Niche strategy selection to introduce radically new systems: The case of kite-based airborne wind energy

Commercializing radically new high-tech systems is a risky strategy, the failure rate is high. In practice, these systems are often introduced in market niches prior to large-scale diffusion in a mainstream market application. In previous research, we described barriers that block large-scale diffusion and we added to the contemporary literature by identifying ten specific niche strategies by analyzing historical case studies. Finally, we derived how specific niche-strategies can be selected after assessing the market in terms of these barriers. In this paper we present an expert interview method to identify barriers in a market and to select niche strategies. We will illustrate the method for the case of kite-based airborne wind energy systems. These systems are providing sustainable wind energy. Instead of using a wind turbine, these systems use a kite to generate energy. In total we interviewed six experts active in that field: managers and technology developers. A first result from the interviews indicates the most important barriers. We show how particular combinations of barriers, such as the lack of knowledge of the technology that has an effect on the support and investment opportunities, together block large-scale production and diffusion. A second result is that several niche strategies can be identified to tackle the barriers in this field. The "geographic niche strategy", the "demo, experiment and develop niche strategy" and the "educate niche strategy", for example are identified as good strategies to introduce the kite-based systems. The contribution of this paper is to present a practical structured expert interview method so these strategies can be selected using the experts' market experience and technology expertise. It is generally known that experts can experience difficulties to judge appropriate strategies to commercialize radically new high-tech systems. Our method shows how consistency checks between open and more structured parts of the interview can help detect evaluation problems and thereby safeguard the validity of the practical outcomes that experts can generate themselves.