The chemical industry has been a major driver of industrialisation for the last hundred years, but during the past decade the pace of change has accelerated. This paper examines the major innovations in chemical industry and goes on to examine the important changes that diffusion of information technology, e-business, and new techniques of molecular design have brought about. Convergence inducing innovations are today a major driver of change, and the paper concludes by suggesting that chemical industry is at the beginning of a phase of megaconvergence, involving digital convergence, genetic convergence, and nanoconvergence.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LandauR. and AroraA.: ‘The chemical industry: from the 1850s until today’, Business Economics, 1999, 34, (4), 7–9.
2.
MakridakisS. G.: ‘Forecasting, planning and strategy for the 21st century’; 1990, New York, NY, Free Press.
3.
SchmittB.: ‘Chemical century’, Chemical Week, 1999, 161, (49), 24–27.
4.
AroraA., LandauR., and RosenbergN.: ‘Dynamics of comparative advantage in the chemical industry’, in ‘Sources of industrial leadership’, (ed. MoweryD. C. and NebronR. R.), 217–266; 1999, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
5.
MoweryD. C. and RosenbergN.: ‘Paths of innovation’; 1998, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
6.
HagedoornJ.: ‘Innovation and entrepreneurship: Schumpeter revisited’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 1996, 5, 883–896.
7.
NelsonR. R.: ‘The co-evolution of technologies and institutions’, in ‘Evolutionary concepts in contemporary economics’, (ed. EnglandR. W.), 139–156; 1994, Ann Arbor, MI, University of Michigan Press.
8.
NelsonR. R.: ‘Technical change as cultural evolution’, in ‘Learning and technological change’, (ed. ThomsonE.), 9–23; 1993, New York, NY, St Martin's Press.
9.
LandauR.: ‘Economic growth and the chemical industry’, Research Policy, 1994, 23, 583–599.
Editorial on ‘Cosmeceuticals’, Economist, 2000, 357, (8200), 123.
12.
MattsonL.: ‘Dynamics of overlapping networks and strategic actions by the international firm’, in ‘The dynamic firm’, (ed. ChandlerA. D., HagstromP., and SolvellO.), 242–259; 1999, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
13.
KozaM. P. and LewinA. Y.: ‘The co-evolution of network alliances’, Organization Science, 1999, 10, 638–653.
14.
StinsonS. C.: ‘Specialty chemicals going?’, Chemical Week, 2000, 162, (21).
15.
BowonderB., YadavP. S., and KumarB. Sunil: ‘R&D spending patterns of global firms’, Research Technology Management, 2000, 43, (5), 40–56.
16.
BowonderB., YadavP. S., and KrishnanS.: ‘Emerging technology trajectory of biotechnology firms’, Chemical Innovation, 2001, 21, (3).
HagedoornJ.: ‘The dynamic analysis of innovation and diffusion: a study in process control’; 1989, London, Pinter.
19.
MillerR. and DesboroughL.: ‘Web-enabled control loop assessment’, Chemical Engineering, 2000, 107, (5), 76–79.
20.
MccoyM.: ‘Six sigma gaining as improvement method’, Chemical & Engineering News, 1999, 77, (45), 11–12.
21.
HairstonD.: ‘The web redefines hands off monitoring’, Chemical Engineering, 2000, 107, (4), 30–31.
22.
LeggettD.: ‘Runaway reactions’, Chemical Engineering, 2000, 107, (8), 78–85.
23.
ShanleyA.: ‘Buying equipment on the net’, Chemical Engineering, 2000, 107, (4), 147–150.
24.
DeshpandeP. B., MakkerS. L., and GoldsteinM.: ‘Boost competitiveness via six sigma’, Chemical Engineering Progress, 1999, 95, (9), 65–70.
25.
HoerlR. W.: ‘Six sigma and the future of quality profession’, IEEE Engineering Management Review, 1998, 26, (3), 87–94.
26.
SchmittB.: ‘Moving ahead with six sigma’, Chemical Week, 2000, 162, (16), 64–65.
27.
PandeP. S., NewmanR. P., and CavanaghR. R.: ‘The six sigma way’; 2000, New York, NY, McGraw Hill.
28.
BrownK.: ‘The human genome business today’, Scientific American, 2000, 283, (1), 38–45.
29.
LemonickM. D.: ‘The future of drugs: brave new pharmacy’, Time, 2001, 157, (3), 32–41.
30.
ThayerA. M.: ‘Firms find a new field of dreams’, Chemical & Engineering News, 2000, 78, (42), 36–38.
31.
Nicholls-NixonC. L. and JasinskiD.: ‘The blurring of industry boundaries’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 1995, 4, 755–768.
32.
RosenbloomR. S. and ChristensenC. M.: ‘Technological discontinuities, organizational capabilities and strategic commitments’, in ‘Technology, organizations and competitiveness’, (ed. DosiG., TeeceD. J., and ChytryT.), 215–245; 1998, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
33.
TushmanM. L. and AndersenP.: ‘Technological discontinuities and organizational environments’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 1986, 31, 439–465.
34.
ZimanJ.: ‘Marriage of design and selection in the evolution of cultural artefacts’, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1999, 24, 139–145.
35.
ZimanJ.: ‘Evolutionary models for technological change’, in ‘Technological innovation as an evolutionary process’, (ed. ZimanJ.), 3–12; 2000, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
36.
BowonderB. and MiyakeT.: ‘Technology management: a knowledge ecology perspective’, International Journal of Technology Management, 2000, 19, 662–684.
37.
BowonderB., MuralidharanB., and MiyakeT.: ‘Forecasting technological change: insights from theories of evolution’, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1999, 24, 275–288.
38.
GallopM. A., BarrettR. W., DowerW. J., FodorS. P. A., and GordonE. M.: ‘Applications of combinatorial technologies to drug discovery’, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 1994, 37, 1233–1251.
39.
ClarkR. D. and CramerR. D.: ‘Taming the combinatorial centipede’, Chemtech, 1997, 27, (5), 24–31.
40.
BormanS.: ‘Combinatorial chemistry: redefining the scientific method’, Chemical & Engineering News, 2000, 78, (20), 53–65.
41.
BormanS.: ‘Reducing time to drug discovery’, Chemical & Engineering News, 1999, 77, (10), 33–48.
