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.
KeywordsTechnology transfer User Academic entrepreneurship
JEL ClassificationO31 O32 M13
The authors acknowledge with appreciation the helpful comments of Vincent Mangematin and two anonymous reviewers.
- Baden-Fuller, C., Winter, S. G. (2007). Replicating organizational knowledge: Principles or templates? Working paper available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1118013.
- 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
- Bok, D. C. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Cassak, D. (2003). John Simpson: Reluctant Entrepreneur. The Windhover Information Inc, at www.windhover.com.
- Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
- Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation landscape. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
- Cooper, R., & Kleinschmidt, E. (2000). New product performance: What distinguishes the star products. Australian Journal of Management, 25(1), 17–45.Google Scholar
- Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550.Google Scholar
- 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
- Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies of qualitative research. London: Wiedenfield and Nicholson.Google Scholar
- 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.
- Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24, 691–710.Google Scholar
- Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Lester, R. K., & Piore, M. J. (2004). Innovation: The missing dimension. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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
- Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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
- Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. The Academy Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.Google Scholar
- 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
- Thomke, S. (2003). Experimentation matters: Unlocking the potential of new technologies for innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
- von Hippel, E. (1988). The sources of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Weick, K. E. (1989). Loose coupling: Beyond the metaphor. Current Contents, 20(12), 14.Google Scholar
- Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research—Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. The Academy Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.Google Scholar