Bio-based Materials for Food Packaging by Shakeel Ahmed

Author:Shakeel Ahmed
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9789811319099
Publisher: Springer Singapore

Stefanovska et al. (2016) categorised the linear model into the first generation of innovation models (technology push) and the second generation of innovation models (market pull). Amadi-Echendu and John (2008) hypothesised model frameworks for the two generations of innovation models, which are illustrated in Fig. 9.

Fig. 9TAPM/MPAT framework of the first- and second-generation linear models. [Adapted by the Researcher from Amadi-Echendu and Rosetlola (2011)]

Unfortunately the current days’ reality for technology commercialisation does not support the linear models as both lack the feedback loops. Rothwell (1992) and Marinova and Phillimore (2003) presented six generations of innovation models. According to Stefanovska et al. (2016), the last four generations are the functionally integrated innovation models which are supplemented by several feedback loops. The functional models are non-linear models which are the current days’ reality for emerging technology commercialisation process. Zuniga and Correa (2013) iterated that there are feedback loops at every stage throughout the process of emerging technology commercialisation which are necessary for quality control.

Corroborating Zuniga and Correa (2013) on the need for feedback loops for quality control in an invention-commercialisation process, Stefanovska et al. (2016) suggested that consumers’ feedback is an essential element of any technology innovation. This discovery by Zuniga and Correa (2013) reveals that feedback is essential for the purpose of quality control of the commercialisation process engineered materials from nanotechnology.

Meanwhile, Aithal and Aithal (2016) remarked that commercialisation of nanotechnology from the research stage to profitable material and product is highly risky at the ‘Valley of Death’ point of commercialisation. Comparing nanotechnology with other emerging technologies, Craig et al. (2013) confirmed that the reasons for this high risk are related to the product focus, product development and market engagement. The ‘Valley of Death’ point of commercialisation, as indicated in Fig. 10, is a phrase that is used to illustrate the gap between academic-based innovations and their commercial applications within the marketplace.

Fig. 10‘Valley of Death’ point of commercialisation. (Amadi-Echendu and Rosetlola 2011)

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.