Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Closing the distance between academia and market: experimentation and user entrepreneurial processes

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We inductively examine how exceptional Principal Investigators (PIs), who are active in biotechnology, medical devices, and nanotechnology, affect new technology trajectories and shape market boundaries by leveraging synergies stemming from their being simultaneously a scientist and a (lead) user. Our central contribution is the scientist-user template that explores how these types of PIs perform successfully their technology transfer task and, consequently, address increasing expectations about PIs as agents of economic and societal development. Building upon five illustrative case histories, we propose that scientist-user PIs exhibit superior capabilities in turning generic technology into several selected market applications, with no negative effects on their academic role. Overall, we develop a holistic view of synergies stemming from the scientist and user sides and offer insights into academic entrepreneurship and research project management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The NIH supports half of all federal non defense R&D and more than 60% of federally funded research in American universities (Hegde and Mowery 2008).

  2. http://www.news-medical.net/news/20091031/John-Simpson-named-the-2009-Distinguished-Alumnus-for-his-invention.aspx.

References

  • Adler, N., Elmquist, M., & Norrgren, F. (2009). The challenge of managing boundary-spanning research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context. Research Policy, 38(7), 1136–1149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A. (2006). Engaging the inventor: Exploring licensing strategies for university inventions and the role of latent knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 63–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1–2, 11–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. (2009). The impact of academic patenting on the rate, quality, and direction of (public) research output. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 57(4), 637–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baden-Fuller, C., Winter, S. G. (2007). Replicating organizational knowledge: Principles or templates? Working paper available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1118013.

  • Baker, T., Miner, A. S., & Eesley, D. T. (2003). Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process. Research Policy, 32, 255–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 329–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2001). Organizational structure as a determinant of academic patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania state Universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bingham, C. B., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Furr, N. R. (2007). What makes a process a capability? Heuristics, strategy, and effective capture of opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bok, D. C. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2007). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Research Policy, 36, 694–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Mangematin, V. (2004). Editor’s introduction: Building and deploying scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 565–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995). Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 343–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassak, D. (2003). John Simpson: Reluctant Entrepreneur. The Windhover Information Inc, at www.windhover.com.

  • Cattani, G. (2005). Preadaptation, firm heterogeneity, and technological performance: A study on the evolution of fiber optics, 1970–1995. Organization Science, 16(6), 563–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of U.K. University technology transfer offices: Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 369–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R., & Kleinschmidt, E. (2000). New product performance: What distinguishes the star products. Australian Journal of Management, 25(1), 17–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corley, E., Boardman, C., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: Theoretical implications from two case studies. Research Policy, 35, 975–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denrell, J., Fang, C., & Winter, S. (2003). The economics of strategic opportunity. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 977–990. Special Issue.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duymedjian, R., & Rüling, C. -C. (2010). Towards a foundation of bricolage in organization and management theory. Organization Studies, 31, 133–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., Furr, N. R., & Bingham, C. B. (2010). Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science, 21(6), 1263–1273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47, 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, N., & Shah, S. (2003). How communities support innovative activities: An exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users. Research Policy, 32(1), 157–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, N., von Hippel, E. (2003). Finding commercially attractive user innovation: An exploration and test of “lead user” theory. MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper (Center for eBusiness) No. 183.

  • Galunic, C. D., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2001). Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. The Academy Management Journal, 44(6), 1229–1249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies of qualitative research. London: Wiedenfield and Nicholson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gong, Y., Baker, T. and Miner, A.S. (2005), ‘The dynamics of routines and capabilities in new firms’, available at http://www.bus.umich.edu/Academics/Departments/CSIB/CSIB/Miner_03-11-05_Seminar_Paper.pdf.

  • Gruner, K., & Homburg, C. (2000). Does customer interaction enhance new product success? Journal of Business Research, 49(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegde, D., & Mowery, D. C. (2008). Politics and funding in the U.S. public biomedical R&D system. Science, 322, 1797–1798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helfat, C. E., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2004). Inter-temporal economies of scope, organizational modularity, and the dynamics of diversification. Strategic Management Journal, 25(13), 1217–1232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain, S., George, G., & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy, 38, 922–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, A. A. (2010). Unlocking knowledge transfer potential: Knowledge demonstrability and superordinate social identity. Organization Science, 21(3), 643–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, K. C., Orlikowski, W. J., & Yates, J. (2006). Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization Science, 17(1), 22–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy, 40, 1354–1368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24, 691–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester, R. K., & Piore, M. J. (2004). Innovation: The missing dimension. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lüthje, C. (2003). Customers as co-inventors: An Empirical analysis of the antecedents of customer-driven innovations in the field of medical equipment. In Proceedings of the 32nd EMAC Conference, Glasgow.

  • Lüthje, C., Herstatt, C., & von Hippel, E. (2005). User-innovators and “local” information: The case of mountain biking. Research Policy, 34(6), 951–965.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacGrath, R. G. (2010). Business models: A discovery driven approach. Long Range Planning, 43, 247–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maine, E., & Garnsey, E. (2006). Commercialising generic technology: The case of advanced materials ventures. Research Policy, 35(3), 373–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mangematin, V., Errabi, K., & Gauthier, C. (2011). Large players in the nanogame: Dedicated nanotech subsidiaries or distributed nanotech capabilities? The Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-011-9209-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 259–283. doi:10.1007/s10961-007-9031-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miner, A. S., Bassoff, P., & Moorman, C. (2001). Organizational improvisation and learning: A field study. The Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 304–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mody, C. M. (2010). Institutions as stepping-stones: Rick Smalley and the commercialization of nanotubes. Center for Contemporary History and Policy, Chemical Heritage Foundation.

  • Morrison, P. D., Roberts, J. H., & von Hippel, E. (2000). Determinants of user innovation and innovation sharing in a local market. Management Science, 46(12), 1513–1527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, F. (2004). The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy, 33, 643–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nanomarkets (2009). An opportunity analysis for OLED lighting: 2009 to 2016. Available at http://www.oled-info.com/files/nanomarkets-oled-lighting-report-2009.pdf.

  • Nelson, R., & Romer, P. (1996). Science, economic growth, and public policy. Challenge, 39(2), 9–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R., & Rosenberg, N. (1993). Technical innovation and national systems. In R. Nelson (Ed.), National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. New York, Oxford: Oxford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niosi, J., & Reid, S. (2007). Biotechnology and nanotechnology: Science-based enabling technologies as windows of opportunity for LDCs? World Development, 35(3), 426–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, P., O’Kane, C., Cunningham, J., Maciocha, A., & Mangematin, V. (2010). Project formation and the motivations and challenges of the principal investigator role in publicly funded research. Technology Transfer Society Annual Conference, Washington DC, USA, November 12–13.

  • Owen-Smith, Jason., & Powell, W. W. (2004). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effect of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 15(1), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parson, D. B. (2007). Seminal genomic technology. Illumina, Inc.& High Throughput SNP genotyping beadarray technology. A case study, thesis. Available at http://www.genome.duke.edu/centers/cpg/case-histories/seminal-genomic-technologies/bead-array/documents/DBPARSONS%20MS%20THESIS%20-%20ILLUMINA%20FINAL.pdf.

  • Powell, W. W., & Sandholtz, K. (2010). Chance, Necessité, et Naïveté: Ingredients to create a new organizational form. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association Annual Meeting, Hilton Atlanta and Atlanta Marriott Marquis, Atlanta, available at: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p411873_index.html.

  • Pratt, M. G., & Foreman, P. O. (2000). Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 18–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rindova, V. P., & Kotha, S. (2001). Continuous “morphing”: Competing through dynamic capabilities, form, and function. The Academy Management Journal, 44(6), 1263–1280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royston, I. (2006). Address given to the Von Leibig Forum, June 26, UCTV: University of California, San Diego. Available at http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=11752.

  • Seldon, S., Probert, D., & Minshal, T. (2005). Case study: Cambridge Display Technology Ltd. Cambridge: Centre for Technology Management, University of Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah, S. (2000). Sources and patterns of innovation in a consumer products field: Innovations in sporting equipment. MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper No. 4105.

  • Shah, S., & Tripsas, M. (2007). The accidental entrepreneur: The emergent and collective process of user entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11, 448–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus New horizons in entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. The Academy Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapira, P., Youtie, J., & Kay, L. (2011). National innovation systems and the globalization of nanotechnology innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer,. doi:10.1007/s10961-011-9212-0.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: Performance and policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 640–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. E., & Sorenson, O. (2007). Strategic networks and entrepreneurial ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3, 4), 211–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thoma, G. (2009). Striving for a large market: Evidence from a general purpose technology in action. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(2), 107–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomke, S. (2003). Experimentation matters: Unlocking the potential of new technologies for innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2004). Are faculty critical? Their role in university-industry licensing. Contemporary Economic Policy, 22(2), 162–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urban, G., & von Hippel, E. (1988). Lead user analyses for the development of new industrial products. Management Science, 34(5), 569–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32, 791–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1989). Loose coupling: Beyond the metaphor. Current Contents, 20(12), 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research—Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A. (2008). The virtuous cycle of discovery and creation of entrepreneurial opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(3), 243–257. Special Issue: Opportunities, Organizations, and Entrepreneurship: Theory and Debate.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. The Academy Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range Planning, 43, 216–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge with appreciation the helpful comments of Vincent Mangematin and two anonymous reviewers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniela Baglieri.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baglieri, D., Lorenzoni, G. Closing the distance between academia and market: experimentation and user entrepreneurial processes. J Technol Transf 39, 52–74 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9274-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9274-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation