7,676 research outputs found

    Managerial challenges of publicly funded principal investigators

    Get PDF
    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

    The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research

    Get PDF
    Securing public funding to conduct research and leading it by being a principal investigator (PI) is seen as significant career development step. Such a role brings professional prestige but also new responsibilities beyond research leadership to research management. If public funding brings financial and infrastructure support, little is understood about the inhibiting factors that publicly funded PIs face given the research autonomy offered by publicly funded research. Our study finds that there are three key PI inhibiting factors (1) political and environmental, (2) institutional and (3) project based. Traditional knowledge, skills and technical know-how of publicly funded PIs are insufficient to deal with the increasing managerial demands and expectations i.e. growing external bureaucracy of public funding agencies. Public funding is no longer the 'freest form of support' as suggested by Chubin and Hackett (Peerless science: peer review and US science policy. Suny Press, New York, 1990) and the inhibiting factors experienced by publicly funded PIs limits their research autonomy. We also argue that PIs have little influence in overcoming these inhibiting factors despite their central role in conducting publicly funded research

    Publicly funded principal investigators allocation of time for public sector entrepreneurship activities

    Get PDF
    In this paper we explore the allocation of time of publicly funded principal investigators (PIs) for public sector entrepreneurship activities. We examine their allocation of time in general to research activities and specifically at a project level in relation to the type of research, knowledge transfer activity, project impact, deliberate technology transfer strategy and boundary spanning activities using data from a full population survey of publicly funded PIs in Ireland in science, engineering and technology across national and European research programmes. We find that PIs who spend more time on general research related activities allocated a higher proportion of time to technology transfer activities and that PIs who spend more time on technology activities engaged more in end of project reports and collaborative research with industry. In relation to the importance placed on impact criteria, PIs who spend more time on research placed more importance on technology and market impacts than those spending less time on research related activities. Furthermore, PIs who spend more time on technology transfer placed greater value on technology transfer, market and economic impact. We find projects of PIs spending more time on research related activities had a greater impact on technology transfer and a greater market impact, according to the assessment of respondents, than the projects of PIs spending less time on research activities. Finally, with respect to boundary spanning activities we find PIs spending more time on research engaged more in direct consultation with industry end-users and direct consultation with their technology transfer office at the pre-proposal stage of their selected project and they had significantly larger than average amount of industry partners. We conclude our analysis by considering the implications for public sector entrepreneurship

    How Principal Investigators’ Commercial Experience Influences Technology Transfer and Market Impacts

    Get PDF
    Businesses can benefit from university–industry collaborations, yet they rarely take full advantage of them. Scientists who serve as principal investigators (PIs) act as the nucleus of university–industry collaborations and partner with industry to cocreate value. We conducted a case study of PIs at publicly funded research universities, institutes, and organizations in Ireland to explore how having commercial experience influences how PIs approach technology transfer and how they develop new business models, products, and services. We learned that PIs’ prior commercial experience influences how they approach their research, project work, and project selection and affects how they commercialize knowledge and outputs from their scientific research––that is, patents, licences, agreements, etc.––throughout the project’s life cycle. In university– industry collaborations, PIs’ commercial experience can impact industry partners’ attempts to realize technology transfer and market impacts

    Guest editorial

    Get PDF
    Purpose: This paper examines and discusses the need for micro-level analyses of academic entrepreneurship and outlines a micro-level research agenda for the study of academic entrepreneurship. Design/methodology/approach: Based on a review of academic literature on academic entrepreneurship, this study focuses on individual actors and suggests some future research agendas. Findings: The authors highlight that more studies dealing with academic entrepreneurship need to take a micro-level perspective, thereby outline several fruitful avenues of research: (1) star scientists and principal investigators, (2) TTO professionals, (3) graduate entrepreneurs, (4) university administrators, (5) policy makers and funders as well as (6) micro-level organisational routines. Practical implications: This paper derives three main implications for management practice and policy. First, there is a real need to develop the managerial skills, competencies and capabilities of scientists and individuals. Second, policy makers need to ensure the necessary resources to pursue a paradigm shift towards more entrepreneurial thinking and action and create adequate incentives. Third, firms need to offer support and guidance on how to best commercialise and transfer scientific knowledge and ideally complement support structures of universities and research institutes. Originality/value: This paper provides an organising framework for the study of micro-level academic entrepreneurship and emphasises the need to focus further on individual actors and how their actions, behaviours and approaches contribute to academic entrepreneurship in different institutional, environmental and cultural contexts

    Scientists in the principal investigator role

    Get PDF
    The social and economic contributions of R&D are essential in the development of countries, since they are the motor for their progress. Research can be implemented by companies, but it can also be implemented in universities and research centres. The research process is more and more often conducted in teams and these are increasingly multidisciplinary. This is a double-edge sword because, even though diversity among research team members could increase the generation of innovative and creative ideas, this heterogeneity can also have a dark side for the welfare of the research team. Therefore, when both advantages and disadvantages can emerge in a diverse research team, what can diminish the weaknesses and enhance the strengths is the crucial role of an efficient principal investigator managing and leading the research team. Notwithstanding that there are some studies that have focused on the principal investigator role in the literature, the knowledge about them is somewhat scant, because there is still a need for a deeper understanding of this crucial actor in R&D environments. The research work carried out in this Doctoral Thesis aims to address both principal investigators and their environments. With this research, we will deepen the understanding of what influences principal investigators and what they have an influence on, since principal investigators are a key asset in R&D environments. Therefore, the focus of this Doctoral Thesis is on some of the issues that are in the core of the influence of principal investigators on the activities of R&D teams. Particularly, we focus our research efforts on developing a measurement scale of the principal investigator's human capital whose results could allow us to determine whether different principal investigator profiles exist. We also focus on studying whether obtaining public competitive funding could be influenced by the principal investigator's priorities or their gender. Moreover, we focus on the relationship between the level of conflict within a research team and its performance, as well as on the influence that the principal investigator's transformational leadership has on this relationship

    A typology of principal investigators based on their human capital: an exploratory analysis

    Get PDF
    There is burgeoning literature on principal investigators (PIs) and their influential role in science, technology transfer and research commercialisation. However, there is yet no analysis of this actor from the perspective of their human capital (HC), i.e., the combination of knowledge, abilities and skills that they possess. Consequently, the purpose of this paper is to fill this gap by identifying whether a range of different PI profiles exists, based on their different HC. A cluster analysis was developed using a database comprised of 224 PIs of research teams, from a wide range of scientific fields. Three different PI profiles were identified, research-oriented PIs, accomplished PIs, management-focused PIs. The relationship between each of these profiles and their performance was analysed at both individual and research team level, and our findings reinforce the idea that there is not a size that fits all. Indeed, contrary to the ‘more is better’ statement, higher levels of HC are not necessarily connected to better results, our findings suggested an adequate combination of HC as the best option for PIs. Results of the relationship between PI gender, performance and the three different PI profiles have been examined, as well

    The Role of Project Coordinators in European Commission Framework Programme Projects

    Get PDF
    Programme Research and Innovation projects, a purposeful sample of European Framework Programme (FP) Project Coordinators (PC). The objective is to identify the practices and activities of PCs leading EU FP projects and to understand their impact on innovation outcomes. The survey findings confirm the lynchpin role of PCs in the European FP R&I projects. Their role clearly extends significantly beyond that identified in the Horizon 2020 User Guide which sees the PC as “the main contact point between the consortium and the Commission for a particular grant”. The PC is far more than simply “the proposal initiator in the submission phase” but taking account of their prime role in project conceptualisation and consortia formation, the PC is in effect the principal translator of the EC funded research programme and responsible for how the majority of the European research budget is invested. Identifying the PC as a scientific entrepreneur significantly changes how the PC role is viewed. Recognising the PC as a scientific entrepreneur means their engagement with the PC during the project should be less about monitoring and oversight during project implementation, and more about providing the entrepreneur with support

    The Role of Project Coordinators in European Commission Framework Programme Projects

    Get PDF
    This report presents key findings of the Innovation Radar Project Coordinators Survey in Framework Programme Research and Innovation projects, a purposeful sample of European Framework Programme (FP) Project Coordinators (PC). The objective is to identify the practices and activities of PCs leading EU FP projects and to understand their impact on innovation outcomes. The survey findings confirm the lynchpin role of PCs in the European FP R&I projects. Their role clearly extends significantly beyond that identified in the Horizon 2020 User Guide which sees the PC as “the main contact point between the consortium and the Commission for a particular grant”. The PC is far more than simply “the proposal initiator in the submission phase” but taking account of their prime role in project conceptualisation and consortia formation, the PC is in effect the principal translator of the EC funded research programme and responsible for how the majority of the European research budget is invested. Identifying the PC as a scientific entrepreneur significantly changes how the PC role is viewed. From an EC perspective, recognising the PC as a scientific entrepreneur means their engagement with the PC during the project should be less about monitoring and oversight during project implementation, and more about providing the entrepreneur with support.JRC.B.6-Digital Econom
    corecore