New paper by <b>Battaglia, Daniele, Emilio Paolucci, and Elisa Ughetto</b> just published on <b>Technovation</b>!


New paper by Battaglia, Daniele, Emilio Paolucci, and Elisa Ughetto just published on Technovation!

Although the literature has explored the direct effect of Proof-of-Concept programs (PoCs) on favoring the commercialization of Research Based Inventions (RBIs), as well as the institutional determinants which can shape the success of these programs, the role played by the “internal” mechanisms in determining the effectiveness of PoCs has been overlooked. In this paper, we analyze the interplay that exists within PoCs between the project domain and the commercialization potential of funded RBIs. On the basis of a Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) on 31 RBIs developed within the Politecnico di Torino and funded under the same PoC scheme, we explore how the “internal” domain of PoCs (i.e., the technological features of the RBIs and the characteristics and commitment of the research teams that develop them) affects three different commercialization outcomes: licensing, establishing spin-offs and propelling new research toward improving the commercialization potential of the RBIs. We highlight that three requisites are strictly necessary for the creation of a spin-off: an engineering-based RBI (instead of a science-based one), a sufficiently high Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of the invention (between 4 and 5) and the previous intention of the research team to set up a spin-off. No clear results concerning the licensing of RBIs have instead emerged. We show that a recurring outcome of PoCs is not the direct commercialization of the RBI, but rather the stimulus, within the research team, to carry out further research in order to improve the RBI itself and enhance its market fit. This happens especially when RBIs are science-based and when the teams working on the RBI are young and homogeneous, or conversely old and heterogeneous. We discuss the implications for universities and policy makers regarding how they should design and fund such programs in the broader setting of Technology Transfer. Access the paper here: