Principal Investigators and the Commercialization of Knowledge

  • Matthias MenterEmail author
Part of the International Studies in Entrepreneurship book series (ISEN, volume 32)


The commercialization of scientific knowledge is playing an increasingly important role within the scientific community and especially for universities worldwide. Since policy makers expect an economic payoff from academic research and universities are faced with declining spending from the public sector, taking on technology transfer constitutes a new major objective of academia. As principal investigators (PIs) embody a key role within this process, scholars develop a growing interest in the unique skill and task set of these scientists. Therefore, this chapter highlights the process of commercialization of scientific knowledge as well as the role and concept of PIs by summarizing the existing strand of literature. Those researchers simultaneously act as project managers, negotiators as well as boundary spanners who bridge the gap between academia and industry. Getting a deeper understanding of the motives of PIs is crucial to provide an efficient infrastructure and facilitate the creation of research avenues fostering industrial innovation.


Principal investigators Technology transfer Technology transfer offices 



I would like to thank Hans Ulrich Buhl, PI at University of Augsburg, for his helpful comments and practical insights and Erik E. Lehmann for critical comments and discussions.


  1. Acs ZJ, Audretsch DB, Lehmann EE (2013) The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Bus Econ 41(4):757–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anselin L, Varga A, Acs Z (1997) Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. J Urban Econ 42(3):422–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Audretsch DB, Bönte W, Krabel S (2010) Why do scientists in public research institutions cooperate with private firms. DRUID (Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics) Working paper No. 10–27Google Scholar
  4. Audretsch DB, Hülsbeck M, Lehmann EE (2012a) Regional competitiveness, university spillovers, and entrepreneurial activity. Small Bus Econ 39(3):587–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Audretsch DB, Lehmann EE, Link AN, Starnecker A (2012b) Introduction: technology transfer in the global economy. Technol Transf Glob Econ 28:1–9, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  6. Audretsch DB, Lehmann EE, Paleari S (2014a) Academic policy and entrepreneurship: a European perspective. J Technol Transf. doi: 10.1007/s10961-014-9359-6Google Scholar
  7. Audretsch DB, Lehmann EE, Wright M (2014b) Technology transfer in a global economy. J Technol Transf 39(3):301–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boehm D, Hogan T (2014) ‘A jack of all trades’: the role of PIs in the establishment and management of collaborative networks in scientific knowledge commercialisation. J Technol Transf 39(1):134–149. doi: 10.1007/s10961-012-9273-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buenstorf G (2009) Is commercialization good or bad for science? Individual-level evidence from the Max Planck Society. Res Policy 38(2):281–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bush V (1945) Science: the endless frontier. Trans Kans Acad Sci 1903:231–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Callon M (1998) An essay on framing and overflowing: economic externalities revisited by sociology. Sociol Rev 46(S1):244–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Casati A, Genet C (2014) Principal investigators as scientific entrepreneurs. J Technol Transf 39(1):11–32. doi: 10.1007/s10961-012-9275-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cunningham J, O’Reilly P, O’Kane C, Mangematin V (2014) The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research. J Technol Transf 39(1):93–110. doi: 10.1007/s10961-012-9269-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Etzkowitz H (1998) The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Res Policy 27(8):823–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Etzkowitz H (2003) Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Res Policy 32(1):109–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (1999) The future location of research and technology transfer. J Technol Transf 24(2-3):111–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Res Policy 29(2):109–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Etzkowitz H, Webster A, Gebhardt C, Terra BRC (2000) The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Res Policy 29(2):313–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Feller I (1990) Universities as engines of R&D-based economic growth: they think they can. Res Policy 19(4):335–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ghio N, Guerini M, Lehmann EE, Rossi-Lamastra C (2014) The emergence of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Bus Econ 44(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. González-Pernía JL, Kuechle G, Peña-Legazkue I (2013) An assessment of the determinants of university technology transfer. Econ Dev Q 27(1):6–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gulbrandsen M, Smeby J-C (2005) Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Res Policy 34(6):932–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Henrekson M, Rosenberg N (2001) Designing efficient institutions for science-based entrepreneurship: lesson from the US and Sweden. J Technol Transf 26(3):207–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hülsbeck M, Lehmann EE, Starnecker A (2013) Performance of technology transfer offices in Germany. J Technol Transf 38(3):199–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kidwell D (2014) Navigating the role of the principal investigator: a comparison of four cases. J Technol Transf 39(1):33–51. doi: 10.1007/s10961-012-9276-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klofsten M, Jones-Evans D (2000) Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe–the case of Sweden and Ireland. Small Bus Econ 14(4):299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee YS (1996) ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: a search for the boundaries of university-industry collaboration. Res Policy 25(6):843–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leydesdorff L, Etzkowitz H (1996) Emergence of a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Sci Public Policy 23(5):279–286Google Scholar
  30. Mangematin V, O’Reilly P, Cunningham J (2014) PIs as boundary spanners, science and market shapers. J Technol Transf 39(1):1–10. doi: 10.1007/s10961-012-9270-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mansfield E, Lee J-Y (1996) The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support. Res Policy 25(7):1047–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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, November 12-13Google Scholar
  33. Rasmussen E, Moen Ø, Gulbrandsen M (2006) Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge. Technovation 26(4):518–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rennings K (2000) Redefining innovation—eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics. Ecol Econ 32(2):319–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schön A, van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B, Henkel J (2014) Governance typology of universities’ technology transfer processes. J Technol Transf 39(3):435–453Google Scholar
  36. Siegel DS, Waldman D, Link A (2003a) Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study. Res Policy 32(1):27–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Siegel DS, Waldman DA, Atwater LE, Link AN (2003b) Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. J High Technol Manag Res 14(1):111–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thursby JG, Thursby MC (2004) Are faculty critical? Their role in university-industry licensing. Contemp Econ Policy 22(2):162–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business and EconomicsAugsburg UniversityAugsburgGermany

Personalised recommendations