other sources.
Commercialization outcomes are found to vary by SME network type and value chain
positioning. SMEs can proactively create SME-led, peer-SME or broker-led networks
that aid commercialization. SME-led networks enable successful commercialization of
upstream and midstream products. Peer- SME networks are used for downstream com-
mercialization. Broker-led networks facilitate commercialization in the upstream part of
the value chain. Hybrid networks are used where SMEs pursue multiple commercializa-
tion strategies. Reactive approaches to networking and interrupted networks, regardless of
value chain position, are unfavourable for commercialization. The study’s conceptual and
managerial implications are discussed.
Keywords Networks · Commercialization · Emerging technologies · SMEs ·

Nanotechnology
Classification code—JEL O3
1 Introduction
Technology commercialization is a process that translates promising discoveries and inven-

tions into streams of economic returns and can involve strategic and tactical planning
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
13
2 F. Salehi et al.
processes, product conceptualization, development, production, launch activities, and inter-

actions with potential buyers and other relevant network actors (Gans and Stern, 2003; Mat-
tila et al., 2019). Commercialization is especially challenging for emerging technologies,
with the inherent uncertainty and ambiguity that accompanies radical novelty and anticipa-
tions of rapid growth and impact (Rotolo et al., 2015). These challenges include choosing a
feasible strategy, understanding potential customers, creating credibility, acquiring support
from the surrounding network and ecosystem, overcoming adoption barriers, and generating
sales (Aarikka-Stenroos and Lehtimäki, 2014). Small and midsize enterprises (SMEs1) can
find that overcoming such obstacles is particularly difficult as their commercialization capa-
bilities are often constrained by limitations of finance and internal skills and their inherent
lack of market power (Shapira, 2010; Fortwengel and Sydow, 2020).
It has been suggested that SMEs’ capacity for commercialization can be increased by
finding the right partners to engage with, utilizing existing business relationships and ‘build-
ing positions in networks’ (Aaboen et al., 2013; Lin et al., 2015). Yet, despite awareness that
successful technology commercialization often requires network engagement, less is known
about the types of networks that SMEs can use and what aspects of networks are condu-
cive to successful commercialization (Agostini and Nosella, 2019). Much of the previous
research tends to highlight only one specific dimension of the issue, with greater focus on the
networking behaviour of firms in the close to inception research and development (R&D)
phase of the innovation process and less attention given to the commercialization (close to
market) stage. Although there is now an improved grasp of the practices of open and collab-
orative strategies for large firms (e.g., Billington and Davidson, 2013), our understanding is
lower about how SMEs use networks for commercialization (Hossain and Kauranen, 2016;
Randhawa et al., 2016). Furthermore, the different ways that such networks can be formed,
which can lead to different network types, and the impacts of each network type on com-
mercialization, are not well comprehended (Fernández-Olmos and Ramírez-Alesón, 2017).
Our research objective is to advance a more contextualized appreciation of how SMEs
might use networks to commercialize emerging technologies. We consider two research
questions. First, what types of networks are used by SMEs for commercializing emerg-
ing technologies? Second, how does the use of different types of networks influence the
commercialization of emerging technologies? The research is positioned as an exploratory
theory-development study, combining literature with empirical observations to add fresh
perspectives to the existing research on the topic (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2014). We inves-
tigate various network configurations used for commercialization, develop a typology of
networks based on a combination of network structure and roles of diverse actors, and probe
how different network types facilitate or impede commercialization. To enable in-depth
investigation of commercialization of an emerging technology, a multiple case study of
SMEs in the UK nanotechnology field is undertaken. While we do not claim that our find-
ings apply everywhere to all technologies, we do suggest that the combination of promise
and complexity and the mix of research organizations, SMEs, larger firms, and intermediar-
ies in the nanotechnology domain present an appropriate and suitable research context for
an exploratory study of commercialization of an emerging technology in a network setting.
1
In Europe (including the UK), SMEs are broadly defined as enterprises employing fewer than 250 persons,
with additional criteria related to annual turnover and/or balance sheet assets (see, for example, European
Commission, 2015).
13
Commercialization networks in emerging technologies: the case of UK… 3
In the paper, we distinguish several types of commercialization networks and investi-

gate how participation in these networks leads to different commercialization outcomes for
SMEs. We argue that the influence of network type on commercialization outcome is a func-
tion of SMEs’ capabilities and agency, and their value chain position. We frame this conten-
tion within a nuanced understanding of the roles, interactions and contributions of various
network actors (e.g., incumbent firms, broker organizations, universities and research cen-
tres, and government agencies) to commercialization within a network setting.
2 Theoretical background
The theoretical background of this study draws on studies of open innovation (OI) in SMEs
(e.g., Lee et al., 2010; Verbano et al., 2015) as well as broader debates on SMEs and inno-
vation (e.g., Shapira, 2010; Hemert et al., 2013). The OI literature suggests that organiza-
tions need to open up their innovation processes, searching outside their boundaries and
managing a rich set of network connections and relationships (Chesbrough, 2006; 2017).
While early studies of OI looked mostly at large multinational firms (Huston and Sakkab,
2006; Gassmann et al., 2010; Mortara and Minshall, 2011), it is now evident that opening
up innovation can also benefit SMEs (Pervan et al., 2015; Verbano et al., 2015; Brunswicker
and Vanhaverbeke, 2015; Freel and Robson, 2017; Brink, 2018). Yet, less formalized R&D
procedures, limited resources, and different network characteristics affect the benefits that
SMEs derive from OI (Purchase et al., 2014; Bigliardi and Galati, 2016). Although SMEs
face greater risks associated with OI (e.g., becoming overly dependent on outside parties)
than large firms, SMEs can experience substantial positive effects through OI-related sales
of new products and services (Spithoven et al., 2013).
While SME benefits from OI have been highlighted (Hossain and Kauranen, 2016), espe-
cially in technology-intensive industries (Verbano et al., 2015), there is less agreement on
the extent to which inbound, outbound or coupled processes of OI are prevailing practices
among SMEs (Gassmann et al., 2010; Cassiman and Valentini, 2016). Inbound OI involves
the acquisition of available external knowledge in the firm’s innovation processes and R&D;
outbound OI includes the sharing, transfer, selling, or licensing of internally developed
knowledge and technology with external partners; while coupled OI encompasses combina-
tions of outside-in acquisition and inside-out transfer in cooperative relationships by a firm
with its partners (Chesbrough, 2006). According to Theyel (2013), the implementation of OI
by SMEs can be extended to the firm’s value chain (including both inbound and outbound
processes). Van de Vrande et al. (2009) suggests that SMEs are more likely to be involved
in inbound rather than outbound OI practices. However, Hossain and Kauranen (2016), and
Randhawa et al. (2016) found that the most prevalent OI practice among SMEs is in the
commercialization phase. Lee et al. (2010), Spithoven et al. (2013), and van Hemert et al.
(2013) identify the importance of outbound OI for SMEs particularly in finding external
paths to commercialization.
2.1 Commercialization networks and actors’ roles
Although the importance of networks is highlighted in the existing literature on OI and

SMEs (Agostini and Nosella, 2019), there remains considerable scope to further examine
13
4 F. Salehi et al.
how SMEs can make use of, and manage within, different kinds of networks, especially
when pursuing technological commercialization. From an SME’s perspective, various net-
work actors can intentionally or unintentionally and directly or indirectly support commer-
cialization (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2014). Customers and users as well as lead partners can
contribute to commercialization by creating markets, performing commercialization tasks,
and facilitating innovation adoption and diffusion (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2017).
In developing a framework for this study, we focus specifically on the commercialization
network surrounding an SME, that is, the set of actors with whom the SME collaborates
and the set of linkages between actors. Collaborating actors can include other small or large
firms as well as organizations such as universities, technology centres, or government agen-
cies. Linkages can embrace diverse collaborative forms including strategic partnerships,
joint development or production, and marketing alliances. Our research focuses particularly
on the immediate network that an SME intentionally forms or joins with the aim of commer-
cialization. We define the success of a commercialization network from a focal SME’s per-
spective as encompassing two elements: (1) effectively mobilizing other actors and forming
and managing network relationships; and (2) achieving the desired commercialization out-
come (e.g., offering new products, processes, or business concepts to the market) through
support of partners in the network.
The varied stakeholders relevant in the construction of commercialization networks raise
the issue of agency—a factor often taken for granted in the extant network literature (Möller
and Halinen, 2017). To comprehend agency in network management requires focus on the
prime mover role in SMEs’ networks for commercialization. Prime movers can be defined
as the key actors in the creation of the network who are technically, financially, or politically
positioned to initiate and strongly contribute to the development and commercialization of
an emerging technology (Jacobsson and Johnson, 2000). The existence and legitimacy of
a prime mover is critical for the formation of the network (Doz et al., 2000). By actively
recruiting members to join in the network, they cause formation of various network types
which can in turn influence commercialization outcomes.
A series of views have been advanced on the roles that SMEs can and do play in com-
mercialization networks. For example, it has been suggested that technology-oriented SMEs
might influence how innovation is managed in the network from visioning to commer-
cialization (Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2017). As prime movers in networks, SMEs can drive
technological change and play a central role in commercialization by mediating the pro-
cess of knowledge transfer from academic science and engineering to industrial application
(Genet et al., 2012). Shapira et al. (2011, 2016) and Andersen (2011) support the view that
SMEs can play a significant role in commercialization by establishing partnerships with
large incumbent firms. In the case of nanotechnology, Avenel et al., (2007) argue that SMEs
are in an advantageous position to use the opportunities created by the convergence of dis-
ciplines in this emerging technology. Hence, SMEs can proactively form commercialization
networks and attract various types of partners. Radical qualities and novelty may be highly
valued by their customers and these benefits may outweigh increased uncertainty in the
minds of potential network partners (Maine et al., 2013).
A contrasting perspective emphasizes the importance of incumbents as prime movers in
networks (which may also involve SMEs). For instance, Pandza and Holt (2007) highlight
the influential role of large incumbent firms with endogenous knowledge about emerging
technologies and high absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990) in building ties with
13
SMEs and initiating commercialization networks. In the nanotechnology domain, Larédo et

al. (2009) and Rothaermel and Thursby (2007) stress the power of early-entry incumbent
firms in commercialization, while OECD (2010) observes that large incumbent firms are
well placed because of their established technological knowledge base and their ability to
acquire and run expensive instrumentation and production activities. Comparing the emer-
gence of nanotechnology with biotechnology and information and communications technol-
ogy, Niosi and Reid (2007) and Mowery (2011) stress the role of large established producers
in pharmaceuticals, medical equipment or materials as actors possessing commercialization
capabilities which ally with smaller firms as sources of productivity in their research and
innovation.
Hence, incumbent firms that have the competence, resources, and influence to push the
development and commercialization of emerging technologies are likely to be prime movers
in creating networks. These actors have high absorptive capacity and their interest in emerg-
ing technology is because its enabling character can sustain and extend their technology
development trajectories. In this case, the emerging technology promises to be competency-
enhancing and is limited in its discontinuous potential (Pandza and Holt, 2007). In these net-
works, the resources and activities of the SME and the incumbent firm are complementary.
The incumbent firm has downstream assets for manufacturing, sales, and marketing of the
product (Hill and Rothaermel, 2003). Meanwhile, the SME can offer intermediate products
that match the incumbent’s existing technology trajectories and help the incumbent to sus-
tain and enhance the performance of their existing products and knowledge base (Salehi et
al., 2018).
A further dimension to understanding the dynamics of commercialization networks is
offered by considering the role of brokers—intermediary organizations (including tech-
nology centres) who influence the formation of relationships between firms and the com-
mercialization process (Lauritzen, 2017). Brokers can play significant roles in facilitating
collaborative innovation (Winch and Courtney, 2007; Lee et al., 2010) by demand artic-
ulation, protecting intellectual property, network composition, and innovation process
management (Howells, 2006; Batterink et al., 2010). SMEs in emerging technologies can
experience high uncertainty due to the generic nature of their technology, potential applica-
tions in multiple markets and the need for customers to undertake further process innova-
tions (Maine et al., 2013). Brokers can help SMEs to explore different application areas,
find suitable industrial partners and facilitate translations. Brokers in such networks need to
have a good knowledge of industrial needs and potential applications, available technolo-
gies and products of SMEs, and the expertise and capabilities to facilitate linkages. They
can also help in linking to financial and other commercialization resources and engaging
with regulatory bodies.
2.2 Types of commercialization networks
As the above discussion illustrates, diverse actors such as incumbent firms and brokers can
collaborate with SMEs in commercializing emerging technologies. In turn, there may be
varied ways that SMEs can collaborate in commercialization with these actors. However,
there have been few attempts to formally categorize and investigate the varied types of net-
works involving SMEs formed for the purposes of commercialization, to probe the mechan-
ics of relationships among the actors within these networks, to examine actors’ roles and
13
6 F. Salehi et al.
agency in creating networks, or to consider the influence of different network choices on the
success or failure of SME commercialization. We propose—as a starting framework—the
possibility of four types of SME networks for commercialization in emerging technologies,
differentiated by the prime mover and major commercialization pathways.
The first possibility is an incumbent-led network, where an active incumbent initiates a
relationship with an SME. The second possibility is an SME-led network where the SME
has a distinctive technology, is the prime mover, and proactively attracts large incumbents
to develop relationships with the SME. The thirds possibility is a peer-SME network where
the focal SME partners with other SMEs to facilitate access to complementary resources
and capabilities for commercialization. The fourth possibility is a broker-led network where
the prime mover is an intermediary (such as an institution or organization for technology
transfer) that matches an SME’s technology with incumbent demands.
We suggest that categorizing different types of networks based on the prime mover (as
discussed in further detail below) facilitates the exploration of network dynamics and out-
comes including how networks start, operate, and create value. While commercialization
is never guaranteed (bearing in mind the risks and uncertainties associated with emerging
technologies), we anticipate that these varied network types have a differential influence on
outcomes. We also recognize that an additional aspect to be considered in this framework is
the SME’s value chain position.
From an industry-level perspective, an SME’s value chain position is based on the roles it
performs—and the value it adds—in the series of inter-firm processes and activities through
which raw materials are transformed into marketable products of value to users and con-
sumers (Zamora, 2016). To make this tangible, we consider nanotechnology as an exemplar
emerging technology domain, where new SMEs have emerged (Rafols et al., 2011, Pandza
et al., 2011, Islam and Ozcan, 2017). Nanotechnology can be viewed as a value chain rang-
ing from nanomaterials to nano-intermediates to nano-enabled products, and all supported
by nano-tools (Lux Research, 2014). Nanomaterials are nanoscale structures in unprocessed
form, e.g., graphene, which constitute the upstream part of the value chain. Nano-interme-
diates include intermediate products with nanoscale features such as nano-composites and
coatings. The downstream includes nano-enabled products, i.e., finished goods incorporat-
ing nanotechnology such as pharmaceuticals, vehicle tires, or specialized clothing. Nano-
tools are equipment used to visualize, manipulate, and model matter at the nanoscale, e.g.,
scanning tunnelling microscopes, that are needed at all stages of the value chain.
It should be noted that our proposed network typology elucidates idealized network types
and, based on the literature, we tried to articulate boundary rules for each network type.
However, in practice boundaries may overlap, so network types are not necessarily mutu-
ally exclusive. SMEs might be involved in more than one network type simultaneously or
might be changing networks over time. As we focus on networks formed for the purpose of
commercialization, a change in the network is possible once commercialization happens.
Therefore, overlaps in network boundaries might occur in practice. Nonetheless, we focus
on these four architypes as our initial proposed network typology in this study. Also, in
theory, it might be possible for SMEs to commercialize without a network, but, in practice,
successful technology commercialization often requires network engagement and it would
be very challenging for SMEs to succeed without a network.
In the following sections, the four potential types of SME networks for commercializa-
tion are further elaborated. We propose that by overlaying these potential types of com-
13
mercialization networks onto an SME’s value chain position, additional insights regarding
which networks are more conducive to commercialization can be gleaned.
2.2.1 Incumbent-led networks
In incumbent-led networks, the incumbent firm initiates the relationship with a clear
demand and the SME tries to fulfil the demand by developing the required technology.
Such incumbents have high absorptive capacity and endogenous knowledge about the
emerging technology. The major commercialization pathways in this type of networks are
direct with strong activity links and resource ties between incumbents and SME; addition-
ally, the resources and activities of the SME and the incumbent firms are complementary.
The incumbent firm has downstream assets for manufacturing, sales, and marketing of the
product. Aligned with these resources, the SME can offer nano-intermediate products that
match the incumbent’s existing technology trajectories well and can help the incumbent
enhance the performance of their existing products. The relationships between incumbents
and SME in this network type are similar to the traditional original equipment manufac-
turing (OEM) subcontracting relationships in which a complete and finished product is
produced in accordance with the specifications of the buyer (Lin, 2004; Lee et al., 2015).
According to Youtie et al. (2010), large companies have the highest impact on commercial-
ization of nano-intermediate products compared to nanotechnology applications in other
parts of the value chain. Hence, we propose that incumbent-led networks are more condu-
cive to commercialization of nano-intermediate products, i.e., for SMEs positioned in the
midstream part of the value chain.
2.2.2 SME-led networks
Unlike the incumbent-led network that is triggered by the demand side, the SME-led net-
work can be initiated and formed by the supply side offering a unique technology that cre-
ates market pull. SME-led networks are characterized by a proactive SME with a distinctive
technology and high transformative capacity, that uses direct and strong activity links and
resource ties with large incumbent firms as the main route for commercialization. We pro-
pose that SME-led networks are likely to be the riskiest type, but if successfully formed
could be used for commercialization at all stages of the nanotechnology value chain.
2.2.3 Peer-SME networks
Proactive SMEs with a distinctive technology may choose to partner with other SMEs with
complementary capabilities to form commercialization networks in which no large incum-
bents are involved. Peer SMEs can play different roles within the network, e.g., supplier of
materials or components in the upstream, developer of complementary technologies in the
midstream, or provider of required resources and capabilities for product launch, market-
ing, sales, and distribution in downstream. Hence, Peer-SME networks have the potential to
facilitate commercialization for the focal SME by providing complementary capabilities in
various parts of the value chain.
There are several reasons why SMEs choose to collaborate with other SMEs instead of
large incumbents. Peer SMEs could be easier to approach and engage with and are usually
13
8 F. Salehi et al.
known to be more agile and flexible. Therefore, they could be quicker in the decision-
making and development processes. Moreover, considering the power dynamics in partner-
ships with larger firms, peer SMEs usually are not able to exert excessive pressures on their
partners, while the power balance with SME partners is more equal.
2.2.4 Broker-led networks
A broker-led network includes knowledge brokers (intermediaries) as key actors that greatly
influence the formation of relationships between firms and the commercialization process
in the network. In this type of network, the intermediary tries to match an SME’s technol-
ogy with incumbent demands. Incumbents and SMEs in this setting have low absorptive
and transformative capacities respectively, however actors are supported by a third party
(broker). Indirect and weak activity links and resource ties between incumbents and SME
become the main commercialization route. It can be argued that broker-led networks are cru-
cial for SMEs that are positioned upstream. In addressing uncertainty, the need for comple-
mentary innovations and the trialability of their innovation, Maine et al. (2013) found that
the upstream nanomaterials ventures with the highest value creation were those targeting
distinct markets, each requiring customization. Broker-led networks can play a significant
role in commercialization of nanomaterials by reducing these uncertainties for upstream
SMEs and support them in enhancing their transformative capacities.
This discussion highlights the importance not only of open and collaborative arrange-
ments for SMEs in emerging technology domains but also of strategic positioning within
networks for commercialization. It should be noted that SMEs might select a single network
type for commercialization or choose to be part of different networks simultaneously. Fur-
thermore, SMEs’ networks may change over time, e.g., one type of network might lead to
Table 1 Proposed network typology

Network Prime Actors and their roles Levels of absorptive and trans- SME position
types mover formative capacities in value chain
Incum- Incum- • Incumbent firm initiates the • Incumbent with high absorp- Midstream
bent-led bent relationship with a clear demand
tive capacity and endogenous
network firm • SME tries to fulfil the demand
knowledge about the emerging
by developing the required tech-
technology
nology (SME: active observer) • Productive coexistence of
SME and incumbent firms
SME-led SME • SME has a distinctive technol- • SME with high transformative Up, mid and
network ogy which creates market pull capacity and incumbent with downstream
• Incumbents actively seek high absorptive capacity
SME’s technology (Incumbent: • Productive coexistence of
active observer) SME and incumbent firms
Peer-SME SME • SME has distinctive technology • Productive coexistence Up, mid and
network • Peer SMEs bring complementa- of peer SMEs with high downstream
ry capabilities (Peer SME: active transformative and absorptive
observer) capacities
Broker-led Broker • Broker matches SME technol- • Lower absorptive and trans- Upstream
network ogy with incumbent demands formative capacities of SME
• SME and Incumbent: active and incumbents
observers • Actors are supported by a
third party (broker)
13
creation of new network types or networks may collapse. We anticipate that SME choices
about which different types of networks to participate in or form, according to their capa-
bilities, agency, and position in the value chain, will have a bearing on commercialization
outcomes (See Table 1).
The research methodology, research design, empirical case focus, data sources, and find-
ings are considered in the following sections.
3 Methodology
3.1 Research context
For an emerging technology research context, we focus on nanotechnology—a cross-

cutting domain that involves the design and engineering of materials and devices at the
nanoscale (1–100 nanometres), enabling new processes and products with novel function-
alities (Ramsden, 2018). With pervasive applications in consumer products, defence, elec-
tronics, energy, medicine, and many other sectors (Pandza et al., 2011), nanotechnology is
an emerging general-purpose technology with the potential to trigger a range of technical
improvements and innovation complementarities (Youtie et al., 2008; Coccia et al., 2012;
Schrempf and Ahrweiler, 2014). Nanotechnology has seen fast growth globally in public
and private investment since the 2000s (Lux Research, 2014; Suominen et al., 2016).
Nanotechnology development involves a strong research base requiring highly developed
skills, knowledge, and infrastructure, as with other ‘deep technologies’, such as synthetic
biology, bio manufacturing, advanced materials, and robotics. Usually, large investments
are needed, and it can require considerable development time before being brought to mar-
ket (Nanda, 2020). Offering ground-breaking products based on deep technologies neces-
sitates working through challenges in procurement, manufacturing, and achieving scale (De
La Tour, 2019). Moreover, focusing on nascent markets for novel products requires the
ability to anticipate and understand customer needs that do not yet exist or are not clearly
defined, and a detailed strategy that addresses the challenges of commercialization. These
characteristics make deep technology or ‘tough technology’ ventures, including nanotech-
nology, an idiosyncratic case compared to the software and service sectors where much
lower initial capital is needed for new ventures. The latter are typically based on proven
technologies, often with short development times and are able to benefit from rapid market
feedback (Lerner and Nanda, 2020).
Extant studies have highlighted the importance of collaborative efforts in nanotechnol-
ogy development. Avenel et al. (2007) emphasize firms’ access to research clusters and
production facilities as a key asset, while Robinson et al., (2007) and Gomez Uranga et al.,
(2011) highlight positioning in geographic clusters of diverse scientific and technological
specialities. Exploring nanotechnology research projects and partner roles within collab-
orative projects, Pandza et al., (2011) observe large firms focusing strongly on application
networks, but patterns for SME engagement in networks are less clear. We take up the
opportunity to explore the burgeoning nanotechnology domain to further probe commer-
cialization strategies for an emerging technology in a network setting, especially from the
viewpoint of SMEs. Our study approach is detailed below.
13
10 F. Salehi et al.
3.2 Research design
An exploratory multiple case study approach (Yin, 2014) is adopted to enable in-depth
examination of different types of networks of SMEs and to draw insights about varied com-
mercialization strategies. The ‘case’ is conceptualized as the network(s) formed around a
focal nanotechnology SME for the purpose of commercialization; i.e., the commercializa-
tion network is our unit of analysis. A multiple case approach offers a means for understand-
ing the complexities underlying the choice of network type and facilitates comparisons of
different network configurations to assess premises of prior literature (Stake, 1995; Bryman
and Bell, 2015). Additionally, the use of multiple cases not only provides variation (Eisen-
hardt, 1989; 1991) to investigate the different network types in the study framework, but
also allows the discovery of new forms of networks not posited by the initial framework.
In theory-building cases, while one case is enough to illustrate the phenomenon at hand,
using a replication logic bolsters the findings and the ability to develop theory (Eisenhardt
and Graebner, 2007). Such a strategy involves finding additional cases that exhibit the same
phenomena and strengthening the theory building potential of the research. This is not a
quasi-experimental approach, rather one where we use a theoretical sampling logic to justify
the cases included (Barratt et al., 2011).
To operationalize our approach, we compiled a list of nanotechnology firms from the UK
Nanotechnology Directory (NanoKTN, 2014), industry reports, patent records and special-
ized websites (e.g., graphenetracker.com). Websites and profiles of these firms on the Fame
(2014) database of UK companies were examined to select privately held companies with
under 250 employees, resulting in a population of 139 UK nanotechnology SMEs. Con-
tacts were made with firms to identify their interest in participating in the study. Interview
requests were emailed to senior managers (mainly CEOs) of these nanotechnology SMEs.
Follow-up phone calls encouraged interview participation and arranged appointments.
Additional contacts were initiated at commercial events, exhibitions, and workshops where
senior managers of nanotechnology SMEs were participating. This enhanced rapport with
managers and access to other key informants in industry and policy. Overall, over 70 con-
tacts were made with firms, resulting in 24 firms who agreed to participate in the research,
with the rest saying no or providing no response.
In total, 40 interviews were conducted (between September 2013 and April 2014) as pri-
mary source of data for this study, including 26 interviews with senior managers at 23 of the
UK nanotechnology SMEs who had agreed to participate (Appendix S1) and 14 interviews
with key informants in the UK nanotechnology field (Appendix S2). Additionally, copious
documentary evidence was compiled from company websites, reports, and archives, along
with information from the Fame company database (see also next section). We recognized
the potential endogeneity issues that might be associated with our qualitative multiple case
approach and how they might be addressed (Bennett and Elman, 2006). To avoid, as far as
is possible, issues related to unobserved factors and simultaneity, we carefully tracked the
unfolding of events and the development of network relationships over time, probed causes
and effects, and verified and triangulated the data drawing on the intensive interviews and
the extensive evidence from secondary sources.
Although 23 SMEs participated in interviews, this paper focuses on 20 SMEs involved
directly in nanotechnology materials and product development. The three SMEs not included
were involved in consulting and service activities. The 20 SMEs taken forward comprised
13
firms active in nanotechnology development and commercialization from all parts of the
value chain (Lux Research, 2014; Fig. 1).
3.3 Data collection and analysis
Semi-structured interviews with SME managers were used to elucidate links with other
actors established for commercialization purposes. As stated in the interview protocol
(Appendix S3), we enquired about the network partners, their role, nature of relationships,
and the value that the network brings for the focal SME. The semi-structured interviews
provided openings for pursuing details and further inquiries based on respondents’ answers
(Yin, 2014). We interviewed founders or senior managers in SMEs that were directly
responsible for leading the company, devising commercialization and partnership strate-
gies, and managing firm activities. At least one interview was conducted with each SME’s
senior management (Appendix S1). Interviews were 1.5 to 2 hours long. Interviews were
recorded and transcribed, with interviewees offered the opportunity to review transcripts.
Only one of the interviewees took up the opportunity to review the transcript and made no
changes. Interview data triangulated with secondary data enabled the building of a robust
profile for each case.
Interviews with key UK nanotechnology informants generated insights about the broader
context, firms’ networking behaviour and the role of diverse actors. Key informants included
senior managers in large incumbent firms that collaborate with SMEs for the purpose of
commercialization and development of nanotechnology. Interviews with these informants
provided valuable insights from the incumbents’ perspective. Other key informants were
from policymaking and funding organisations, e.g., representatives from venture capital
firms, investors and public agencies responsible for supporting firms in commercialization
Fig. 1 Categorization of nanotechnology SMEs based on value chain position (Source: Authors’ analysis
of value chain position, based on Lux Research (2014) nanotechnology value chain framework. Company
names anonymized)
13
12 F. Salehi et al.
(Appendix S2). These interviews were mostly conducted after the main data collection on
nanotechnology SMEs and complemented insights gained from other evidence sources.
Data gathered from secondary sources included the firm’s history, areas of activity, tech-
nological capabilities, patents, products, number of employees, revenues or total assets,
ownership structure, formal alliances, managerial team, investors, and news events. Sec-
ondary research was conducted prior to interviews and provided familiarity with the case,
thus enabling preparation and the refinement of interview questions.
To identify the value chain position of SMEs, we examined company offerings and types
of customers. The number of stages between the company and their final customers was
considered. If there were two or more stages between the company and their final custom-
ers, the company was designated in an upstream position. If there was only one intermedi-
ary between the company and final customer, a midstream position was designated. If the
company sold directly to end customers, the company was allocated to a downstream part
of the value chain (Maine et al., 2012; Fig. 1). One company (CPH) encompassed two value
chain positions. While value-chain positioning could be determined early in the empirical
research phase, the assignment of network types for companies required further data gather-
ing and subsequent analysis.
A two-stage approach was used to organize and analyze data. In the first stage, a detailed
description of each case was developed. This included a history of each SME and an account
of their surrounding network and its development. The second stage comprised an analyti-
cal investigation of the cases, deploying the conceptual framework. In this stage, thematic
analysis was used for analysis of each individual case and cross-case investigation (Cassell
and Symon, 2004). Thematic analysis is suitable for studies in which theoretically based
group comparisons are conducted in relation to a specific issue (Flick, 2014). Our analysis
involved categorizing cases in groups based on their network types specified in the concep-
tual framework (used as the initial template) and new types that emerged from empirical
data. We also elaborated correspondences and differences between the groups. To system-
atize the data coding, NVivo 10 was used to code and cross-reference the codes that emerged
from the data (Appendix S4). The matching process between empirical evidence and theo-
retical understandings enabled refinement and development of the study framework.
4 Findings
Our conceptual framework initially signalled four types of networks for commercialization.
Following data analysis, in addition to the use of a single network form by an SME, we
added two variations to the framework: a hybrid network form that encompasses those cases
where SMEs changed or added to the types of networks used for commercialization; and an
interrupted network form that includes cases where network relationships are initiated but
become stalled or not sufficiently developed and there is no clear prime mover in further
advancing commercialization linkages. Alongside their value-chain position, our mapping
of the 20 SME cases incorporates the key network types (incumbent-led network; SME-
led network; peer-SME network; and broker-led network) with the network forms (single,
hybrid, and interrupted). (See Table 2.) We discuss our findings for each of these categories
and trace implications for commercialization (see below). In this discussion (as in Fig. 1;
Table 2), company names are anonymized using non-meaningful three-letter codes. The
13
Table 2 Value chain position and network type for SME study cases
Company Value chain position Network form Network type
Up Mid Down Incumbent-led SME-led Peer-SME Broker-led
CPH ✓ ✓ Single ✓
PLQ ✓ Single ✓
KNW ✓ Single ✓
MLV ✓ Single ✓
RSP ✓ Single ✓
EDG ✓ Single ✓
OPV ✓ Single ✓
INS ✓ Single ✓
AGM ✓ ✓ Single ✓
NNC ✓ ✓ Single ✓
BST ✓ Single ✓
SNS ✓ Single ✓
HDL ✓ ✓ Hybrid ✓ ✓
PRP ✓ Hybrid ✓ ✓ ✓
ISQ ✓ Hybrid ✓ ✓
ESC ✓ Hybrid ✓ ✓
QDX ✓ Hybrid ✓ ✓
IOT ✓ Interrupted ✓
CML ✓ Interrupted ✓
PRT ✓ Interrupted ✓
Source: Authors’ analysis of SME cases. Company names anonymized
findings are also summarized in a cross-case analysis (Table 3). In addition, a sample of
diagrams prepared of the network relationships for individual networks is demonstrated in
the appendix (Appendix S6). To visualize the networks and linkages, a landscape overview
of all the cases investigated in this study, including all actors and their relationships, was
undertaken using social network analysis (Appendix S7).
4.1 Network types
4.1.1 SME-led networks
In SME-led networks, SMEs are prime movers in creating the network and linking directly
with incumbent firms as the main route for commercialization. EDG is an exemplar case,
proactively forming this type of network to commercialize their breast cancer diagnosis
instrument and its tracing material. EDG developed a prototype in collaboration with UK
and US universities. Then, EDG partnered with a large medical design and manufactur-
ing firm, developing a commercial device, supported by public and private investors. The
incumbent provided development and large-scale manufacturing capabilities, along with
quality and regulatory accreditation. EDG later developed its tracing material through part-
nerships with two other large firms, one as an exclusive nanoparticle supplier and the other
to formulate and package the material. EDG then partnered with the European arm of a
multi-national diagnostics company for marketing and distribution. Here, a major aspect
13
14 F. Salehi et al.
is product complementarity: EDG’s device can detect lymph nodes while their distribution
partner commercializes a product for analysing lymph nodes.
We’ve had very quick growth because of this partnership. We’ve sold in over fourteen
countries in the EU and more than seventy systems in the span of nine months. So it’s
very, very rapid growth that we could have never done that on our own… What was
interesting to us is that they were selling to the same customers that we would sell
to, but also they had built their own sales channels all across Europe … rather than
using a standard distributor that might have 200 products in their catalogue, this is
a distributor that has only one other product and it’s complementary. (EDG CEO)
EDG further expanded their network by building partnerships with other large firms for
marketing and distribution of their device in other parts of the world.
Six other SMEs followed similar patterns by forming SME-led networks, successfully
commercializing upstream and midstream products. Examples include the commercial-
ization of ‘cadmium-free quantum dots’ and ‘graphene nanoplatelets’ in upstream; and
‘perovskite solar cells printed directly onto glass’ and ‘graphene-based specialty intermedi-
ate chemical products’ in midstream. A common thread is that these SMEs offered a technol-
ogy or product with distinctive merits that prevailed over partner and customer uncertainty
concerns. Additionally, these SMEs strategically pursued proactive partnerships for com-
mercialization with clear partner selection criteria, were demand-oriented in collaborations,
demonstrated flexibility and agility, possessed strong internal teams with technological
capabilities and business expertise, and were skilled in communicating, motivating, and
engaging with other network actors.
In SME-led networks, an incumbent firm may supply materials and collaborate in manu-
facturing, marketing, and distribution. However, the most common incumbent role was as
a development partner.
Our contribution was the development of the materials and the contribution from the
partner was an understanding from them as to, the architecture of how the materials
would be used in real products, and therefore what the technical specification require-
ments needed to be … and obviously feedback from them, testing our materials for us
to understand better how they performed in an application environment as opposed to
a test tube in the lab. (NNC COO)
SMEs drew on resources provided by incumbents that included finance, complementary

technological expertise, test and verification capabilities, production facilities, qualification
systems, credibility, and reputation, and established global distribution channels. SMEs in
these networks benefited from collaborating with large incumbents and experienced rela-
tively higher growth compared to SMEs in other categories.
4.1.2 Peer-SME networks
In peer-SME networks, SMEs pursue a proactive partnership approach as their commercial-

ization strategy and have clear partner selection criteria, similar to SME-led networks. How-
ever, they partner with other SMEs rather than larger incumbents. Five case study SMEs
13
were engaged in peer-SME networks. Peer SMEs were viewed as being easier to interact
with and quicker in decision-making and development processes. Some SMEs formed peer-
SME networks with the vision that this could lead to acquiring partner firms as a strategy
for growth.
MLV was one of the study SMEs immersed in a peer-SME network, partnering with a
management and marketing company, a joint university venture, and four other technology
and testing companies, with various degrees of interlocking ownerships. The resources and
capabilities provided by this network enabled MLV to commercialize its lab-on-a-chip tech-
nology and point-of-care diagnostic kits. (See Appendix S5.)
All peer-SME networks combined the complementary capabilities of specialized SMEs,
enabling the network to deliver a final product in the downstream part of the value chain.
While the focal SME in these networks coordinated activity links and resource ties, there
were variations in partner role, ranging from strategic suppliers and development partners
to manufacturing, marketing and distribution partners.
4.1.3 Broker-led networks
In broker-led networks, SMEs did not directly form partnerships with incumbents or other
SMEs but sought linkages through a broker organization. Eight of the SMEs in our study
engaged in broker-led networks, although five of these SMEs had at other points engaged in
other types of networks. Broker-led networks were observed to facilitate commercialization
of technologies or products developed in the upstream part of the value chain, with both
SMEs and brokers serving as prime movers in creating these networks. While two SMEs
used private-sector brokers, the majority collaborated with universities, engineering centres,
funding agencies, and government initiatives that offered technological expertise and did
not require direct payment for brokerage services.
Broker-led networks were seen to be particularly useful when an SME sought to enter a
new market (including overseas), find national or international partners, or start a new field
of activity. Research and engineering centres played important brokerage roles between
SMEs and large incumbents by supporting them in testing, validation, and prototyping.
Universities with a strong reputation in a specific technological field contributed to commer-
cialization by brokering and endorsing relationships between SMEs and potential incum-
bent partners. For example, BST’s entry into the graphene market was facilitated through
their collaboration with a national technological institute at a leading British university that
linked them to large and midsize established firms. Another example was SNS’s entry into
a new field. SNS had manufactured nanotechnology equipment; in a strategic change, they
shifted to producing a specific nanomaterial. Potential customers of SNS’s new nanoma-
terial were large semiconductor firms that SNS found difficult to approach directly. For
introductions to potential customers, SNS networked with research centres (including one
outside the UK) known through previous sales of equipment sales. These research centres
helped SNS in technology demonstration for large firms and provided technical support.
4.1.4 Incumbent-led networks
In incumbent-led networks, the prime mover was an incumbent firm with endogenous
knowledge about the emerging technology and formative visions about applications. Five
13
16 F. Salehi et al.
SMEs in our study engaged in incumbent-led networks, either as upstream or midstream

suppliers in the value chain. However, such networks—with reactive SMEs—typically did
not lead to strategic commercialization partnerships for the focal SMEs. Confirmation that
a reactive approach towards networking was less conducive to commercialization raised the
question of why some SMEs engaged in incumbent-led networks. Factors observed among
these SMEs included absence of business development expertise, lack of transformative
capacity, unclear marketing strategy, and operating several business lines with lower prior-
ity given to the emerging technology line.
There was one exception, however. A large pharmaceutical firm approached CPH,
through their scientific publications, and initiated a partnership for using CPH’s drug deliv-
ery innovation:
What we bring is this novel delivery system… it’s a manufacturing method, a way of
formulating that drug to create long-acting products or nasal products. We bring a
lot of expertise about formulation. The key thing they [the incumbent firm] bring is
the drug, the active ingredient of interest. They also have a lot of knowledge about
that specific drug; how to analyse it, how it’s performed in various different studies,
etc. Also marketing and distribution of the drug would be by the partner. (CPH CEO)
Even in this one case, CPH later changed its strategy into in-house development of a novel
drug incorporating its drug delivery innovation, due to the high uncertainties involved in
pursuing a reactive approach that was subordinate to the incumbent.
4.2 Network forms
4.2.1 Single networks
Most of the SMEs studied in this research pursue one selected commercialization strategy
and solely focus on forming or participating in a single specific network type. For example,
EDG, OPV, INS, AGM, and NNC have only focused on creating or participating in SME-
led networks. We distinguish between single versus hybrid network forms to better clarify
SME choices in forming or joining commercialization networks.
4.2.2 Hybrid networks
Some SMEs engage in a single type of network for commercialization, whereas other SMEs
are involved in more than one network type. SMEs that use a combination of two or more
of the network types explained above are described as having a hybrid network. As the
concurrent existence of multiple networks implies, hybrid networks might have multiple
influential actors as prime movers. Hybrid networks are usually used when SMEs pursue
multiple strategies for commercialization and use different types of networks for different
purposes, e.g., HDL used an SME-led network for joint product development and a broker-
led network for international expansion. Another interesting observation is that SMEs with
hybrid networks also all engage in broker-led networks; in some cases, the broker-led net-
work has caused formation of other network types, e.g., SME-led or peer-SME networks.
For example, ESC started its product development through a European Union (EU) project
13
Table 3 Summary of key network characteristics and outcomes

Network type/ Main com- Partner(s) role(s) Commercialization Reasons for outcomes
form mercialization outcomes for SME
pathways
Incumbent-led Direct link Incumbent firm: Less conducive to • Reactive approach
between development commercialization towards collaboration
incumbent partner because of:
firm and SME; • Dedicating their main
Short-term col- focus on in-house devel-
laborations for opment of products
product/service • The nature of products
development and services offered
• Lower priority of offer-
ing a process technology
compared to offering
products
• Lack of business
expertise
SME-led Direct links Incumbent firm: Successful com- • Proactive approach
between SME development, mercialization: towards collaboration
and incumbent manufacturing, faster sales growth, • Clear targeting of
firms marketing and dis- increased production potential partners
tribution partner; capacity, applica- • Demand-oriented
provides financial tion area expansion, approach
resources, comple- easier access to • High level of comple-
mentary techno- finance, increased mentarity across a range
logical expertise, patent portfolio of resources
industrial scale • Strong technical and
production facili- business management
ties, qualification team
systems; global • Flexibility to market
presence, reputa- conditions, agility in
tion, and influence responding to changes,
on standard setting and good opportunity
recognition
Peer-SME Direct link with Partner SMEs pro- Conducive to com- • Clear partner selection
other SMEs vide complemen- mercialization with criteria
tary technological end consumers (B- • Complementarity of
capabilities, joint to-C context) technological capabilities
manufacturing,
sales and market-
ing services
Broker-led Indirect link Intermediary Conducive to com- • SMEs’ proactive role in
with incumbent facilitates new mercialization, par- formation of partnerships
firms or other partnerships, has ticularly for entering with intermediaries with
SMEs through presence in tar- new markets (e.g. necessary technologi-
an intermediary geted geographical new field of activity cal expertise and low
(for-profit or regions, enables or new country) financial costs
not-for-profit faster integration • Intermediaries enabled
organizations) of products into matching of complemen-
end user applica- tary technological and
tions by providing market resources and
complementary capabilities
technological
capabilities, scale-
up facilities, and
partial financial
support
13
18 F. Salehi et al.
Table 3 (continued)
Network type/ Main com- Partner(s) role(s) Commercialization Reasons for outcomes
form mercialization outcomes for SME
pathways
Hybrid SME simultane- Combination Conducive to com- • Ability to proactively
ously involved of partner roles mercialization— establish and manage
in more than one for other single different types of various forms of net-
network type network types networks used for works simultaneously
different commer-
cialization purposes
Interrupted Links are Partner roles Not conducive to • Lack of interest and
bottlenecked or not effective or commercialization engagement in joint
broken enabled development from the
incumbent firm
• No clear partner selec-
tion criteria
• Failure in customization
of process innovations
for different client firms
• Insufficient technologi-
cal capability
• Lack of financial
support
Source: Authors’ analysis of SME cases
and formed broker-led networks. Through this network they established direct links with
other SMEs in the UK and EU, which later became long-term strategic partnerships for
joint development and manufacturing, and consequently formed the company’s peer-SME
network. These findings suggest that brokers play a prominent role in stimulating hybrid
networks. No specific pattern regarding the position of the SMEs in the value chain was
found in hybrid networks. SMEs in all parts of the value chain used hybrid networks.
4.2.3 Interrupted networks
Interrupted networks comprise networks that started but which did not progress in advanc-
ing commercialization linkages. In interrupted networks, either no consistent prime mover
appears, or the prime mover is not successful in managing the network. Hence, relationships
in the network break or become bottlenecked. As might be expected, interrupted networks
pose a challenge for commercialization, with divides between supply and demand. The
three SMEs in interrupted networks were in the midstream part of the value chain, produc-
ing nano-intermediate products. Each had sought collaboration with incumbent firms as
their commercialization route. IOT tried, but lacked major success, in working with large
pharmaceutical firms to offer a novel formulation to enhance solubility of ingredients in
incumbents’ products. PRT had a less proactive approach but was interested in collabora-
tion with large firms; it was able to licence to two large firms and two midsize companies,
albeit after about 16 years of effort. CML attempted to supply coatings to a large incumbent
firm, after an EU project introduction; however, there were technical and price/performance
issues, so CML halted commercial activities and consolidated back to research-oriented fur-
ther technological development. Overall, our cases revealed that the reasons behind inter-
ruption in networks and failures in commercialization included: difficulties in scaling and
marketing a process innovation, lack of incumbent firm engagement and supportive funding
13
partners, insufficient SME technological capability, absence of clear partner selection crite-
ria, and a passive partnership approach.
4.3 Within- and across-network type and form comparisons
In addition to the cross-case analysis within each category of network, we compared and
contrasted cases between different types of networks. In this section, we elaborate common
themes of SMEs’ commercialization strategies as well as success factors and unique fea-
tures of each network type. A summary of the comparisons between all network types and
forms is presented in Table 3.
The commercialization strategy of all five SMEs with SME-led networks was focused
solely on the application areas that the SME could secure a large incumbent partner to
work with, on the basis of a joint development agreement (JDA), driven by performance
milestones. NNC worked with large Japanese electronics companies, OPV worked with
multi-national glass manufacturers in Europe, INS worked with Philips, a European display
manufacturer and a Taiwanese mobile manufacturer, AGM worked with Dyson, P&G and
two European leaders in paints and coatings, and EDG with medical device manufacturers
and distributers. Each firm with a SME-led network had close ties with at least three large
incumbents in their commercialization network which provided application input, large
scale production facilities, quality accreditation, established sales channels, credibility and
reputation, plus the ability to influence standards. The main success factor for all SMEs with
SME-led networks was the strong links that matched up- or mid-stream resources of SMEs
with mid- or down-stream assets of incumbents. Working with incumbents was not with-
out challenge for these SMEs. Excessive pressure on financial terms, intellectual property
issues, slow decision-making processes in large firms, risks of dependence and losing con-
trol, and obstacles in information flow were common challenges that SMEs in this category
successfully overcame.
Comparing the nanotechnology innovations of the studied firms, based on the level of
differentiation of enabled product attributes and/or the decrease in manufacturing costs,
showed that all firms with SME-led networks offer highly differentiated nanotechnology
innovations, i.e., products/processes that drastically improve performance, production cost
or both. SMEs with other network types mostly offer nanotechnology innovations with
moderate or low levels of differentiation (i.e., products that enable significant improvement
in known attributes or cost reduction).
SMEs with SME-led networks have experienced relatively higher growth compared to
SMEs with other network types. Company growth in these firms is revealed in terms of
increases in the number of employees, total assets and production capacity, faster sales
growth, market expansion, product enhancements, expansion of application areas, access
to finance (EDG and OPV raised other rounds of venture capital funds; AGM, NNC, and
HDL floated on the AIM stock exchange), and gaining reputation. All firms in this category
managed to increase their patent portfolio which shows they continued to innovate in their
respective areas.
Besides the common advantages that SME-led networks brought for SMEs in this cat-
egory, each firm had a unique outcome from the network. EDG’s network completely cov-
ered all the value chain activities from upstream to design and production, packaging and
then marketing and distribution, and, consequently, caused faster growth. For OPV, the
13
20 F. Salehi et al.
SME-led network enabled having impact on standard bodies, raised product awareness and
technology familiarity for potential partners and customers even before full commercializa-
tion of the technology. In the case of INS, the network enabled transition of the company,
from a small R&D service firm to a medium-size manufacturing unit supplying incumbents.
For NNC, the network was the key success factor in becoming a unique born-global with a
high growth rate.
The characteristics of firms with SME-led networks are very similar to the firms with
peer-SME networks. SMEs in both categories have a proactive approach toward partner-
ship, high transformative capacity and distinctive technological capabilities. SMEs in both
categories have similarities and differences in partner selection criteria. Common partner
selection criteria include having aligned goals and targets and complementary technological
capabilities. However, SMEs with peer-SME networks consider local proximity of part-
ner firms too, i.e., peer-SME networks have been largely UK based with a few European
partners. Another difference observed between SME-led and peer-SME networks is the
nature of activity links. In SME-led networks all activity links were formalized usually in
the JDA format, whereas in peer-SME networks both formal and informal collaborations
among SMEs were observed. The informal collaborations were based on an understanding
of complementary technological capabilities of other SMEs, usually as suppliers of product
components or process innovation in the midstream.
When finding partners on a global scale and across industries proves to be difficult for
SMEs, assistance can be realized through the support services of broker organizations. Seven
SMEs used broker-led networks to expand their activities internationally. We observed that
access to new markets, faster market penetration, presence in targeted geographical regions,
and forming new international partnerships were prominent outcomes of collaboration with
brokers for these SMEs.
5 Discussion and conclusion
This study aims to contribute to a contextualized and nuanced understanding of the net-
working approaches that SMEs use to commercialize emerging technologies. We identified
four types of networks that are used for commercialization and found that these network
types might exist in three forms. We explored and uncovered how different types of net-
works influenced commercialization and identified why certain network types were chosen
and with what outcomes. We found that commercialization outcomes vary by SME network
type and value chain positioning. SME-led networks enabled the successful commercializa-
tion of upstream and midstream products. Peer-SME networks were used for downstream
commercialization. All peer-SME networks were formed based on complementary capa-
bilities of specialized SMEs so that the network can deliver a final product. Broker-led
networks facilitated commercialization in the upstream part of the value chain and were
particularly useful for internationalization, entering a new market or starting a new field of
activity. Hybrid networks were used where SMEs pursue multiple commercialization strate-
gies. Reactive approaches to networking and interrupted networks, regardless of value chain
position, were (as might be expected) unfavourable for commercialization.
Actors with which an SME partners are largely determined by its existing resources
and the capabilities required to develop and commercialize new products or services
13
(Vanhaverbeke, 2017). Proactive SMEs that form SME-led networks, rely heavily on
large incumbent partners with high absorptive capacity as development partners. Joint
value creation in these networks occurs as a result of combining incumbents’ endogenous
knowledge about the emerging technology and SME’s distinctive technological exper-
tise and high transformative capacity. The benefits for an SME from SME-led networks
are multiple. We identified support in application input, ability to test, access to quality
management systems, established marketing and sales channels, association and branding
recognition as the most important ones. Collaborations with SMEs are attractive for incum-
bents to remain competitive and guarantee their survival in the long term by capitalizing
on innovation. In SME-led networks, the emerging technology is competency-enhancing
for incumbents, i.e., SMEs offer highly differentiated new technologies/products either in
upstream or midstream parts of the value chain that match incumbents’ existing technol-
ogy trajectories.
For SMEs, taking a dynamic lead in applying technologies to a particular product mar-
ket is a profitable strategy (Vanhaverbeke, 2017; Grama-Vigouroux, et al., 2020). Studying
the value creation logic of peer-SME networks shows that this strategy is not necessarily
pursued in collaboration with incumbents; it can also be realized in collaborating with other
SMEs that have complementary technological capabilities. Offering differentiated products
that combine the expertise of several partners in peer-SME networks was the main value
driver in these networks. Most SMEs with peer-SME networks designed the network in a
way that they cover all parts of the value chain from raw materials and components to the
final product/service for the end-users.
In the absence of partners with high levels of absorptive and transformative capacities,
working effectively with brokers facilitates network formation and commercialization.
Although the literature on innovation brokers/intermediaries is substantial, there is very
limited research about brokers whose clients are mainly SMEs (Iturrioz, et al., 2015; Fuku-
gawa, 2018). Our study of broker-led networks revealed that some SMEs approach private
innovation brokers to support expansion of their markets in new countries. However, most
SMEs’ limitations in financial resources pushed for working with applied research and engi-
neering centres that can support SMEs in further technology development and demonstra-
tion to potential partners and customers, with no or low charge. This strategy was attractive
particularly for SMEs in the upstream part of the value chain that offered technologies/
products with potential applications in multiple markets and there was a need for customers
to undertake further process innovations. Applied research and engineering centres added
value to the network by supporting customers (usually large incumbents) in developing
the required process innovations. We also found that SMEs use participation in regional
or national-funded projects (such as EU FP7) as an important platform for finding suitable
commercialization partners.
Networks for commercialization are typically anticipated as long-term, but that does
not mean they are unchanging or lasting forever. First, the network itself can be a major
change driver for the organizations that are part of it (Vanhaverbeke, 2017). For example,
in our study, an SME-led network enabled growth and transformation of the SME from a
small knowledge-based firm to a medium-size manufacturing company. In some networks,
relationships among organizations are complementary and will strengthen over time. In
other networks, relationships can become competitive over time. The development of new
capabilities and the resulting dynamics in the dependency between the partners can lead to
13
22 F. Salehi et al.
changes in the network. Our research showed cases where the broker-led network caused
formation of other network types, e.g., incumbent-led or peer-SME networks.
Finally, networks can collapse. The case study SMEs with interrupted networks were all
situated in the midstream part of the value chain and struggled to stay embedded in partner-
ships with downstream incumbent firms or work efficiently with other SMEs and brokers.
In most cases, drastic changes in the network partners (e.g., change in investment) and
bottlenecked resource and activity links resulted in the network starting to crumble and the
commercialization attempt failing.
Our findings highlight the importance of commercialization through networks for SMEs
that pioneer deep emerging technologies such as nanotechnology. We observed that there
were no SMEs without a network. This is mainly due to the characteristics of deep technolo-
gies, such as having substantial R&D and manufacturing value chains. Collaboration with
other actors as sources of commercialization is vital for SMEs in this domain.
We now consider the theoretical and managerial implications of our findings and discuss
limitations and future research directions.
5.1 Theoretical implications
Building on the role of diverse actors in networks for commercialization (Aarikka-Stenroos

et al., 2014), the variety of network types and forms revealed in this study contributes to the
literature on inter-organizational networks for commercialization. Distinguishing different
categories of networks, based on a combination of network structure and actors’ agency,
offers new opportunities to explore network formation, strategy, and value creation. As the
literature suggests (e.g., Chiesa and Frattini, 2011; Aarikka-Stenroos et al., 2014), commer-
cialization is considered as the least well managed phase of the entire innovation process
and is particularly complex, highly risky, costly, and prone to failures in the context of
emerging technologies. A contextualized and refined understanding of various types and
forms of networks and their possible outcomes aids comprehension of how SMEs orches-
trate their interactive activities with potential buyers and mobilize other relevant players to
build the value of their new technology. Our findings emphasize the relevance of business
and non-business actors for the construction of networks for commercialization. Addition-
ally, the research augments our understanding of differential managerial approaches to SME
networks.
This study expands on the findings of Xia and Roper (2016), Spithoven et al. (2013), and
van Hemert et al. (2013) who highlighted the importance of outbound OI for SMEs and the
necessity of collaboration for finding external paths to commercialization. Our study eluci-
dates the various pathways through which open and collaborative strategies can be initiated,
how implementation of these strategies can lead to the formation of different network types
and how different network types impact commercialization processes. The research also
provides a complementary view to the existing literature on inbound OI practices of SMEs
(Gama et al., 2019), showing how SMEs make use of different kinds of networks when
engaging in OI for commercializing emerging technologies.
While other extant literature highlights large incumbents (Pandza and Holt, 2007) or
intermediaries (Lee et al., 2010, Mele and Russo-Spena, 2015) as drivers of outbound OI
and commercialization, and we do find cases of SMEs that are reactive to large incumbents,
we also find that SMEs can be effective prime movers. We demonstrate the various roles
13
that SMEs can play in networks, from being prime movers in creating the network and pro-
actively selecting other partners for collaboration, to more reactive or passive approaches.
SMEs can proactively create SME-led, peer-SME or broker-led networks to facilitate
commercialization.
The dominant role of large incumbent firms in commercialization networks has been a
debate in the emergence of other technologies e.g., early stages of biotechnology. For exam-
ple, Chiesa and Toletti (2004) propose a typology of networks in the biotechnology industry
in which large multinational pharmaceutical and agri-food corporations are dominant. In
their typology, there is no network in which a large incumbent firm is absent or which only
comprises SMEs. However, we show that peer-SME networks, without large incumbent
firms, are formed and do facilitate nanotechnology commercialization. Moreover, our typol-
ogy offers a broader view, also including broker-led networks.
The study also contributes by exploring the influence of network types and value-chain
position on commercialization outcomes. We find (not unsurprisingly) that a reactive
approach towards networking is less conducive to commercialization. However, other cases
show that SME-led networks are conducive to commercialization of both nanomaterials and
nano-intermediate products (up and midstream). Peer-SME networks are conducive to com-
mercialization of nano-enabled products (downstream). Broker-led networks can facilitate
commercialization of technologies or products developed in the upstream part of the value
chain and are more influential when SMEs decide to enter a new country, a new market or
start a new field of activity.
We also found various network forms. Some SMEs are simultaneously involved in more
than one network type, i.e., have hybrid networks, pursuing multiple strategies for com-
mercialization. All SMEs with hybrid networks have broker-led networks in common and
in some cases the broker-led network has caused formation of other network types. This
research shows that although networking is a pre-condition for commercialization success,
it does not guarantee success. The findings demonstrate how interrupted networks pose the
biggest challenge for commercialization.
The study offers insights for research in the domain of nanotechnology as an emerging
technology with an enabling, general purpose, science-based and interdisciplinary nature.
While much other research focus on the input side of nanotechnology (knowledge and tech-
nology generation by studying publications and patents), this study provides insights on the
output side, i.e., corporate activities, commercialization strategies, accomplishments, and
trajectories, where less investigation has previously been done (Andersen, 2011; Huang et
al., 2011; Li et al., 2015). Furthermore, it provides insights about the role of large and small
firms in the nanotechnology area and highlights various challenges and uncertainties SMEs
face in this domain. The study shows that successful commercialization of nanotechnology
necessitates collaborative efforts of diverse players within a network setting so that different
complementary capabilities can be combined to realize commercial output.
5.2 Managerial implications
Findings from this research can inform SME managers’ strategies and choices related to par-
ticipation in networks for commercialization. Awareness of various networking experiences
of SMEs and different consequences of their networking behaviours can provide practical
lessons for both SMEs and their partners. A first implication is that proactive engagement
13
24 F. Salehi et al.
in network formation and management is not only possible for SMEs but also essential for
successful commercialization. Furthermore, to mobilize and engage other organizations in
commercialization efforts, SMEs need to develop managerial capabilities (beyond their dis-
tinctive technological capabilities). These capabilities include having clear partner selection
criteria, the ability to adjust their offering with customers’ demand, having strong business
development teams, showing flexibility to the market conditions, agility in responding to
changes and the ability to pivot objectives.
Second, when SMEs have difficulties in directly engaging with potential customers or
partners, organizations with technological expertise that offer brokerage services can be
significant in facilitating network formation. Such organizations should not necessarily be
private companies (which might not be affordable for SMEs). Broker organizations can
include universities, research centres, funding agencies, or government initiatives.
As a third implication, the research enumerates some reasons behind interruption in net-
works. One specific suggestion for management from our study of interrupted networks
is that the commercialization of a process innovation, where its function or platform is
dependent on the product of another company, can be challenging, especially if the part-
ner’s product is also a novel application which is not yet commercialized. An SME in this
study overcame this challenge by pivoting from externally marketing a process innovation
to developing own products based on that process innovation, although it is acknowledged
that this shift introduces new challenges (and may require new strategies).
The fourth implication for managers is based on findings from hybrid networks. SMEs
with a clear single network type seem to be more successful in commercialization and have
higher growth rates than SMEs with hybrid networks that have tried various forms of part-
nerships as a result of lack of strategic networking focus or unclear partner selection criteria.
SME managers should make strategic decisions about the types of networks they would like
to form or join according to their commercialization purposes and be cautious about the
number of network types and associated number of ties they can manage at one time.
The research also provides insights for policy makers regarding the networking behav-
iour of SMEs and contributions of various actors in the network to commercialization. In
our UK study, we find that Innovate UK and its Knowledge Transfer Networks play promi-
nent roles in supporting the commercialization activities of nanotechnology SMEs, through
financial support for collaboration and brokerage services. Yet, we did not find evidence of
significant roles from local government agencies, notwithstanding the prominence often
attributed to proximity in business network formation. This suggests an opportunity for
further consideration of the potential (and weaknesses) of localized initiatives such as the
UK’s Local Enterprise Partnerships in collaborations for the commercialization of emerging
technologies. Additionally, from a national policy perspective, the relatively limited pres-
ence of large incumbent firms in UK networks for commercialization in nanotechnology
raises issues about incentives and policies for such firms to collaborate with nanotechnology
(and other emerging technology) SMEs.
5.3 Limitations and future research directions
The empirical investigation in this research is limited to a multiple case set of UK-based
nanotechnology SMEs and is not intended to statistically represent the whole population
of nanotechnology SMEs in the UK or elsewhere. We do not address nanotechnology
13
SMEs who chose not to network (although we did not find such firms in our UK empirical
investigation).
Our exploratory study seeks to contribute to theory-development by offering a frame-
work and findings that provide context and which offer suggestions for further studies
including of other emerging technologies. We highlight the significance of investigating
differential types and forms of networks for commercialization within specific technological
domains, the role and agency of diverse actors in commercialization, and the characteristics
and networking behaviour of successful and failed SMEs.
The focus of this research was predominantly on product-based technological innova-
tions in the nanotechnology domain. The network typology could be tested in the context of
other emerging technologies which are process-based or service innovations to see if new
network types or forms emerge. Additional studies in such domains can build upon, test,
and potentially further refine our framework of SME network types for commercialization.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10961-022-09923-3.
Funding This study was not funded.
Availability of data and material The data that support the findings of this study are available from the cor-
responding author upon request.
Code availability NVivo data coding hierarchy is available in the appendix.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give
appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence,
and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the
article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is
not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Aaboen, L., Dubois, A., & Lind, F. (2013). Strategizing as networking for new ventures. Industrial Marketing
Management, 42, 1033–1041
Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Jaakkola, E., Harrison, D., & Mäkitalo-Keinonen, T. (2017). How to manage inno-
vation processes in extensive networks: A longitudinal study. Industrial Marketing Management, 67,
88–105
Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Lehtimäki, T. (2014). Commercializing a radical innovation: Probing the way to the
market. Industrial Marketing Management, 43, 1372–1384
Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Sandberg, B., & Lehtimäki, T. (2014). Networks for the commercialization of innova-
tions: A review of how divergent network actors contribute. Industrial Marketing Management, 43,
365–381
Agostini, L., & Nosella, A. (2019). Inter-organizational relationships involving SMEs: A bibliographic inves-
tigation into the state of the art. Long Range Planning, 52(1), 1–31
13
26 F. Salehi et al.
Andersen, M. M. (2011). Silent innovation: corporate strategizing in early nanotechnology evolution. Jour-
nal of Technology Transfer, 36, 680–696
Avenel, E., Favier, A. V., Ma, S., Mangematin, V., & Rieu, C. (2007). Diversification and hybridization in
firm knowledge bases in nanotechnologies. Research Policy, 36, 864–870
Batterink, M. H., Wubben, E. F., Klerkx, L., & Omta, S. (2010). Orchestrating innovation networks: The case
of innovation brokers in the agri-food sector. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22, 47–76
Barratt, M., Choi, T. Y., & Li, M. (2011). Qualitative case studies in operations management: Trends, research
outcomes, and future research implications. Journal of Operations Management, 29, 329–342
Bennett, A., & Elman, C. (2006). Qualitative research: Recent developments in case study methods. Annual
Review of Political Science, 9, 455–476
Bigliardi, B., & Galati, F. (2016). Which factors hinder the adoption of open innovation in SMEs? Technology
Analysis & Strategic Management, 28, 869–885
Billington, C., & Davidson, R. (2013). Leveraging open innovation using intermediary networks. Production
and Operations Management, 22, 1464–1477
De La Tour, A., Portincaso, M., Blank, K., Goeldel, N., Aré, L., Tallec, C. … Pedroza, S. (2019). The dawn
of the deep tech ecosystem. Boston Consulting Group & Hello Tomorrow
Brink, T. (2018). Organising of dynamic proximities enables robustness, innovation and growth: The longi-
tudinal case of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in food producing firm networks. Industrial
Marketing Management, 75, 66–79
Brunswicker, S., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2015). Open innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs): External knowledge sourcing strategies and internal organizational facilitators. Journal of
Small Business Management, 53, 1241–1263
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2004). Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. London:
Sage
Cassiman, B., & Valentini, G. (2016). Open innovation: Are inbound and outbound knowledge flows really
complementary? Strategic Management Journal, 37, 1034–1046
Chesbrough, H. (2017). The future of open innovation: The future of open innovation is more extensive, more
collaborative, and more engaged with a wider variety of participants. Research-Technology Manage-
ment, 60, 35–38
Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology.
Harvard Business Press
Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2011). Commercializing technological innovation: Learning from failures in high-
tech markets. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28, 437–454
Chiesa, V., & Toletti, G. (2004). Network of collaborations for innovation: The case of biotechnology. Tech-
nology Analysis & Strategic Management, 16, 73–96
Coccia, M., Finardi, U., & Margon, D. (2012). Current trends in nanotechnology research across worldwide
geo-economic players. Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 777–787
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innova-
tion. Administrative science quarterly, 128–152
Doz, Y. L., Olk, P. M., & Ring, P. S. (2000). Formation processes of R&D consortia: Which path to take?
Where does it lead? Strategic Management Journal, 21, 239–266
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14,
532–550
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: The case for rigor and comparative logic.
Academy of Management Review, 16, 620–627
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges.
Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 24–32
European Commission (2015). SME Definition. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/structural-
business-statistics/structural-business-statistics/sme [Accessed 18/04/2020]
Fame. (2014). Detailed information on UK and Irish companies. Bureau van Dijk. http://fame.bvdep.com
Fernández-Olmos, M., & Ramírez-Alesón, M. (2017). How internal and external factors influence the
dynamics of SME technology collaboration networks over time. Technovation, 64, 16–27
Flick, U. (2014). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage
Fortwengel, J., & Sydow, J. (2020). When many Davids collaborate with one Goliath: How inter-organiza-
tional networks (fail to) manage size differentials. British Journal of Management, 31, 403–420
Freel, M., & Robson, P. J. (2017). Appropriation strategies and open innovation in SMEs. International Small
Business Journal, 35(5), 578–596
Fukugawa, N. (2018). Division of labor between innovation intermediaries for SMEs: Productivity effects of
interfirm organizations in Japan. Journal of Small Business Management, 56, 297–322
13
Gama, F., Frishammar, J., & Parida, V. (2019). Idea generation and open innovation in SMEs: When does
market-based collaboration pay off most? Creativity and Innovation Management, 28(1), 113–123
Gans, J. S., & Stern, S. (2003). The product market and the market for “ideas”: Commercialization strategies
for technology entrepreneurs. Research Policy, 32, 333–350
Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation. R&D Management, 40,
213–221
Genet, C., Errabi, K., & Gauthier, C. (2012). Which model of technology transfer for nanotechnology? A
comparison with biotech and microelectronics. Technovation, 32, 205–215
Gomez Uranga, M., Etxebarria, G., & Barrutia, J. (2011). The dynamics of regional clusters of nanotech-
nologies: Evidences from German Länder and two Spanish autonomous communities. Social Science
Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1742988
Grama-Vigouroux, S., Saidi, S., Berthinier-Poncet, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Madanamoothoo, A. (2020).
From closed to open: A comparative stakeholder approach for developing open innovation activities in
SMEs. Journal of Business Research, 119, 230–244
Hill, C. W. L., & Rothaermel, F. T. (2003). The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical techno-
logical innovation. The Academy of Management Review, 28, 257–274
Hossain, M., & Kauranen, I. (2016). Open innovation in SMEs: A systematic literature review. Journal of
Strategy and Management, 9, 58–73
Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35, 715–728
Huang, C., Notten, A., & Rasters, N. (2011). Nanoscience and technology publications and patents: A review
of social science studies and search strategies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 145–172
Huston, L., & Sakkab, N. (2006). Connect and develop. Harvard Business Review, 84, 58–66
Islam, N., & Ozcan, S. (2017). The management of nanotechnology: analysis of technology linkages and the
regional nanotechnology competencies. R&D Management, 47, 111–126
Iturrioz, C., Aragón, C., & Narvaiza, L. (2015). How to foster shared innovation within SMEs’ networks:
Social capital and the role of intermediaries. European Management Journal, 33(2), 104–115
Jacobsson, S., & Johnson, A. (2000). The diffusion of renewable energy technology: An analytical framework
and key issues for research. Energy Policy, 28, 625–640
Larédo, P., Rieu, C., Villard, L., Kahane, B., Delemarle, A., Genet, C., & Mangematin, V. (2009). Emergence
des nanotechnologies: Vers un nouveau “modèle industriel”? In J. P. Leresche, P. Larédo, & K. Weber
(Eds.), Recherche et enseignement supérieur face à l’internationalisation: France, Suisse et Union
européenne (pp. 347–363). Lausanne: Presses Polytechniques et Universiataires Romandes
Lauritzen, G. D. (2017). The role of innovation intermediaries in firm-innovation community collaboration:
Navigating the membership paradox. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(3), 289–314
Lee, K., Song, J., & Kwak, J. (2015). An exploratory study on the transition from OEM to OBM: case studies
of SMEs in Korea. Industry and Innovation, 22(5), 423–442
Lee, S., Park, G., Yoon, B., & Park, J. (2010). Open innovation in SMEs—An intermediated network model.
Research Policy, 39, 290–300
Lerner, J., & Nanda, R. (2020). Venture capital’s role in financing innovation: What we know and how much
we still need to learn. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 34(3), 237–261
Li, Y., Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2015). Why do technology firms publish scientific papers? The strategic use
of science by small and midsize enterprises in nanotechnology. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40,
1016–1033
Lin, B. W. (2004). Original equipment manufacturers (OEM) manufacturing strategy for network innovation
agility: the case of Taiwanese manufacturing networks. International Journal of Production Research,
42(5), 943–957
Lin, Y., Wang, Y., & Kung, L. (2015). Influences of cross-functional collaboration and knowledge creation
on technology commercialization: Evidence from high-tech industries. Industrial Marketing Manage-
ment, 49, 128–138
Lux Research. (2014). Nanotechnology update: Corporations up their spending as revenues for nano-
enabled products increase. Boston: Lux Research
Maine, E., Lubik, S., & Garnsey, E. (2012). Process-based vs. product-based innovation: value creation by
nanotech ventures. Technovation, 32, 179–192
Maine, E., Lubik, S., & Garnsey, E. (2013). Value creation strategies for science-based business: A study of
advanced materials ventures. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 15, 35–51
Mattila, M., Yrjölä, M., & Lehtimäki, H. (2019). Drivers of and barriers to networked commercialization: A
business model perspective. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management,
23, 479–495
Mele, C., & Russo-Spena, T. (2015). Innomediary agency and practices in shaping market innovation. Indus-
trial Marketing Management, 44, 42–53
13
28 F. Salehi et al.
Mowery, D. C. (2011). Nanotechnology and the US national innovation system: Continuity and change.
Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 697–711
Möller, K., & Halinen, A. (2017). Managing business and innovation networks—from strategic nets to busi-
ness fields and ecosystems. Industrial Marketing Management, 67, 5–22
Mortara, L., & Minshall, T. (2011). How do large multinational companies implement open innovation?
Technovation, 31, 586–597
Nanda, R. (2020). Financing Innovation “Tough Tech”. Global Innovation Index 2020 (p. 113). Who Will
Finance Innovation?
NanoKTN. (2014). UK nanotechnology directory. Knowledge Transfer Network. Swindon: Innovate UK
Niosi, J., & Reid, S. E. (2007). Biotechnology and nanotechnology: Science-based enabling technologies as
windows of opportunity for LDCs? World Development, 35, 426–438
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010). The impacts of nanotechnology on com-
panies: Policy insights from case studies. OECD Publishing
Pandza, K., & Holt, R. (2007). Absorptive and transformative capacities in nanotechnology innovation sys-
tems. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 24, 347–365
Pandza, K., Wilkins, T. A., & Alfoldi, E. A. (2011). Collaborative diversity in a nanotechnology innovation
system: Evidence from the EU Framework Programme. Technovation, 31, 476–489
Purchase, S., Olaru, D., & Denize, S. (2014). Innovation network trajectories and changes in resource bun-
dles. Industrial Marketing Management, 43, 448–459
Rafols, I., Van Zwanenberg, P., Morgan, M., Nightingale, P., & Smith, A. (2011). Missing links in nanomate-
rials governance: Bringing industrial dynamics and downstream policies into view. Journal of Technol-
ogy Transfer, 36, 624–639
Ramsden, J. (2018). Applied nanotechnology: The conversion of research results to products. Oxford: Wil-
liam Andrew
Randhawa, K., Wilden, R., & Hohberger, J. (2016). A bibliometric review of open innovation: Setting a
research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33, 750–772
Robinson, D. K. R., Rip, A., & Mangematin, V. (2007). Technological agglomeration and the emergence of
clusters and networks in nanotechnology. Research Policy, 36, 871–879
Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2007). The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: Sources of productivity
in incumbent firm research. Research Policy, 36, 832–849
Rotolo, D., Hicks, D., & Martin, B. (2015). What is an emerging technology? Research Policy, 44, 1827–1843
Salehi, F., Zolkiewski, J., Perks, H., & Bahreini, M. A. (2018). Exploration of capability and role develop-
ment in an emerging technology network. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 33, 931–944
Shapira, P. (2010). Innovation and small and midsize enterprises: Innovation dynamics and policy strategies.
In R. E. Smits, S. Kuhlmann, & P. Shapira (Eds.), The theory and practice of innovation policy: An
international research handbook. Edward Elgar Publishing. Chapter 8
Shapira, P., Gök, A. & Salehi, F. (2016). Graphene enterprise: mapping innovation and business development
in a strategic emerging technology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 18, 269.
Shapira, P., Youtie, J., & Kay, L. (2011). Building capabilities for innovation in SMEs: A cross-country
comparison of technology extension policies and programs. International Journal of Innovation and
Regional Development, 3/4, 254–272
Schrempf, B., & Ahrweiler, P. (2014). Modelling the emergence of a general purpose technology from a
knowledge based perspective: The case of nanotechnology. In N. Gilbert, P. Ahrweiler, & A. Pyka
(Eds.), Simulating knowledge dynamics in innovation networks. Understanding complex systems (pp.
201–206). Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer
Spithoven, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Roijakkers, N. (2013). Open innovation practices in SMEs and large
enterprises. Small Business Economics, 41, 537–562
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage
Suominen, A., Li, Y., Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2016). A bibliometric analysis of the development of next
generation active nanotechnologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 18, 270
Theyel, N. (2013). Extending open innovation throughout the value chain by small and medium-sized manu-
facturers. International Small Business Journal, 31, 256–274
Van De Vrande, V., De Jong, J. P., Vanhaverbeke, W., & De Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovation in
SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation, 29, 423–437
Van Hemert, P., Nijkamp, P., & Masurel, E. (2013). From innovation to commercialization through networks
and agglomerations: Analysis of sources of innovation, innovation capabilities and performance of
Dutch SMEs. Annals of Regional Science, 50, 425–452
Vanhaverbeke, W. (2017). Managing open innovation in SMEs. Cambridge University Press
Verbano, C., Crema, M., & Venturini, K. (2015). The identification and characterization of open innovation
profiles in Italian small and medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Small Business Management, 53,
1052–1075
13
Winch, G. M., & Courtney, R. (2007). The organization of innovation brokers: An international review. Tech-
nology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19, 747–763
Xia, T., & Roper, S. (2016). Unpacking open innovation: Absorptive capacity, exploratory and exploitative
openness, and the growth of entrepreneurial biopharmaceutical firms. Journal of Small Business Man-
agement, 54(3), 931–952
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). London, Thousand Oaks: SAGE
Publications
Youtie, J., Iacopetta, M., & Graham, S. (2008). Assessing the nature of nanotechnology: Can we uncover an
emerging general purpose technology? Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 315–329
Youtie, J., Shapira, P., & Kay, L. (2010). Anticipating developments in nanotechnology commercialization.
Presentation at Nano Research Day, School of Public Policy. Atlanta, Georgia. http://stip.gatech.edu/
wp-content/uploads/2010/09/commercialization-nano-2010-8final1.pdf (Accessed 28 December 2020)
Zamora, E. A. (2016). Value chain analysis: A brief review. Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy, 5.002,
116–128
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Authors and Affiliations
Fatemeh Salehi1 · Philip Shapira2,3 · Judy Zolkiewski4
Fatemeh Salehi
fatemeh.salehi@manchester.ac.uk
Philip Shapira
pshapira@manchester.ac.uk; pshapira@gatech.edu
Judy Zolkiewski
judy.zolkiewski@manchester.ac.uk
1
Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Booth St. West,
M15 6PB Manchester, United Kingdom
2
Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Alliance Manchester Business School, The
University of Manchester, Booth St. West, M15 6PB Manchester, United Kingdom
3
School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, 30332-0345 Atlanta, GA, USA
4
Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Booth St. West,
M15 6PB Manchester, United Kingdom
13

Commercialization Networks in Emerging Technologies: The Case of UK Nanotechnology Small and Midsize Enterprises

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Commercialization Networks in Emerging Technologies: The Case of UK Nanotechnology Small and Midsize Enterprises

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Commercialization Networks in Emerging Technologies: The Case of UK Nanotechnology Small and Midsize Enterprises

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Journal of Technology Transfer

Commercialization networks in emerging technologies: the

Fatemeh Salehi1 · Philip Shapira2,3 · Judy Zolkiewski4

Accepted: 19 January 2022

Keywords Networks · Commercialization · Emerging technologies · SMEs ·

Technology commercialization is a process that translates promising discoveries and inven-

Extended author information available on the last page of the article

processes, product conceptualization, development, production, launch activities, and inter-

In the paper, we distinguish several types of commercialization networks and investi-

2.1 Commercialization networks and actors’ roles

Although the importance of networks is highlighted in the existing literature on OI and

SMEs and initiating commercialization networks. In the nanotechnology domain, Larédo et

2.2 Types of commercialization networks

2.2.1 Incumbent-led networks

2.2.2 SME-led networks

2.2.3 Peer-SME networks

2.2.4 Broker-led networks

Table 1 Proposed network typology

3.1 Research context

For an emerging technology research context, we focus on nanotechnology—a cross-

3.2 Research design

3.3 Data collection and analysis

4.1 Network types

4.1.1 SME-led networks

SMEs drew on resources provided by incumbents that included finance, complementary

4.1.2 Peer-SME networks

In peer-SME networks, SMEs pursue a proactive partnership approach as their commercial-

4.1.3 Broker-led networks

4.1.4 Incumbent-led networks

SMEs in our study engaged in incumbent-led networks, either as upstream or midstream

4.2 Network forms

4.2.1 Single networks

4.2.2 Hybrid networks

Table 3 Summary of key network characteristics and outcomes

4.2.3 Interrupted networks

4.3 Within- and across-network type and form comparisons

5 Discussion and conclusion

5.1 Theoretical implications

Building on the role of diverse actors in networks for commercialization (Aarikka-Stenroos

5.2 Managerial implications

5.3 Limitations and future research directions

Funding This study was not funded.

Code availability NVivo data coding hierarchy is available in the appendix.

Authors and Affiliations

Fatemeh Salehi1 · Philip Shapira2,3 · Judy Zolkiewski4

You might also like