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

Baglieri, Daniela; Lorenzoni, Gianni

doi:10.1007/s10961-012-9274-7

Cited by 21 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is more extensive and has a compliance focus. Given these managerial challenges, it is not surprising that more PI are exiting universities to set up through spin-out (Baglieri and Lorenzoni, 2014), given the managerial experiences they will have attained are transferable to such a context.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kidwell (2014) emphasised how PIs are very strategic in selecting their institutions in order to progress their research agenda, while Baglieri and Lorenzoni (2014) noted how some PIs make the deliberate decision to leave a university setting to set up their own firm so that they can enhance their sphere of influence and use it as a mechanism to shape their research agenda and the market opportunity. In terms of strategic behaviours, O'Kane et al, (2013) reported on how PIs utilise proactive and reactive strategic postures with differing levels of funding conformance when designing publicly funded research projects.…”

Section: Principal Investigators: What We Knowmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Managerial challenges of publicly funded principal investigators

Cunningham

O’Reilly

O’Kane

et al. 2015

IJTM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Principal investigators (PI) are at the nexus of university business collaborations through their leadership of funded research grants. In fulfilling their multiple roles, PIs are involved in a range of different activities, from direct scientific supervision of junior scientists, the organisation of new scientific avenues to engaging with industrial partners. With the increased impetus for public research to produce wealth through science commercialisation, research is increasingly orchestrated through programmes which seek to connect research avenues and markets. The role of PIs is of growing importance. The extent of managerial challenges encountered by scientists in the context of their PI role has not been the focus of any empirical studies. This paper examines the managerial challenges experienced by publicly funded PIs. Our study, set in the context of the Irish research system, found three foci of PI managerial challenges -project management, project adaptability and project network management.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Principal Investigators: What We Knowmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managerial challenges of publicly funded principal investigators

Cunningham

O’Reilly

O’Kane

et al. 2015

IJTM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some PIs are highly strategic in selecting an institution to conduct their research activities (Kidwell 2014). Other PIs leave their institution to set up a new venture to enhance their influence (Baglieri and Lorenzoni 2014). The strategic behaviours of PIs have been categorized by O' Kane et al (2013) according to strategic posture (proactive or reactive) and levels of funding conformance.…”

Section: Principal Investigator Roles and Definitionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

At the frontiers of scientific advancement: the factors that influence scientists to become or choose to become publicly funded principal investigators

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…PIs can also make the deliberate decision to leave a university setting to set up their own firm so that they can enhance their sphere of influence and use it as a mechanism to shape their research agenda and the market opportunity (Baglieri and Lorenzoni 2014). Based on a study of five PIs, Baglieri and Lorenzoni (2014) show how PIs positioned themselves closer to the market that enabled them to provide roadmaps and identify customer needs as well as actively participate in the value creation process. Moreover, Casati and Genet (2014) argue that PIs are scientific entrepreneurs that engage in envisioning, value creation, and resourcing actions.…”

Section: Entrepreneurial Ecosystemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consistent with this view, many of the tasks now undertaken by PIs have expanded beyond scientific avenues and resemble those of traditional entrepreneurs. For example, there is increasing acknowledgement that PIs contribute to industry growth (Audretsch and Stephan 1996;Zucker et al 2002), acquire capital and resources (Forti et al 2013;Kidwell 2013), and act as inventors and market shapers (Baglieri and Lorenzoni 2014;Casati and Genet 2014;Murray 2004) as well as boundary spanning agents who connect scientific inquiry, innovation, and industry (Boehm and Hogan 2014;Gittelman and Kogut 2003). Added to this, a number of scholars have emphasized the research management duties associated with the PI role (Adler et al 2009;Boardman and Ponomariov 2014), while Etzkowitz (2003) refers to research groups that are led by PIs as Bquasi-firms.M oreover, the PI role involves significant coordination among entrepreneurial ecosystem actors.…”

Section: Responsibilities Of Pis As Entrepreneurial Actorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Entrepreneurial ecosystem governance: a principal investigator-centered governance framework

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on entrepreneurial ecosystems has largely taken a macro-perspective to better conceptualize and map the determinants and evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems, yet has neglected the micro-level interactions of various entrepreneurial ecosystem actors. Recent criticisms of entrepreneurial ecosystems have centered on the lack of explicit case and effect relationships, attribution, units of analysis, the different use of network definitions as well as the static nature of existing frameworks. The purpose of our paper is to present a micro level principal investigator (PI)-centered governance framework that addresses these posited criticisms and in doing so identifies the value creation indicators (benefits), PI capabilities, the problem categories (costs), and solving mechanisms that PIs can use to govern effectively and efficiently large-scale publicly funded research programs. In leading such research programs, PIs interact with different actors within entrepreneurial ecosystems and manage governance issues, conflicts, and tensions effectively at the micro level to deliver the anticipated benefits and costs for each actor. Our framework provides the basis for future empirical research on entrepreneurial ecosystem as we have attributed cause and effect at an individual actor level and conceptualized the governance challenges at a micro rather than at the macro level that overcomes the static nature of previous frameworks.

show abstract

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

Cited by 21 publications

References 65 publications

Managerial challenges of publicly funded principal investigators

Managerial challenges of publicly funded principal investigators

At the frontiers of scientific advancement: the factors that influence scientists to become or choose to become publicly funded principal investigators

Entrepreneurial ecosystem governance: a principal investigator-centered governance framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About