1
‘A jack of all trades’ - The role of PIs in the establishment and management of
collaborative networks in scientific knowledge commercialisation
Paper accepted for
special edition of the Journal of Technology Transfer on the growing role of PIs as science,
technology and market shapers.
September 2012
Dr Diana Nadine Boehm
Dr Teresa Hogan
Dublin City University Dublin City University
LInK Research Centre LInK Research Centre
DCU Business School DCU Business School
Dublin 9 Dublin 9
Tel: (01) 700 – 6877 Tel: (01) 700 – 8082
diana.boehm@dcu.ie teresa.hogan@dcu.ie
Corresponding author
2
‘A jack of all trades’ - The role of PIs in the establishment and management of
collaborative networks in scientific knowledge commercialisation
Abstract
The commercialisation of scientific knowledge has become a primary objective for
universities worldwide. Collaborative research projects are viewed as the key to achieving
this objective, however, the role of Principal Investigators (PIs) within these complex multi-
stakeholder research projects remains under researched. This paper explores how networks in
the scientific knowledge collaboration process are initiated and maintained from a multi-
stakeholder perspective. It is based on case study evidence from 82 stakeholders in 17
research collaboration projects in Irish and German universities, which provides for a holistic
view of the process, as opposed to prior research which has tended to report findings based
on the analysis of one or two stakeholders. It finds that PIs play a lead role in establishing and
managing stakeholder networks. This finding is unanimous for all stakeholders, irrespective
of research centre size, type and geographical location. Not unlike the entrepreneur, the PI
has to be ‘a jack of all trades', taking on the roles of project manager, negotiator, resource
acquirer as well as, the traditional academic role of Ph.D. supervision and mentoring. The
findings suggest that PIs are better placed than Technology Transfer Office (TTO) managers
to act as boundary spanners in bridging the gap between science and industry.
3
1. Introduction
At present, there would appear to be inconsistent views in the literature on the role of TTOs
versus PIs in the scientific knowledge collaboration process (Rothaermel et al. 2007). In
some sense this confusion is not surprising, since the findings are likely to vary depending on
who you ask. On the one hand, scientists and industry partners will often criticise government
agencies and TTOs as being well meaning but ineffective. On the other hand, industry
partners and TTOs often criticise academics for their lack of understanding of the commercial
world. Most studies still look at dyadic relationships between university and industry (Plewa
and Quester 2008). While, some take the government into account (Boardman 2009;
Boardman and Corley 2008), only a few seek to incorporate diverse actors to study multi-
level interaction (Adler et al. 2009). Complex research issues like scientific knowledge
collaboration processes are better addressed by focusing on all agents involved. The paper is
novel in that it adopts a stakeholder perspective on collaborative research. A holistic
perspective on process of initiating and managing science–industry collaborations is derived
from interviewing the PIs and key stakeholders including TTO managers, university-
research-centre managers or commercialisation managers, industry partners, and government
agents.
As the research design specifically included all stakeholders’ views, we can unequivocal
conclude that the PI plays the lead role in establishing and managing stakeholder networks.
With 79 out of 82 respondents in agreement this view is shared across stakeholders,
irrespective of research centre size, type and geographical location. Not unlike the
entrepreneur, the PI has to be a 'jack of all trades' taking on the roles of project manager,
negotiator, and resource acquirer, as well as, the traditional academic role of Ph.D.
supervision and mentoring. The findings suggest that PIs are better placed than TTO
managers to act as boundary spanners in order to bridge the gap between science and
industry.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 looks at the contributions from the literature on
stakeholders involved in the commercialisation of scientific knowledge, focusing on the role
of PIs and TTOs. Following the theoretical overview, section 3 elaborates the case study
methodology. The fourth section presents the findings from the qualitative analysis. Section 5
provides a discussion and managerial implications.
4
2. The role of stakeholders in the commercialisation process
Collaborative research refers to projects where universities and businesses work together on
shared problems (Martinelli et al. 2008). Collaborations can be defined as “all forms of
agreements between firms, universities, and research institutes whereby two or more
organisations share the commitment to research a common goal by pooling their resources
and co-ordinating their activities” (European Commission 2002 p15). These networks
involve multiple stakeholders, including PIs, centre managers or commercialisation
managers, TTO managers, industry partners and government funding agents. This paper
focuses on the role of two of these stakeholders, namely TTOs and PIs and investigates how
and by whom science–industry collaborations are initiated and managed.
2.1 The role of the PI
Different stakeholders will have both complementary and conflicting motives for engaging in
collaborative networks. According to research, scientists’ major motive for pursuing
commercial opportunities is recognition within the scientific community (Siegel 2003; Siegel
et al. 2003; Siegel et al. 2004). For some scientists, however, personal satisfaction and
solving societal problems are considered to be more important than financial rewards
(Goktepe-Hultèn 2008).
Several authors argue (Radosevitch 1995; Birley 2002, Fontes 2003) that an entrepreneurial
mind-set differentiates inventors from other academics, as people who produce commercial
results differ from those who generate academic ones (Ambos et al. 2008). This leads to
discussions about whether academics are ‘entrepreneurial academics’ or ‘academic
entrepreneurs’. The former being described as a pioneering faculty member and the latter
being described as the exemplary start-up entrepreneur (Martinelli et al. 2008). The choice to
either take the entrepreneurial route or TTO/collaborative route depends on commercial
motives (entrepreneurial route) or research related motives (collaborative projects and TTO
route) (Audretsch et al. 2006). Affiliation with a network and personal relationships are
important when taking the entrepreneurial route through spinning out a company (Roberts
1991; Meyer 2003; Goktepe-Hultèn 2008), but can also increase the tendency to
commercialise research through the TTO route (Audretsch et al. 2006). Oliver (2004) finds
that scientists involved in collaboration with industry are more likely to submit patent
5
applications than scientists who are not. Research on different commercial routes, across
scientific disciplines indicate that scientific knowledge collaboration is dependent on network
participation by scientists but also highlights the necessity of diverse incentives.
2.3 The role of the TTO
Current policy is based on the belief that the establishment of TTOs enables successful
transfer of technologies and creates the “formal gateway between university and industry”
(Rothaermel et al. 2007 p740). In many cases governments provide direct and indirect
support funds for TTOs (OECD 2002, Forfas 2010) to enable successful knowledge transfer
and commercialisation. The role of the TTOs is often referred to as bridging the gap between
the university and industry (Siegel et al. 2004, Wright et al. 2008). The views on the role of
the TTOs are, however, rather inconsistent. Some authors argue that the TTOs are responsible
for establishing links between university and industry (Jones-Evans and Klofsten 1999,
Siegel et al. 2004, Debackere and Veugelers 2005) while others argue that a TTO’s marketing
activities are only needed where existing links are weak and all participants are not already
rooted in personal or broader scientific networks (Colyvas et al. 2002). Lockett et al. (2005)
argue that incentives should be offered to TTO personnel, and not the scientist, so as to
encourage more commercial activity. Goldfarb and Henrekson (2003) argue that a top-down
policy (in Sweden) is discouraging commercialisation and that the US is in a much more
favourable position as there is competition among universities for funding and scientists.
A lack of management skills (Spilling 2004, Wright et al. 2008), insufficient IP, market and
entrepreneurial experiences (Lambert 2003, Hall 2004, Zhao 2004) and bad staffing practices
(O'Shea et al. 2004, O’Shea et al. 2008) were found to be operational barriers to scientific-
knowledge commercialisation and reflect quality issues within TTOs.
The efficiency and acceptance of TTOs vary from country to country. TTOs in the US seem
to be more successful than in the UK (Chapple et al. 2005). In Germany, TTOs and regional
patent agencies do not appear to be widely accepted by academia and industry (Kienbaum
2006, Sellenthin 2009). In Ireland, a recent survey found that whilst TTO were adequately
staffed, they did not have adequate time to build network relationships (Forfas 2010). It also
recommended the personnel needed to be up-skilled (Forfas 2010).
