Companies shouldn’t necessarily wait for quantum computers to demonstrably outperform their classical counterparts before beginning to invest, a shift in thinking that reframes the technology as an “enabling technology” requiring early user involvement. Avi Goldfarb and Florenta Teodoridis argue that focusing solely on technical milestones like qubit counts and error rates is a poor guide for most organizations considering quantum adoption. Instead, the emerging economic value of quantum computing will arise from incremental learning and co-invention cycles between technology producers and those applying it, much like the development of electricity and classical computers. This approach prioritizes active experimentation and identifying near-term opportunities over immediate return on investment, recognizing that value will be created through repeated feedback loops.
Quantum Computing as an Enabling Technology
Conventional metrics of quantum computing progress, like qubit counts, fail to capture the true path to economic value. Rather than waiting for a demonstrable performance advantage over classical computers, a growing number of organizations are recognizing quantum technology as an “enabling technology,” demanding a shift in investment strategies. This reframing challenges the typical approach of delaying investment until a technology is unequivocally “ready,” instead prioritizing active experimentation and iterative development. Goldfarb and Teodoridis contend that economic value doesn’t materialize with a single technical breakthrough, but emerges gradually, through experimentation, complementary innovation, and organizational learning. This perspective positions quantum computing alongside other general-purpose technologies like electricity, where progress hinged on continuous co-invention between producers and users. Early innovations in power generation, for example, spurred downstream experimentation with lighting and motors, which then influenced subsequent power system design.
Similarly, classical computers evolved through feedback loops involving hardware, software, and organizational processes; quantum computing is expected to follow this same pattern. The authors explain that its economic impact will not come suddenly, after passing a particular technical threshold, nor will it diffuse as a plug-and-play tool, emphasizing the importance of user-driven feedback. Investment, therefore, isn’t about immediate return on investment, but about establishing incremental learning and co-invention cycles. This collaborative approach, where users actively participate in the technology’s development alongside producers, is crucial for identifying near-term opportunities and defining the performance levels that truly matter. Florenta Teodoridis’s research highlights this dynamic, demonstrating how quantum computing can create spillover benefits even for classical computing systems. This focus on co-invention echoes the launch of a quantum computing stream at Creative Destruction Lab, accompanied by a surge in quantum startups, signaling a growing ecosystem built on collaborative innovation and shared knowledge.
Co-invention Cycles Mirror Electricity & Computing
The current surge of interest in quantum computing is prompting a re-evaluation of how companies should approach investment in nascent technologies. Rather than fixating on achieving quantum supremacy, the point at which quantum computers demonstrably outperform classical systems, a growing consensus emphasizes the importance of proactive experimentation. This shift acknowledges quantum computing as an “enabling technology,” a category historically characterized by gradual value creation through iterative development and user involvement. Unlike technologies with immediate, standalone benefits, quantum’s economic impact will materialize through repeated co-invention cycles between technology producers and the organizations applying it. These downstream advancements, in turn, informed further refinements in power generation and distribution systems. Similarly, classical computers progressed through feedback loops; advances in hardware were consistently driven by complementary innovations in software, data storage, and organizational processes. Florenta Teodoridis’s research underscores this dynamic, demonstrating how quantum computing’s value won’t arrive as a “plug-and-play tool,” but through ongoing user experimentation revealing near-term opportunities.
User Experimentation Drives Value, Not Milestones
Rigorous testing at Xanadu, a Toronto-based quantum hardware company, isn’t focused solely on achieving superior qubit counts; instead, researchers are actively collaborating with financial institutions to explore applications in portfolio optimization, a strategy reflecting a broader shift in how companies are approaching quantum investment. This emphasis on practical application, rather than purely technical benchmarks, underscores a growing recognition that the economic benefits of quantum computing will emerge through iterative experimentation and co-invention. Executives tracking the latest news about quantum computing might conclude that with technical milestones still to be reached, the prudent approach is to watch and wait before investing, but that overlooks what other, bolder companies recognize: quantum computing is an enabling technology, and user organizations have a critical role to play in shaping how it will create value.
The conventional wisdom of delaying investment until a clear performance advantage over classical computers is achieved is increasingly challenged as a poor guide to effective engagement, particularly for organizations outside of core hardware development. This pattern of co-invention is also evident in the evolution of classical computing, where progress in hardware was consistently fueled by advancements in software and organizational processes.
