View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Institute of Transport Research:Publications 24 International Journal of Space Technology Management and Innovation, 2(2), 24-39, July-December 2012 Disruptive Space Technologies Egbert Jan van der Veen, Institute of Space Systems, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Bremen, Germany Dimitrios A. Giannoulas, Institute of Space Systems, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Bremen, Germany Marco Guglielmi, European Space Research and Technology Centre, European Space Agency, Noordwijk, The Netherlands Thijs Uunk, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands Daniel Schubert, Institute of Space Systems, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Bremen, Germany ABSTRACT The theory of Disruptive Technologies explains the evolution of technologies that disturb the status quo of both dominant technology platforms and competitive market layouts. In this paper, the theory of Disruptive Technologies for the space sector is explored. This exploration is required because the Disruptive Technology theory is currently based upon the innovation dynamics of mass consumer markets, which are significantly different from the dynamics of the low volume, highly governmentally influenced space sector. The objective is to clarify the dynamics of innovation in space (with particular respect to technological disruptions) in order to help decision makers in their effort to support innovation in the development of space technologies. This is done by analyzing the dynamics of the space sector and the theory of Disruptive Technologies in respect to its applicability to the space sector. The result of these analyses leads to the creation of a theory that is tailored to the specific innovation dynamics of the space sector. The theory is termed Disruptive Space Technologies. Key element of this theory is the fact that Disruptive Technologies in the space sector focus mainly on technology disruption rather than market disruption. Keywords: Diffusion of Innovations, Disruptive Innovation, Disruptive Space Technologies, Disruptive Space Technology, Disruptive Technology, Innovation Dynamics, Innovation Management, Space Innovation Management, Space Sciences INTRODUCTION others. Improving the capabilities of space technologies, in order to increase the benefits The exploration (and exploitation) of space has that the utilization of space can offer, is a ma- resulted in many technological advances for jor goal of all space faring nations. Since the humanity in areas such as materials, naviga- Apollo age, the space sector has concentrated tion, telecommunications, medicine and many mainly on a conservative method of technology development, focusing on low risk incremental innovations, rather than breakthrough, radical DOI: 10.4018/ijstmi.2012070102 or disruptive innovations (Summerer, 2009). Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. International Journal of Space Technology Management and Innovation, 2(2), 24-39, July-December 2012 25 One of the reasons for this situation is the fact aspects of this theory are examined and evalu- that space technology requires long and costly ated with respect to their applicability to the development phases with strict performance and unique market dynamics of the space sector. A environmental requirements. Another reason new concept for evaluating technologies using a that can justify this situation is the very high mix of performance attributes is also introduced cost of space transportation. These two factors here. Second, an analysis of the space sector have resulted in very stringent quality and flight is conducted. The factors that differentiate the heritage requirements. This situation, in turn, space sector from conventional, terrestrial mar- has created a paradigm, where the usage of kets are discussed and the peculiarities of the technologies with meager or non-existing flight space sector are explored. Third, the process of heritage is discouraged and, consequently, new disruption in the space sector is investigated by technologies do not gain flight heritage because analyzing a number of technologies that have they are not selected (Szajnfarber, Grindle, & been disruptive to the space sector in the past. Weigel, 2009). Despite the existence of several The analysis of past DT’s and their predeces- projects that are trying to bridge this valley sors is done by using a mix of performance of death within technology evolution, many attributes for each technology, which is then technologies still end up in the dust bin after evaluated by experts of the field. This leads to substantial investments. The valley of death is an insight into technology developments and the gap of funding between basic technology disruptions in the space sector. development (push technology development up The research presented here was conducted to Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 4/5) and at the German Aerospace Center in Bremen in application specific technology development cooperation with the European Space Agency (pull technology development after TRL 6/7). (ESA) within the framework of a DLR project Because of the need to overcome the valley of supported by ESA (Contract 4000101810/10/ death, there is a clear requirement for an early NL/GLC). stage identification of technologies that could significantly improve the capabilities of space Theory of Disruptive Technologies applications by disrupting the state-of-the-art. This early stage identification leads to the Over the last few years the term Disruptive nurturing and protection of the right technolo- Technology (DT) has become a buzzword in gies against the valley of death and a resulting several organizations around the world. The improvement of the capabilities of the space term, first explained by Bower and Christensen sector. This identification of potential high- (1995), describes a technology that emerges out gain technologies can be achieved by mapping of a niche market and becomes so dominant the factors that determine and influence the that it disrupts the status quo of a market and market potential of a technology. The most often leads to incumbent companies being successful technologies will be disruptive to pushed out of the market. A new technology the state-of-the-art of space technologies and is classified disruptive when, in addition to will therefore be called Disruptive Space Tech- serving a niche market, it starts to appeal to the nologies (DSTs). majority of customers in the mainstream market. The aim of this paper is to create an under- Christensen, Anthony, and Roth (2004) call standing of the underlying processes that govern this process “low-end disruption”. This event technology disruptions in the space sector. This occurs because the DT, through incremental understanding allows for an adaptation of the technology improvements, starts to deliver the theory of Disruptive Technologies (DTs) to the same (or better) performance than the previously unique market dynamics of the space sector. dominant technology while also having addi- To gain this understanding, first the theory of tional attribute(s) that are valued by the niche DTs is subjected to a critical review. Different market. When this happens, the new technology Copyright © 2012, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited. 26 International Journal of Space Technology Management and Innovation, 2(2), 24-39, July-December 2012 rapidly becomes the new standard and the old performance dimensions. In this research, an technology, and the companies that exploited attempt is made to determine the change in it, are pushed out of the market. customer perceived value of a technology not A DT is an exemption to the incremental/ on along a single performance attribute change radical innovations paradigm, which Chris- (as addressed by the performance dimension tensen (1997) classifies as sustaining innova- by Christensen, 2007), or two attributes (as is tions, because companies marketing these popularized by the mapping of functional at- incremental/radical innovations continue to tributes by Adner, 2002) but rather on a mix of serve the same customers with the intention performance attributes (e.g. cost, mass, effec- of sustaining their position in the market. The tiveness, efficiency). opposite of these sustaining innovations are For this purpose, a concept under the term DTs, which are technologies that disrupt the perceived performance mix is hereby introduced market of existing technologies exploited by by the authors. It represents a mixture of the incumbent companies. In practical terms this relevant performance attributes as perceived means that incumbent companies exploiting valuable by a customer or a part of the market. a dominant technology are being disrupted This leads to the following definition: by new entrants exploiting a new technology (Carayannopoulos, 2009; Tellis, 2006). The perceived performance mix is the mix of Examples of incumbents disrupted by functional attributes of a technology as ap- new entrants are illustrated in Table 1. Table 1 peared valuable to the customer. shows the dominant technology, the Disruptive Technology introduced by a new entrant, the The alternate performance mix of a DT can disruptive attribute that constitutes the biggest fulfill a performance mix that is perceived as source of change in the perceived customer valuable