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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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).
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.
Agrawal, A. (2006). Engaging the inventor: Exploring licensing strategies for university inventions and the role of latent knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 63–79.
Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60.
Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1–2, 11–26.
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.
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.
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 329–366.
Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.
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.
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.
Bok, D. C. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655.
Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616.
Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2007). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Research Policy, 36, 694–707.
Bozeman, B., & Mangematin, V. (2004). Editor’s introduction: Building and deploying scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 565–568.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995). Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 343–378.
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.
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.
Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
Cooper, R., & Kleinschmidt, E. (2000). New product performance: What distinguishes the star products. Australian Journal of Management, 25(1), 17–45.
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.
Denrell, J., Fang, C., & Winter, S. (2003). The economics of strategic opportunity. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 977–990. Special Issue.
Duymedjian, R., & Rüling, C. -C. (2010). Towards a foundation of bricolage in organization and management theory. Organization Studies, 31, 133–151.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550.
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.
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.
Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47, 117–132.
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.
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.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies of qualitative research. London: Wiedenfield and Nicholson.
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.
Hegde, D., & Mowery, D. C. (2008). Politics and funding in the U.S. public biomedical R&D system. Science, 322, 1797–1798.
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.
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.
Kane, A. A. (2010). Unlocking knowledge transfer potential: Knowledge demonstrability and superordinate social identity. Organization Science, 21(3), 643–660.
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.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy, 40, 1354–1368.
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24, 691–710.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Lester, R. K., & Piore, M. J. (2004). Innovation: The missing dimension. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
MacGrath, R. G. (2010). Business models: A discovery driven approach. Long Range Planning, 43, 247–261.
Maine, E., & Garnsey, E. (2006). Commercialising generic technology: The case of advanced materials ventures. Research Policy, 35(3), 373–393.
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.
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.
Miner, A. S., Bassoff, P., & Moorman, C. (2001). Organizational improvisation and learning: A field study. The Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 304–337.
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.
Murray, F. (2004). The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy, 33, 643–659.
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.
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.
Niosi, J., & Reid, S. (2007). Biotechnology and nanotechnology: Science-based enabling technologies as windows of opportunity for LDCs? World Development, 35(3), 426–438.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
Rindova, V. P., & Kotha, S. (2001). Continuous “morphing”: Competing through dynamic capabilities, form, and function. The Academy Management Journal, 44(6), 1263–1280.
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.
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.
Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11, 448–469.
Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus New horizons in entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. The Academy Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.
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.
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.
Stuart, T. E., & Sorenson, O. (2007). Strategic networks and entrepreneurial ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3, 4), 211–227.
Thoma, G. (2009). Striving for a large market: Evidence from a general purpose technology in action. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(2), 107–138.
Thomke, S. (2003). Experimentation matters: Unlocking the potential of new technologies for innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2004). Are faculty critical? Their role in university-industry licensing. Contemporary Economic Policy, 22(2), 162–178.
Urban, G., & von Hippel, E. (1988). Lead user analyses for the development of new industrial products. Management Science, 34(5), 569–582.
von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32, 791–805.
von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weick, K. E. (1989). Loose coupling: Beyond the metaphor. Current Contents, 20(12), 14.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research—Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. The Academy Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range Planning, 43, 216–226.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge with appreciation the helpful comments of Vincent Mangematin and two anonymous reviewers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9274-7