The Journal of Technology Transfer

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 52–74 | Cite as

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

  • Daniela Baglieri
  • Gianni Lorenzoni


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.


Technology transfer User Academic entrepreneurship 

JEL Classification

O31 O32 M13 



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


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal, A. (2006). Engaging the inventor: Exploring licensing strategies for university inventions and the role of latent knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1–2, 11–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baden-Fuller, C., Winter, S. G. (2007). Replicating organizational knowledge: Principles or templates? Working paper available at SSRN:
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 329–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bok, D. C. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory. Research Policy, 29, 627–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2007). Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Research Policy, 36, 694–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bozeman, B., & Mangematin, V. (2004). Editor’s introduction: Building and deploying scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 565–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Cassak, D. (2003). John Simpson: Reluctant Entrepreneur. The Windhover Information Inc, at
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  22. Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  23. Cooper, R., & Kleinschmidt, E. (2000). New product performance: What distinguishes the star products. Australian Journal of Management, 25(1), 17–45.Google Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Denrell, J., Fang, C., & Winter, S. (2003). The economics of strategic opportunity. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 977–990. Special Issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Duymedjian, R., & Rüling, C. -C. (2010). Towards a foundation of bricolage in organization and management theory. Organization Studies, 31, 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47, 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. Galunic, C. D., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2001). Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. The Academy Management Journal, 44(6), 1229–1249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies of qualitative research. London: Wiedenfield and Nicholson.Google Scholar
  35. Gong, Y., Baker, T. and Miner, A.S. (2005), ‘The dynamics of routines and capabilities in new firms’, available at
  36. Gruner, K., & Homburg, C. (2000). Does customer interaction enhance new product success? Journal of Business Research, 49(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hegde, D., & Mowery, D. C. (2008). Politics and funding in the U.S. public biomedical R&D system. Science, 322, 1797–1798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kane, A. A. (2010). Unlocking knowledge transfer potential: Knowledge demonstrability and superordinate social identity. Organization Science, 21(3), 643–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy, 40, 1354–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24, 691–710.Google Scholar
  45. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Lester, R. K., & Piore, M. J. (2004). Innovation: The missing dimension. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. 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.Google Scholar
  48. Lüthje, C., Herstatt, C., & von Hippel, E. (2005). User-innovators and “local” information: The case of mountain biking. Research Policy, 34(6), 951–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. MacGrath, R. G. (2010). Business models: A discovery driven approach. Long Range Planning, 43, 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Maine, E., & Garnsey, E. (2006). Commercialising generic technology: The case of advanced materials ventures. Research Policy, 35(3), 373–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Miner, A. S., Bassoff, P., & Moorman, C. (2001). Organizational improvisation and learning: A field study. The Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 304–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mody, C. M. (2010). Institutions as stepping-stones: Rick Smalley and the commercialization of nanotubes. Center for Contemporary History and Policy, Chemical Heritage Foundation.Google Scholar
  55. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Murray, F. (2004). The role of academic inventors in entrepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life. Research Policy, 33, 643–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nanomarkets (2009). An opportunity analysis for OLED lighting: 2009 to 2016. Available at
  58. Nelson, R., & Romer, P. (1996). Science, economic growth, and public policy. Challenge, 39(2), 9–21.Google Scholar
  59. 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
  60. Niosi, J., & Reid, S. (2007). Biotechnology and nanotechnology: Science-based enabling technologies as windows of opportunity for LDCs? World Development, 35(3), 426–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. 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.Google Scholar
  63. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Parson, D. B. (2007). Seminal genomic technology. Illumina, Inc.& High Throughput SNP genotyping beadarray technology. A case study, thesis. Available at
  65. 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:
  66. 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
  67. Rindova, V. P., & Kotha, S. (2001). Continuous “morphing”: Competing through dynamic capabilities, form, and function. The Academy Management Journal, 44(6), 1263–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Royston, I. (2006). Address given to the Von Leibig Forum, June 26, UCTV: University of California, San Diego. Available at
  69. Seldon, S., Probert, D., & Minshal, T. (2005). Case study: Cambridge Display Technology Ltd. Cambridge: Centre for Technology Management, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
  70. 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.Google Scholar
  71. Shah, S., & Tripsas, M. (2007). The accidental entrepreneur: The emergent and collective process of user entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11, 448–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual-opportunity nexus New horizons in entrepreneurship. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. The Academy Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.Google Scholar
  75. 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
  76. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Stuart, T. E., & Sorenson, O. (2007). Strategic networks and entrepreneurial ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3, 4), 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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
  79. Thomke, S. (2003). Experimentation matters: Unlocking the potential of new technologies for innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  80. Thursby, J. G., & Thursby, M. C. (2004). Are faculty critical? Their role in university-industry licensing. Contemporary Economic Policy, 22(2), 162–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Urban, G., & von Hippel, E. (1988). Lead user analyses for the development of new industrial products. Management Science, 34(5), 569–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32, 791–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  84. von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  85. Weick, K. E. (1989). Loose coupling: Beyond the metaphor. Current Contents, 20(12), 14.Google Scholar
  86. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research—Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  87. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. The Academy Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.Google Scholar
  89. Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2010). Business model design: An activity system perspective. Long Range Planning, 43, 216–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MessinaMessinaItaly
  2. 2.Management DepartmentUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations