Protean Entrepreneur

What differentiates academic entrepreneurs from scientific entrepreneurs?

Corine Genet & Anne Casati

Grenoble Ecole de Management

Research Motivation

3

Why academic entrepreneurship ?

• Over the past decades, Western societies have increasingly come to expect public research to generate “useful” results that can be put to practical applications in the private sector.

• This enhanced emphasis on knowledge transfer from public research shows in policy measures such as the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States, which was followed by analogous policy changes in many other countries (Mowery et al., 2001, Bozeman 2000).

• To cope with these changes, the public research sector has emphasized the commercialization of research with entrepreneurial university models (Etzkowitz, 1998).

• Academic entrepreneurship (Jian et al. 2009; Lam 2010; Shane 2004) — usually defined as practical and direct contributions made by university research to society— is one of these models.

4

• Principal investigators (PIs), whatever the definition taken, are generally the lead applicant responsible for the scientific and technical direction of a research program

• PIs are project leaders and as project leaders they may transcend organizations.

Project units are temporary premises dedicated to activation and mobilization of resources and skills that gradually draw direction and shape research avenues

While managing project, PIs are reshaping simultaneously boundaries amongst the different subfields and organizations dedicated to science

Creating new organizations

Why focus on the PIs role as entrepreneur ?

5

Why focus on the PIs role as entrepreneur ?

• Entrepreneurship is the creation of organizations. What differentiates entrepreneurs from non-entrepreneurs is that entrepreneurs create organizations, while non-entrepreneurs do not (Gartner1988)

• If the causal relation between entrepreneur and organization creation, is solid, There is no single explanation of entrepreneurial involvement of scientists

• Why some of them turn from project based organization (project) to permanent organization (spin-off)?

• There is a tension about roles for both individuals, groups, and institutions

• There is a tension about science and the market

Research Question

7

PIs as Protean Entrepreneur

• PIs role as entrepreneur remains ambiguous and somewhat fuzzy

• PIs are simultaneously reshaping boundaries amongst the different subfields and organizations, as such they do act as entrepreneurs

• What differentiates a scientific entrepreneur from an academic entrepreneur ?

• If all PIs create start-ups such that there are no more PIs for academia, then what becomes of the entrepreneurial spirit of academia?

• If all PIs can potentially deploy themselves as entrepreneurs, why would some of them leave their institution to create new organizations?

• Our findings shed light on the PIs role as Protean Entrepreneur

Literature Review

• The debate on the entrepreneurial university has raised

questions about the motivations of scientists who decide to

start their own ventures (George et al., 2005 ; Jain et al.,

2009).

Shan (2004) reports that academic entrepreneurs have a stronger desire for wealth or to bring technological breakthroughs into practice

Most academics work with industry to further their research (via additional resources and learning opportunities) rather than to commercialize their knowledge (Meyer-Krahmer and Schmoch, 1998; Bozeman, 2000; Lee, 2000; D’Este and Perkman, 2010).

9

Scientist’s motivations for creating a start-up

For both science and market

resources are central

• PIs as entrepreneurs are combining different resources held

by individuals and communities whether scientific or not.

K. Knorr-Cetina defines trans-epistemic arenas, where scientists define common practices together with non scientific partners (Knorr-Cetina, 1982)

The place to study innovation practices is not only in the labs

Besides professional territories, there are alternative arenas where people from different background trade different types of credibility (scientific against monetary for example)

There is a permanent exchange of scientific credibility against resources (money, trust, partnership…)

• Entrepreneurs in constructing markets and shaping boundaries are acquiring resources

To control market they may increase coverage, acquiring rivals…

Blending or destroying resources (Santos & Eisenhardt, 2009)

10

• Interaction is defined as the ability to mobilize support and

complementary assets from within and beyond the

organization

The scientific activities remain close to the edge of knowledge, the knowledge produced incorporates a large proportion of tacitness and remains embodied in those who produce it. (Powell et al., 2002).

It follows that the circulation of knowledge equates with the circulation of researchers or engineers themselves (Almeida et al., 1999; Bozeman et al., 2004)

• Links between individuals creating, consuming, transforming

knowledge are key to create value (Bozeman et al., 2004)

11

Interaction & networks are pivotal to create value

Research frame and methodology

13

Research design

• Our research is based on case studies of 40 Academic Spin-Offs (from main French PROs).

• Focusing on PIs, we investigated different sources combining information from PIs, spin-offs and laboratories.

Qualitative interviews with founding members (40)

Qualitative interviews with laboratory directors (40)

Reports of laboratory operations,

Press releases on spin-offs

Databases (Web of Science for publications, the European Patent Office for patents).

• All of this information allowed us to characterize the profile of the founders.

• We purposely decided to focus on PIs to answer our research question.

14

Data analysis

• We extracted elements describing the conditions when creating activities and drivers for activities to manage emerging codes and generate findings iteratively.

PI’s main motivations for creating a spin-off and its fields of activities

Expectations from parent organizations (lab directors and other members of the lab)

Status and function of the PI in the spin-off

Type of networks engaged in the business venture process

• All elements were coded manually. Our analysis followed a two stages process ensuring that we understood the PI’s role more completely:

Stage 1: Characterizing the strategic intent

Stage 2: Discerning PI’s role in the business venture

Clarifying PI’s role as entrepreneur

Findings

First stage: Characterizing the strategic intent

• PI’s motivations

Their motivations are either mainly focused on Resources capture (knowledge, technology, learning…). Academics work with industry to further research (via additional resources and learning opportunities) rather than to commercialize knowledge

Or, focused on Market value capture (product, device, or service…). Academics want to bring their results on the market place, to create and capture value.

• Stakeholders expectations

In some cases there is complete divergence from the beginning

Sometimes interests are conflicting or competing

Sometimes there is a real convergence, the Lab being the real spin-off sponsor

17

A characterization of the strategic intent

18

Diverging Converging

Resources Capture

Market Value Capture

A characterization of the Strategic Intent

PI’s Motivations

Stakeholders Expectations

19

Substitution Hybridization

Eviction

Valorisation

Diverging expectations

Converging expectations

Resources Capture

Market Value Capture

A characterization of the Strategic Intent

• The combination of both dimensions (expectation and

anticipation convergence and PI’s motivation) contributes to

improving the understanding of PI’s strategic intent through

the business venture process.

Substitution: “sometimes it was conflictual…what to do, licensing or starting a company?” “The host institution of the laboratory chose the child and not the mother… The laboratory has been dispossessed of his research.”

Hybridization: “I needed to test my research options and enrich them by field data” ” From the beginning we had the idea of reselling the business”

Eviction: “I no longer agree with the strategic directions of the laboratory, so I decided to develop my project outside” “the idea was to support a post doc fellow, helping him creating his job”

Valorization: "We must have faith believe that we will revolutionize the world“; "It was normal, it was in tune with the times ...we needed a spin-off in our

results“ ; :; “we needed to maintain this expertise, but it wasn’t anymore a core competence”

20

A characterization of strategic intent

• Substitution: Strategic intent is to control resources, there is a

strong competition to acquire or keep resources. Interests of

the stakeholders are diverging or competing.

• Hybridization: Strategic intent is to capture resources &

meanings. PIs need to enrich their datas from the field and when

knowledge need to be put into practice to confirm orientation.

• Eviction: Strategic intent is to redeploy field of research and

avoid conflictual situation. Pi is facing career dead lock. There is

complete divergence with Lab direction.

• Valorization: strategic intent is to tackle the market . PIs think

they really got something for the market. The Lab wish to maintain

expertise or visbility through spin-off

21

Second stage: Discerning PI’s role

23

PI’s Position

PI’s network

PIs roles

Homogeneous heterogeneous

Scientific Advisor

Chief Executive Officer

• PI’s position reveals implicit choices in terms of role

When they are Scientific Advisor PIs think their contribution and manage their involvement to further and feed their scientific field of research.

When they are Chief Executive Officer they are dedicated to day-to-day business operations and are performing results for market output (involvement is full time and they quit Academia)

• …and Interactions and mobilized network are central to specify

the forms of collaboration and to found legitimacy for acting

Homogeneous (Community focu)s, when networks are strongly connected to the early socialization (discipline wise) or when there is a strong identification to the organization

Heterogeneous and multiple network, when there are many contacts outside the Lab and the scientific community. They are dealing with many different people from heterogeneous environments.

24

PI’s role

25

Deepening Knowledge

Shaping Science

Solving problem

Shaping Market

PIs role

Scientific Advisor

Chief Executive Officer

Homogeneous Network

Heterogeneous Network

• The combination of both dimensions (position & ties) contribute to

improving the understanding of PI’s multiple roles

Deepening knowledge when PIs are matching results with theory to acquire and reinforce peer recognition

Solving problem when PIs ability to translate industry concerns into scientific question solve problems for identified customers and lead PIs to manage technology transfer for their research organization.

Shaping market through characterization of fleeting or undefined industry structure, combining personal leadership, entrepreneurship and managerial questions: Shaping new firm identities , Signaling new competencies or transformed competencies, Making clear whom will be customers, competitors or partners

Shaping science through knowledge value creation and transformation, combining scientific leadership, entrepreneurship and organizational questions: Shaping boundaries within field and sub-fields, Collecting and codifying knowledge, Sharing prospective vision through a mix of relational and proactive perspectives

26

PI’s roles

Conclusion: Clarifying PI’s role as entrepreneur

• Result 1: Scientific entrepreneur/Structural role – the role is a

means for scientific prospective

• Result 2: Academic entrepreneur/Managerial role – the role is to

perform for value creation

• We contribute to understanding entrepreneurial model for science:

there is more than one kind (Protean Entrepreneur)

Clarifying PIs role as Protean Entrepreneur

29

Academic Scientific

Entrepreneur

Institution Rep

Academic Entrepreneur

Boundary Spanning

Structural role

Managerial role

PI’s role as Entrepreneur

Boundary Spanning

Many thanks for your attention

Acknowledgements:

we acknowledge the financial support of ANR

What differentiate Scientific entrepreneur from academic entrepreneur ?