An exploratory study of Principal Investigator roles in UK university Proof-of-Concept processes: an Absorptive Capacity perspective

Abstract

The increasing emphasis on academic entrepreneurship, technology transfer and research commercialisation within UK universities is predicated on basic research being developed by academics into commercial entities such as university spin-off companies or licensing arrangements. However, this process is fraught with challenges and risks, given the degree of uncertainty regarding future returns. In an attempt to minimise such risks, the Proof-of-Concept (PoC) process has been developed within University Science Park Incubators (USIs) to test the technological, business and market potential of embryonic technology. The key or the pivotal stakeholder within the PoC is the Principal Investigator (PI), who is usually the lead academic responsible for the embryonic technology. Within the current literature, there appears to be a lack of research pertaining to the role of the PI in the PoC process. Moreover, Absorptive Capacity (ACAP) has emerged within the literature as a theoretical framework or lens for exploring the development and application of new knowledge and technology, where the USI is the organisation considered in the current study. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to explore the role and influence of the PI in the PoC process within a USI setting using an ACAP perspective. The research involved a multiple case analysis of PoC applications within a UK university USI. The results demonstrate the role of the PI in developing practices and routines within the PoC process. These practices and processes were initially tacit and informal in nature but became more explicit and formal over time so that knowledge was retained within the USI after the PIs had completed the PoC process.2.

Knowledge transfer in university quadruple helix ecosystems: an absorptive capacity perspective

“…Indeed, Vandekeckhove and Dentchev () identify that open communication helps reduce knowledge asymmetry which is essential when multiple diverse stakeholders are interacting, with varying objectives in an open innovation context. As noted, over the research period, the KTO had implemented a wide range of activities to connect academics with industry however, the findings suggest the need for further opportunities to enhance physical interaction between academics, end users and industry to overcome tacit knowledge gaps and increase commercialisation success (Gassmann et al, ; McAdam et al, ).…”

“…Building on prior research (Tsai, 2001;Sun, 2010;Su et al, 2013) absorptive capacity is used as a lens to explore the process of KT. Absorptive capacity has been used to explore why some organisations transfer knowledge more successfully than others, particularly in regards to University based KT within an open innovation ecosystem (Easterby-Smith et al, 2008;McAdam et al, 2010). Furthermore, absorptive capacity is seen as playing a crucial role in intra and inter-organisational KT (Zahra and George, 2002;Lane et al, 2006).…”

An exploratory study of retaining and maintaining knowledge in university technology transfer processes

“…Collaborating with diverse networks of actors can enhance idea generation and knowledge creation in the early stages of technology transfer (McAdam et al, 2010). Within the technology commercialisation process, networks are utilised to assess the potential need and demand for a particular technology.…”

Analysing the stakes of stakeholders in research and development project management: a systems approach

“…Some other authors referenced the use of entrepreneurs in R&D management as well as utilising intangible resources for value creation in innovation using stakeholders (Pike et al, 2005;Lettl et al, 2006). The process of research institutions or knowledge networks being transformed into commercial innovative opportunities was also identified by a number of authors (Collinson and Gregson, 2003;Davenport et al, 2003;Ball and Butler, 2004;Simpson, 2004;Leung and Isaacs, 2008;Ebner et al, 2009;McAdam et al, 2010;Barker et al, 2012). Finally, corporate social responsibility and sustainability were linked to stakeholders in R&D projects by some other authors (Hayton, 2005;Yawson et al, 2006;Holmes and Smart, 2009;Schiederig et al, 2012;Seebode et al, 2012).…”