This article examines market scoping for early-stage technologies, a fundamental yet underexplored marketing activity. Market scoping refers to managerial activities directed at the identification of market spaces for early-stage technologies. This discovery-oriented research aimed at theory development draws on an extensive, multiyear database of email trails and archival records detailing market-scoping efforts for early-stage technologies emerging from a global research university. From this longitudinal database, the authors provide an in-depth examination of managers’ market space decisions and advance an initial theory of market scoping. They isolate managers’ market-scoping mindset—which manifests as market ambiguity avoidance or acceptance—as a key explanatory construct shaping market space decisions and outcomes. Market ambiguity avoidance results in managers’ downstream orientation toward end users; this mindset, counterintuitively, may lead to technology commercialization failure. In contrast, market ambiguity acceptance results in managers’ upstream orientation; this mindset directs attention away from end users but helps uncover indirect paths to viable market spaces. This article lays the groundwork for advancing marketing research in the context of early-stage technology commercialization.
AhujaGautamLampertCurba Morris (2001), “Entrepreneurship in the Large Corporation: A Longitudinal Study of How Established Firms Create Breakthrough Inventions,” Strategic Management Journal, 22 (6/7), 521–43.
2.
AlvarezSharon A.BarneyJay B.AndersonPhilip (2013), “Forming and Exploiting Opportunities: The Implications of Discovery and Creation Processes for Entrepreneurial and Organizational Research,” Organization Science, 24 (1), 301–17.
3.
ArthurWilliam Brian (2009), The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves. New York: The Free Press.
BudnerStanley (1962), “Intolerance of Ambiguity as a Personality Variable,” Journal of Personality, 30 (1), 29–50.
7.
CaponNoelGlazerRashi (1987), “Marketing and Technology: A Strategic Coalignment,” Journal of Marketing, 51 (3), 1–14.
8.
CardinaleIvano (2018), “Beyond Constraining and Enabling: Toward New Microfoundation for Institutional Theory,” Academy of Management Review, 43 (1), 132–55.
9.
ChallagallaGoutamMurthaBrian R.JaworskiBernard (2014), “Marketing Doctrine: A Principles-Based Approach to Guiding Marketing Decision Making in Firms,” Journal of Marketing, 78 (4), 4–20.
10.
ChandyRajeshHopstakenBrigitteNarasimhanOmPrabhuJaideep (2006), “From Invention to Innovation: Conversion Ability in Product Development,” Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (3), 494–508.
11.
CohenWesley M.LevinthalDaniel A. (1990), “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1), 128–52.
12.
ColyvasJeannetteCrowMichaelGelijnsAnnetineMazzoleniRobertoNelsonRichard R.RosenbergNathanSampatBhaven N. (2002), “How Do University Inventions Get into Practice?” Management Science, 48 (1), 61–72.
13.
CovielloNicole E.JosephRichard M. (2012), “Creating Major Innovations with Customers: Insights from Small and Young Technology Firms,” Journal of Marketing, 76 (6), 87–104.
14.
DanneelsErwin (2007), “The Process of Technological Competence Leveraging,” Strategic Management Journal, 28 (5), 511–33.
15.
DavisJason P. (2016), “The Group Dynamics of Interorganizational Relationships: Collaborating with Multiple Partners in Innovation Ecosystems,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 61 (4), 621–61.
16.
De LucaLuigi M.Atuahene-GimaKwaku (2007), “Market Knowledge Dimensions and Cross-Functional Collaboration: Examining the Different Routes to Product Innovation Performance,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (1), 95–112.
17.
DebackereKoenraadVeugelersReinhilde (2005), “The Role of Academic Technology Transfer Organizations in Improving Industry Science Links,” Research Policy, 34 (3), 321–42.
18.
DenckerJohn C.GruberMarc (2015), “The Effects of Opportunities and Founder Experience on New Firm Performance,” Strategic Management Journal, 36 (7), 1035–52.
19.
EisenhardtKathleen M. (1989), “Building Theories from Case Study Research,” Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532–50.
20.
EtzkowitzHenry (1998), “The Norms of Entrepreneurial Science: Cognitive Effects of the New University–Industry Linkages,” Research Policy, 27 (8), 823–33.
21.
FosfuriAndrea (2006), “The Licensing Dilemma: Understanding the Determinants of the Rate of Technology Licensing,” Strategic Management Journal, 27 (12), 1141–58.
22.
GalunicD. CharlesRodanSimon (1998), “Resource Recombinations in the Firm: Knowledge Structures and the Potential for Schumpeterian Innovation,” Strategic Management Journal, 19 (12), 1193–201.
23.
GambardellaAlfonsoGiarratanaMarco S. (2013), “General Technological Capabilities, Product Market Fragmentation, and Markets for Technology,” Research Policy, 42 (2), 315–25.
24.
GebhardtGary F.CarpenterGregory S.SherryJohn F. (2006), “Creating a Market Orientation: A Longitudinal, Multifirm, Grounded Analysis of Cultural Transformation,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), 37–55.
25.
GioiaDennis A.PoolePeter P. (1984), “Scripts in Organizational Behavior,” Academy of Management Review, 9 (3), 449–59.
26.
GlaserBarneyStraussAnselm L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies of Qualitative Research. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson.
27.
GruberMarcMacMillanIan C.ThompsonJames D. (2008), “Look Before You Leap: Market Opportunity Identification in Emerging Technology Firms,” Management Science, 54 (9), 1652–65.
28.
GruberMarcMacMillanIan C.ThompsonJames D. (2013), “Escaping the Prior Knowledge Corridor: What Shapes the Number and Variety of Market Opportunities Identified Before Market Entry of Technology Start-Ups?” Organization Science, 24 (1), 280–300.
29.
HarrisStanley G.SuttonRobert I. (1986), “Functions of Parting Ceremonies in Dying Organizations,” Academy of Management Journal, 29 (1), 5–30.
30.
HeideJan B.WathneKenneth H. (2006), “Friends, Businesspeople, and Relationship Roles: A Conceptual Framework and a Research Agenda,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (3), 90–103.
31.
HumphreysAshlee (2010), “Megamarketing: The Creation of Markets as a Social Process,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (2), 1–19.
32.
JaworskiBernardKohliAjay K.SahayArvind (2000), “Market-Driven Versus Driving Markets,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (1), 45–54.
33.
JehnKaren A.NorthcraftGregory B.NealeMargaret A. (1999), “Why Differences Make a Difference: A Field Study of Diversity, Conflict, and Performance in Workgroups,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (4), 741–63.
34.
KhorasaninejadMohammadrezaChenWei TingDevlinRobert C.OhJaewonZhuAlexander Y.CapassoFederico (2016), “Metalenses at Visible Wavelengths: Diffraction-Limited Focusing and Subwavelength Resolution Imaging,” Science, 352 (6290), 1190–94.
35.
KirznerIsrael M. (1997), “Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian Approach,” Journal of Economic Literature, 35 (1), 60–85.
36.
LynnGary S.MoroneJoseph G.PaulsonAlbert S. (1996), “Marketing and Discontinuous Innovation: The Probe and Learn Process,” California Management Review, 38 (3), 8–37.
37.
MankinsJohn C. (1995), “Technology Readiness Levels,” white paper, NASA.
38.
MarchJames G. (1991), “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning,” Organization Science, 2 (1), 71–87.
39.
MarchJames G.OlsenJohan P. (1989), Rediscovering Institutions. New York: The Free Press.
40.
Meyer-KrahmerFriederSchmochUlrich (1998), “Science-Based Technologies: University–Industry Interactions in Four Fields,” Research Policy, 27 (8), 835–51.
41.
MoormanChristineMinerAnne S. (1998), “The Convergence of Planning and Execution: Improvisation in New Product Development,” Journal of Marketing, 62 (3), 1–20.
42.
NerkarAtulShaneScott (2007), “Determinants of Invention Commercialization: An Empirical Examination of Academically Sourced Inventions,” Strategic Management Journal, 28 (11), 1155–66.
43.
O’ConnorGina Colarelli (1998), “Market Learning and Radical Innovation: A Cross Case Comparison of Eight Radical Innovation Projects,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15 (2), 151–66.
44.
O’ConnorGina ColarelliRiceMark P. (2013), “New Market Creation for Breakthrough Innovations: Enabling and Constraining Mechanisms,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30 (2), 209–27.
45.
PahnkeEmily CoxKatilaRiittaEisenhardtKathleen M. (2015), “Who Takes You to the Dance? How Partners’ Institutional Logics Influence Innovation in Young Firms,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 60 (4), 596–633.
46.
PenroseEdith (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
47.
PowellWalter W.KoputKenneth W.Smith-DoerrLaurel (1996), “Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology,” Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (1), 116–45.
48.
ReadStuartDewNicholasSarasvathySaras D.SongMichaelWiltbankRobert (2009), “Marketing Under Uncertainty: The Logic of an Effectual Approach,” Journal of Marketing, 73 (3), 1–18.
49.
ReidSusan E.BrentaniUlrike de (2010), “Market Vision and Market Visioning Competence: Impact on Early Performance for Radically New, High-Tech Products,” Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27 (4), 500–518.
50.
RogersEverett M. (1976), “New Product Adoption and Diffusion,” Journal of Consumer Research, 2 (4), 290–301.
51.
RosenkopfLoriNerkarAtul (2001), “Beyond Local Search: Boundary-Spanning, Exploration, and Impact in the Optical Disc Industry,” Strategic Management Journal, 22 (4), 287–306.
52.
RustRoland T.CooilBruce (1994), “Reliability Measures for Qualitative Data: Theory and Implications,” Journal of Marketing Research, 31 (1), 1–14.
53.
SantosFilipe M.EisenhardtKathleen M. (2009), “Constructing Markets and Shaping Boundaries: Entrepreneurial Power in Nascent Fields,” Academy of Management Journal, 52 (4), 643–71.
54.
SarasvathySaras D. (2001), “Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency,” Academy of Management Review, 26 (2), 243–63.
55.
ShaneScott (2000), “Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities,” Organization Science, 11 (4), 448–69.
56.
ShaneScott (2001), “Technological Opportunities and New Firm Creation,” Management Science, 47 (2), 205–20.
57.
SineWesley DavidShaneScottGregorioDante Di (2003), “The Halo Effect and Technology Licensing: The Influence of Institutional Prestige on the Licensing of University Inventions,” Management Science, 49 (4), 478–96.
58.
SommerSvenja C.LochChristoph H.DongJing (2009), “Managing Complexity and Unforeseeable Uncertainty in Startup Companies: An Empirical Study,” Organization Science, 20 (1), 118–33.
59.
StraussAnselm LCorbinJuliet (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
60.
UlagaWolfgangReinartzWerner J. (2011), “Hybrid Offerings: How Manufacturing Firms Combine Goods and Services Successfully,” Journal of Marketing, 75 (6), 5–23.
61.
WebsterDonna M.KruglanskiArie W. (1994), “Individual Differences in Need for Cognitive Closure,” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 67 (6), 1049–62.
62.
YadavManjit S. (2010), “The Decline of Conceptual Articles and Implications for Knowledge Development,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (1), 1–19.
63.
YadavManjit S.PrabhuJaideep C.ChandyRajesh K. (2007), “Managing the Future: CEO Attention and Innovation Outcomes,” Journal of Marketing, 71 (4), 84–101.
64.
YinRobert K. (2009), Case Study Research, Design and Methods. London: SAGE Publications.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
