Dynamics of water innovation: Insights into the rate of adoption, diffusion and success of emerging water technologies globally

Water scarcity is driving change and innovation in the water sector. This will require new thinking and new approaches. The water challenges are presented in Chapter 1, highlighting the need for a better understanding of the water innovation process to contribute towards more effective and efficient use of capital in research and development (R&D) and a higher rate of successful innovation diffusion. The rate of innovation and technology uptake in the water sector is often reported as being relatively slow due to the conservative nature of the industry. The field of water technology is explained in this chapter with the help of the ‘water technology taxonomy’ developed by BlueTech Research. The purpose of this thesis is to give the scientific community and the community of global water professionals and policy makers, a framework for shared discussion. The challenges faced by such stakeholders i.e. an investor or an end-user and how this thesis can benefit them is also explained. The main objective is to examine the area of water technology innovation, using empirical data, and to adapt and build models specifically for the water industry.  A key output of Chapter 2 is the development of detailed definitions for each stage of Water Technology Adoption (WaTA) model: Applied Research, Pilot Stage (Innovators), Demonstration (Innovators), Early Adopters, Early and Late Majority and Maturity Stage. The proposed model, including the criteria for assigning a technology to a specific stage, activities undertaken in this stage, objectives and outcomes, duration of this particular stage and the corresponding stage in other models i.e. Technology Adoption Life Cycle TALC (bell curve), are suitable for the study of water technology adoption. This will be foundational for future analysis of different types of water technologies. One of the key findings is that it is possible to develop generalized timelines for successful technology commercialization. Analysis indicates that from the year that pilot testing commences to when the technology is moving into the Early Majority section of the market and is commercialized, can take in the region of 11 to 16 years. This needs to be considered by any companies that are actively seeking to introduce a new technology to the water market. Having established timelines that are reasonable and typical, the author believes that this sets an important benchmark against which velocity, or rate, of progress can be measured. Another important conclusion arising is that velocity, or the rate, at which technologies move through the process of dissemination and adoption is an important metric to track and analyze, and that the extent of any deviation from these industry averages can be an indication of potential failures in this process. Because of the nature of the definitions, there will be a degree of subjectivity in the use of this model, and it is possible for a technology to straddle adjacent categories.  Chapter 3 focuses on measuring the rate of adoption either measured as the number of full-scale plants built per year or cumulative installed capacity over time. Six water technology innovations in the last 30 years are studied with the aim of analysing the respective timelines for moving through various stages of water technology commercialisation. These technologies are then categorised either as crisis/need driven adoption or value driven adoption category. The three Crisis / Needs Driven innovations – Ultraviolet Disinfection, Biological Phosphorus Removal and Ultrafiltration Drinking Water – had a crisis or market need to accelerate adoption, whereas Sludge Thermal Hydrolysis and THIOPAQ had an inherent advantage over the existing technologies used, based on factors such as capital cost savings, operational cost savings, smaller footprint, and life-span of the technology. An exception is the Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) technology, which could be viewed as a combination of both Value Driven and Need Driven Adoption because the technology had an advantage over incumbent technology, and there was a regulatory driver for nutrient removal that favored the use of SBR technology as a method of achieving nitrification and denitrification. In the water sector, the adoption of a water technology that is driven based on its value proposition takes in the region of 12.4 years to move through the Innovators and Early Adopters stages of the market and reach the Early and Late Majority. In the case of a technology whose adoption is driven by a crisis or market need, such as a new piece of legislation, or an urgent health or environmental issue, the time timeline can be half of this, in the region of 6.5 years.  The fragmented nature of the global water market, long replacement cycles for existing technologies and the market growth dependence on population increases and new regulation all contribute to the slow technology diffusion rates and low disruption in the water sector. Chapter 4 is a critical review to the fact that innovation is required in water, that innovation as it relates to water is understudied, and that the concepts behind Disruptive Innovation Theory have lost their meaning due to overuse, mainly out of context, and that a practical framework is required to facilitate meaningful academic and industry discussion. If certain types of innovation have led to market disruption and market creation, other innovation frameworks like the Innovation Diffusion Theory which is more practical and useful than the Disruptive Innovation Theory should be used as analogues when evaluating the potential of new technologies. Three types of innovation are defined: sustaining, radical functionality and discontinuous, where sustaining innovation take market share away from existing technologies and the later two create new markets and unlock non-consumption. This framework is proposed to inform investment strategy in water and provide a clear and objective basis and framework for academic discussion of water technology innovation.  A novel framework to measure level of market impact for water technologies is presented in Chapter 5. Three levels are defined, with the highest level being Level 1 – Unicorn Technologies, the lowest being Level 3 – Horse Technologies, and in between Level 2 – Lion Technologies. These levels are measured using three criteria: total number of reference plants in operation, total number of countries in which the technology is used in and total annual market value that the technology represents. Eleven technology case studies are investigated against this framework to understand each technology’s impact on the market. The Water Technology Adoption (WaTA) model in Chapter 2 found that it could take 17–24 years for a technology to move from the Innovators section of the market adoption curve to when it is in the middle segment of the Early and Late Majority. The findings of this chapter, that quantify levels of market impact, are in keeping with this timeline. It is possible to measure level of market impact comparatively across different water technologies using the proposed framework and this will facilitate objective conversation and discussion around the disruptive effects of new water technologies in terms of rates of adoption and impact.  Chapter 6 summarizes and discusses the contributions and key ideas of Chapters 2 to 5. Important to those who invest in developing innovations is the link between the innovation and the market. Understanding these links helps innovators, researchers, adopters and investors to understand the likely commercial impact, how it should be commercialized and diffused, the typical time required, investment required, who is best placed to take on technology diffusion, and relative rates of success and risks associated with bringing these innovations to market. Each of the three types of innovation, Radical Functionality, Discontinuous and Sustaining, can be assigned to a technology based on the innovation characteristics prior to technology diffusion. The Innovation type can however then be compared to other analogues for this type of innovation to set realistic expectations as they are all very different from one another.