When Does University Research Get Commercialized? Creating Ambidexterity in Research Institutions

We examine the tensions that make it difficult for a research-oriented university to achieve commercial outcomes. Building on the organizational ambidexterity literature, we specify the nature of the tensions (between academic and commercially-oriented activities) at both organizational and individual levels of analysis, and how these can be resolved. We develop hypotheses linking specific aspects of the organization and the individual researcher to the likelihood of their research projects generating commercial outcomes, and we test them using a novel dataset of 207 Research Council-funded projects, combining objective data on project outcomes with the perceptions of principal investigators. We show that the tension between academic and commercial demands is more salient at the level of the individual researcher than at the level of the organization. Universities show evidence that they are able to manage the tensions between academic and commercial demands, through for example their creation of ‘dual structures’. At the individual level, on the other hand, the tensions are more acute, so that the people who deliver commercial outcomes tend to be rather different to those who are accustomed to producing academic outcomes.

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

[2]  Adler,et al.  Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system , 1999 .

[3]  Michael A. Stoto,et al.  Entrepreneurs in Academe: An Exploration of Behaviors Among Life Scientists , 1989 .

[4]  P. Drucker.  Innovation and entrepreneurship : practice and principles , 1985 .

[5]  Bo Carlsson,et al.  special issue: Technology transfer in United States universities , 2002 .

[6]  Andrea Piccaluga,et al.  Exploitation and diffusion of public research: the case of academic spin-off companies in Italy , 2000 .

[7]  S. Shane.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Selling University Technology: Patterns from MIT , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[8]  Jay R. Galbraith.  Designing the Innovating Organization , 1982 .

[9]  T. Allen,et al.  Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities , 2005 .

[10]  Subodh P. Kulkarni,et al.  Winning through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal , 1998 .

[11]  Scott Shane,et al.  Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others? , 2003 .

[12]  Phillip H. Phan,et al.  The Effectiveness of University Technology Transfer , 2006 .

[13]  R. Nelson.  The Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research , 1959, Journal of Political Economy.

[14]  THE NORMS OF ENTREPRENEURIAL SCIENCE , 2006 .

[15]  J. Liebeskind,et al.  Privatizing the Intellectual Commons: Universities and the Commercialization of Biotechnology , 1998 .

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

[17]  David C. Mowery,et al.  Learning to Patent: Institutional Experience, Learning, and the Characteristics of U.S. University Patents After the Bayh-Dole Act, 1981-1992 , 2002 .

[18]  Edward J. Hackett,et al.  Science as a Vocation in the 1990s: The Changing Organizational Culture of Academic Science. , 1990 .

[19]  Pablo D'Este,et al.  University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? , 2007 .

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

[21]  S. Krimsky,et al.  Academic-Corporate Ties in Biotechnology: A Quantitative Study , 1991, Science, technology & human values.

[22]  Martin Kenney,et al.  The role of social embeddedness in professorial entrepreneurship: a comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford , 2004 .

[23]  Scott Shane,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Selling University Technology: Patterns from MIT , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[24]  W. Powell,et al.  To Patent or Not: Faculty Decisions and Institutional Success at Technology Transfer , 2001 .

[25]  Michael R. Darby,et al.  Capturing Technological Opportunity Via Japan's Star Scientists: Evidence from Japanese Firms' Biotech Patents and Products , 1998 .

[26]  Maryann Feldman,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Equity and the Technology Transfer Strategies of American Research Universities , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[27]  P. Adler,et al.  Flexibility Versus Efficiency? a Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System , 1999 .

[28]  Alice Lam,et al.  Work Roles and Careers of R&D Scientists in Network Organizations , 2005 .

[29]  Michael R. Darby,et al.  Labor Mobility from Academe to Commerce , 1997, Journal of Labor Economics.

[30]  Previous Work Experience And Organizational Socialization: A Longitudinal Examination , 1995 .

[31]  M. Kremer.  Patent Buy-Outs: A Mechanism for Encouraging Innovation , 1997 .

[32]  D. Leonard-Barton.  CORE CAPABILITIES AND CORE RIGIDITIES: A PARADOX IN MANAGING NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT , 1992 .

[33]  U. Schmoch,et al.  Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields , 1998 .

[34]  Bo Carlsson,et al.  Technology transfer in United States universities , 2002 .

[35]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  The Art of Continuous Change : Linking Complexity Theory and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations , 1997 .

[36]  Cheryl L. Adkins.  Previous Work Experience And Organizational Socialization: A Longitudinal Examination , 1995 .

[37]  K. Tornquist,et al.  Out of the Ivory Tower: Characteristics of Institutions Meeting the Research Needs of Industry. , 1994 .

[38]  Costas Markides,et al.  In search of ambidextrous professors. , 2007 .

[39]  D. E. Stokes.  Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation , 1997 .

[40]  Zi-Lin He,et al.  Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[41]  James R. Johnson.  Technology transfer and Universities , 1988 .

[42]  B. Clarysse,et al.  A process study of entrepreneurial team formation: the case of a research-based spin-off , 2004 .

[43]  Mike Wright,et al.  Technology Transfer and Universities' Spin-Out Strategies , 2003 .

[44]  E. Mansfield.  Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings1 , 1998 .

[45]  M. Wright,et al.  Research and Technology Commercialization , 2008 .

[46]  Jerry G. Thursby,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Who Is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[47]  K. Arrow.  Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention , 1962 .

[48]  M. Wright,et al.  Spinning Out New Ventures: A Typology of Incubation Strategies from European Research Institutions , 2005 .

[49]  Scott Shane,et al.  The Halo Effect and Technology Licensing: The Influence of Institutional Prestige on the Licensing of University Inventions , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[50]  Maryann P. Feldman,et al.  TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND THE ACADEMIC DEPARTMENT: WHO PARTICIPATES AND WHY? , 2003 .

[51]  Joshua B. Powers,et al.  Policy orientation effects on performance with licensing to start-ups and small companies , 2005 .

[52]  A. Link,et al.  Assessing the Impact of Organizational Practices on the Productivity of University Technology Transfer Offices : An Exploratory Study # , 1999 .

[53]  Melissa S. Anderson,et al.  Withholding research results in academic life science. Evidence from a national survey of faculty. , 1997, JAMA.

[54]  Michelle Gittelman,et al.  Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[55]  Geoffrey Squires,et al.  Management as a professional discipline , 2001 .

[56]  Jason Owen,et al.  To Patent or Not : Faculty Decisions and 1 , 2000 .

[57]  Larry L. Leslie,et al.  Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University , 1997 .

[58]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The BUSINESS SCHOOL A PROBLEM IN ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN , 1967 .

[59]  Joel West,et al.  Commercializing Open Science: Deep Space Communications as the Lead Market for Shannon Theory, 196073 , 2008 .

[60]  Magnus Henrekson,et al.  Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down Policies Towards the Commercialization of University Intellectual Property , 2003 .

[61]  H. Etzkowitz.  Research groups as ???quasi-firms???: the invention of the entrepreneurial university , 2003 .

[62]  Peter T. Gianiodis,et al.  Innovation speed: Transferring university technology to market , 2005 .

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

[64]  M. Lerner,et al.  Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research , 2003 .

[65]  S. Ghoshal.  Bad Management Theories Are Destroying Good Management Practices , 2005 .

[66]  THE SCIENTIFIC STATUS OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH , 2009 .

[67]  Joshua B. Powers,et al.  University Start-Up Formation and Technology Licensing with Firms that Go Public: A Resource-Based View of Academic Entrepreneurship , 2005 .

[68]  R. Daft,et al.  Across the Great Divide: Knowledge Creation and Transfer Between Practitioners and Academics , 2001 .

[69]  Peter Augsdorfer,et al.  Bootlegging and path dependency , 2005 .

[70]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  Careers and contradictions: Faculty responses to the transformation of knowledge and its uses in the life sciences , 2001 .

[71]  L. Pondy,et al.  The management of organization design , 1976 .

[72]  S. Rynes.  Carrying Sumantra Ghoshal's Torch: Creating More Positive, Relevant, And Ecologically Valid Research , 2007 .

[73]  C. Gibson,et al.  THE ANTECEDENTS , CONSEQUENCES , AND MEDIATING ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY , 2004 .

[74]  P. David,et al.  Toward a new economics of science , 1994 .

[75]  S. Floyd,et al.  Knowledge Creation and Social Networks in Corporate Entrepreneurship: The Renewal of Organizational Capability , 1999 .

[76]  Mike Wright,et al.  Resources, capabilities, risk capital and the creation of university spin-out companies , 2005 .

[77]  Barry Bozeman,et al.  Academic careers, patents, and productivity: industry experience as scientific and technical human capital , 2005 .

[78]  Jason Owen-Smith,et al.  From separate systems to a hybrid order: accumulative advantage across public and private science at Research One universities , 2003 .

[79]  Magnus Gulbrandsen,et al.  Industry funding and university professors' research performance , 2005 .

[80]  Mike Wright,et al.  Corporate entrepreneurship: Current research and future directions , 2009 .

[81]  Edwin Mansfield,et al.  Academic research and industrial innovation , 1991 .

[82]  D. Jorgenson.  The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity. , 1963 .

[83]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Striking the Mother Lode in Science: The Importance of Age, Place, and Time. , 1993 .

[84]  M. Trajtenberg,et al.  Universities as a Source of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis of University Patenting, 19651988 , 1995, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[85]  David B. Balkin,et al.  Entrepreneurship and university-based technology transfer , 2005 .