WHY AND HOW DO ACADEMICS CONDUCT FEASIBILITY ANALYSES ON THEIR INVENTIONS AND DISCOVERIES?

摘要

Although many university inventions and discoveries arising from academia are at a stage beyond basic research, yet they are insufficiently developed to generate the interest of receptor companies and potential investors. Such inventions and discoveries may never be commercialized without additional research designed to advance inventions/discoveries towards commercially viable new products, services or tools. This additional research effort and its associated investments of resources are required to demonstrate that the potential value of promising inventions and discoveries can be translated into actual value (Lundquist, 2003). This value creation is achieved by establishing proofs at many complementary levels (Lundquist, 2003): technical proof, intellectual property control proof, safety proof, value proof, economic proof and attractiveness proof. Therefore, this exploratory paper addresses three questions: What is the extent of engagement of university researchers in natural sciences and engineering in different forms of proof of principle (POP)? Are there complementarities and substitution between these different forms of POP? Are there differences in the determinants of these different forms of POP? The results of this study show that about 20% of the surveyed researchers engaged in different forms of POP over the five years preceding the survey. The results of the estimation of the econometric models support the hypothesis of interdependence (complementarities) between the different forms of proof of principle. Finally, the results of this exploratory study also show many differences in the determinants that explain why researchers engage in different forms of POP. The final section of the paper addresses implications resulting from these complementarities and differences in the determinants of the different types of POP for university managers and policy makers.