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

Abstract

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

Evolving missions and university entrepreneurship: academic spin-offs and graduate start-ups in the entrepreneurial society

“…Individual level data on entrepreneurial activities would complement the picture depicted in this paper, providing better understanding of the internal characteristics and micro-processes of university entrepreneurship, as well as how individual actors-both academics and graduates-respond and evolve in relation to different organizational contexts, heterogeneous knowledge and capabilities creation processes (Ambos et al 2008). …”

Collaboration for Innovation: A Case Study on How Social Capital Mitigates Collaborative Challenges in University–Industry Research Alliances

“…Certain firms are able to overcome this type of challenge and recognize, assimilate, and apply novel information from dissimilar actors. This dilemma is likely to be particularly prominent in relationships between industrial firms and PROs, in which dissimilarity can be regarded as substantial due to the tension between academic and commercial activities (Ambos et al, 2008). Collaborative tensions and barriers between firms and PROs have been acknowledged in the literature; however, it is necessary to better understand the factors that mitigate or reduce these barriers over time (Bruneel et al, 2010).…”

“…774). A common tension between firms and PROs concerns dissimilarities between academic and commercial activities (Ambos et al, 2008). PROs perform fundamental research, whereas commercial firms address the cost activities of innovation, which makes firms more oriented toward the short-term and applied research that provides solutions to problems, whereas PROs are more long-term oriented (Spithoven et al, 2011, Perkmann et al, 2011.…”

“…Although many firms recognize the importance of collaborating with PROs in innovation development, they are often reluctant to use these external knowledge sources because they find it challenging to achieve effective collaboration, as both firms and PROs must compromise their interests in the pursuit of collaboration. Firms and PROs can have conflicting goals in terms of organizational structure, management, goals and approaches to problems, which make collaboration between academic and commercial activities challenging and give rise to tension (Ambos et al, 2008).…”

Stakeholder roles for fostering ambidexterity in Sub-Saharan African agricultural netchains for the emergence of multi-stakeholder cooperatives

“…In this paradigm the concept of ambidexterity has further evolved into a more collective managerial capability, pursued by diverse actors of civil society and various productive sectors, such as small and medium enterprises (Chang et al, 2011), supply chain networks (Narasimhan and Narayanan, 2013), projects (Li and Huang, 2013), entrepreneurial universities (Ambos et al, 2008;Chang et al, 2009;Tahar et al, 2011), family (Koenig et al, 2013), and individual-leadership levels (Rosing et al, 2011). In netchains, there is an aggregative and complex setting of networks with multiple actors at multiple levels.…”