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

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.

[1]  I. Nonaka,et al.  The Knowledge Creating Company , 2008 .

[2]  Mike Wright,et al.  Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence , 2005 .

[3]  S. Shane.  Prior Knowledge and the Discovery of Entrepreneurial Opportunities , 2000 .

[4]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2003 .

[5]  Trudie Aberdeen.  Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. , 2013, The Canadian Journal of Action Research.

[6]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  Knowledge Networks as Channels and Conduits: The Effects of Spillovers in the Boston Biotechnology Community , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[7]  Fiona E. Murray.  The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: sharing the laboratory life , 2004 .

[8]  Elizabeth A. Corley,et al.  Scientists' collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital , 2004 .

[9]  Charles Baden�?Fuller,et al.  Replicating Organizational Knowledge: Principles or Templates? , 2005 .

[10]  B. Latour,et al.  Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts , 1979 .

[11]  Martin Meyer,et al.  Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university , 2008 .

[12]  Gino Cattani,et al.  Preadaptation, Firm Heterogeneity, and Technological Performance: A Study on the Evolution of Fiber Optics, 1970–1995 , 2005, Organ. Sci..

[13]  Christopher B. Bingham,et al.  What makes a process a capability? Heuristics, strategy, and effective capture of opportunities , 2007 .

[14]  Marie C. Thursby,et al.  Are Faculty Critical? Their Role in University-Industry Licensing , 2003 .

[15]  Christian Homburg,et al.  Does Customer Interaction Enhance New Product Success , 2000 .

[16]  Glen L. Urban,et al.  Lead User Analyses for the Development of New Industrial Products , 1988 .

[17]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory , 2000 .

[18]  E. Garnsey,et al.  Commercializing Generic Technology: The Case of Advanced Materials Ventures , 2005 .

[19]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Architectural Innovation and Modular Corporate Forms , 2001 .

[20]  Jürgen Mittelstrass,et al.  The Future of the University , 2010, Europaeum review.

[21]  Gerard George,et al.  Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity , 2009 .

[22]  R. Cooper,et al.  2 New Product Performance: What Distinguishes the Star Products , 2000 .

[23]  Pamela D. Morrison,et al.  Determinants of User Innovation and Innovation Sharing in a Local Market , 2000 .

[24]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[25]  K. Knorr-Cetina,et al.  Epistemic cultures : how the sciences make knowledge , 1999 .

[26]  Stefan H. Thomke,et al.  Experimentation Matters: Unlocking the Potential of New Technologies for Innovation , 2003 .

[27]  Anne S. Miner,et al.  Improvising firms: bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process , 2003 .

[28]  Niclas Adler,et al.  The challenge of managing boundary-spanning research activities: Experiences from the Swedish context , 2009 .

[29]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[30]  David Probert,et al.  Commercializing a disruptive technology based upon university ip through open innovation , 2007 .

[31]  S. Shane,et al.  The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research , 2000 .

[32]  M. Pratt,et al.  Classifying Managerial Responses to Multiple Organizational Identities , 2000 .

[33]  T. Baker,et al.  Creating Something from Nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial Bricolage , 2005 .

[34]  Susan E. Reid,et al.  Biotechnology and Nanotechnology: Science-based Enabling Technologies as Windows of Opportunity for LDCs? , 2007 .

[35]  Sonali Shah.  Sources and Patterns of Innovation in a Consumer Products Field: Innovations in Sporting Equipment , 2000 .

[36]  A. Halmi.  Strategies of qualitative research , 2004 .

[37]  G. Thoma.  Striving for a Large Market: Evidence from a General Purpose Technology in Action , 2008 .

[38]  Jan Youtie,et al.  National innovation systems and the globalization of nanotechnology innovation , 2011 .

[39]  Vincent Mangematin,et al.  Large players in the nanogame: dedicated nanotech subsidiaries or distributed nanotech capabilities? , 2011 .

[40]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT: PAST RESEARCH, PRESENT FINDINGS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS , 1995 .

[41]  JoAnne Yates,et al.  Life in the Trading Zone: Structuring Coordination Across Boundaries in Postbureaucratic Organizations , 2006, Organ. Sci..

[42]  James A. Cunningham,et al.  Project Formation and the Motivations and Challenges of the Principal Investigator Role in Publicly Funded Research , 2010 .

[43]  S. Zahra,et al.  Absorptive Capacity: A Review, Reconceptualization, and Extension , 2002 .

[44]  Rebecca Henderson,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Putting Patents in Context: Exploring Knowledge Transfer from MIT , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[45]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[46]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  13. Chance, Nécessité, et Naïveté Ingredients to Create a New Organizational Form , 2012 .

[47]  Vincent Mangematin,et al.  Editor's introduction: building and deploying scientific and technical human capital , 2004 .

[48]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  CROSSROADS - Microfoundations of Performance: Balancing Efficiency and Flexibility in Dynamic Environments , 2010, Organ. Sci..

[49]  Jay B. Barney,et al.  Discovery and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial action , 2007 .

[50]  P. Drucker,et al.  Innovation--The Missing Dimension , 2004 .

[51]  S. Shane.  A General Theory of Entrepreneurship , 2003 .

[52]  R. Nelson.  National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis , 1993 .

[53]  Lee Fleming,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[54]  Constance E. Helfat,et al.  Inter‐temporal economies of scope, organizational modularity, and the dynamics of diversification , 2004 .

[55]  Alice Lam,et al.  What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? , 2011 .

[56]  Cornelius Herstatt,et al.  User-innovators and "local" information: The case of mountain biking , 2005 .

[57]  Politics and Funding in the U.S. Public Biomedical R&D System , 2008, Science.

[58]  Raphael Amit,et al.  Business Model Design: An Activity System Perspective , 2010 .

[59]  H. Chesbrough.  Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Landscape , 2006 .

[60]  E. Hippel,et al.  Lead users: a source of novel product concepts , 1986 .

[61]  A. Agrawal.  Engaging the Inventor: Exploring Licensing Strategies for University Inventions and the Role of Latent Knowledge , 2006 .

[62]  M. Wright,et al.  Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications , 2007 .

[63]  Cyrus C. M. Mody.  Institutions as Stepping-Stones: Rick Smalley and the Commercialization of Nanotubes , 2010 .

[64]  Charles-Clemens Rüling,et al.  Towards a Foundation of Bricolage in Organization and Management Theory , 2010 .

[65]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry , 2007 .

[66]  Suresh Kotha,et al.  Continuous “Morphing”: Competing Through Dynamic Capabilities, Form, and Function , 2001 .

[67]  Yan Gong,et al.  THE DYNAMICS OF ROUTINES AND CAPABILITIES IN NEW FIRMS , 2005 .

[68]  Paul Israel,et al.  The Sources of Innovation , 1990 .

[69]  Rita Gunther McGrath.  Business Models: A Discovery Driven Approach , 2010 .

[70]  S. Zahra.  The virtuous cycle of discovery and creation of entrepreneurial opportunities , 2008 .

[71]  Richard R. Nelson,et al.  Science, Economic Growth, and Public Policy , 1996 .

[72]  H. Etzkowitz,et al.  The Future of the University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm , 2000 .

[73]  Olav Sorenson,et al.  Strategic networks and entrepreneurial ventures , 2007 .

[74]  A. Langley.  Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data , 1999 .

[75]  D. Bok.  Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education , 2003 .

[76]  Waverly W. Ding,et al.  The Impact of Academic Patenting on the Rate, Quality and Direction of (Public) Research Output , 2009 .

[77]  Christina Fang,et al.  The Economics of Strategic Opportunity , 2003 .

[78]  Janet Bercovitz,et al.  Organizational Structure as a Determinant of Academic Patent and Licensing Behavior: An Exploratory Study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities , 2001 .

[79]  A. Strauss,et al.  The Discovery of Grounded Theory , 1967 .

[80]  Anne S. Miner,et al.  Organizational Improvisation and Learning: A Field Study , 2001 .

[81]  Aimée A. Kane.  Unlocking Knowledge Transfer Potential: Knowledge Demonstrability and Superordinate Social Identity , 2010, Organ. Sci..

[82]  Maryann Feldman,et al.  Academic Entrepreneurs: Organizational Change at the Individual Level , 2008, Organ. Sci..

[83]  Sonali K. Shah,et al.  How Communities Support Innovative Activities: An Exploration of Assistance and Sharing Among End-Users , 2003 .

[84]  Sonali K. Shah,et al.  The Accidental Entrepreneur: The Emergent and Collective Process of User Entrepreneurship , 2007 .

[85]  Elizabeth A. Corley,et al.  Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: Theoretical implications from two case studies , 2006 .