Preprint The True Entrepreneur
The dilemma between the need for innovations and irrational resistance to them is a challenge that is presented to organizations that want to modernize. But the main challenge is to create an environment conducive to the emergence of entrepreneurship.
Results of innovation:
(1) Creates social changes;
2) Creativity in solving problems,
(3) Social impact;
(4) Quality ethics.
The Entrepreneur activities are activities of humans and are therefore an essential part of humanity.
Dear Dr Artur
If the society be healthy , of course a researcher with rational creativity, courage, and capability could run academic entrepreneurship !
This is an important, vexing question.
There is a dividing line between sufficient to live and crawling after more than is sufficient to live while doing research.
Sufficient to live option: Here the focus of a researchers activity is on solving research problems while being mindful of the need to take care of one's basic needs. There is analogy from gardening that explains the sufficient to live option. Garden plants flourish while there is good soil and sufficient water (aka inroads towards solutions to research problems while either teaching) and sufficient sunlight (aka steady work on problem solutions that make their way into published papers). Plants fail when their is too much sunlight. Similarly, research fails when there is too much energy expended on making that bit of extra for a rainy day.
More than sufficient to live option: This means shifting the focus from research to making a profit.
Which would you choose?
Successful scientists are also active entrepreneurs. Germany's recent Nobel Prize winner, Theodor Hänsch, is a good example: the physicist co-founded MenloSystems, which has taken his "frequency comb" and used it to make products for the market. In fact, every fourth researcher that registers a patent also founds a company. That is the result of a study at the Max Planck Institute for Economics in Jena. It looked at cancer researchers in the United States; the study's authors say what's true for those medical scientists is also true for scientists of every stripe - in Germany as well as the U.S.A. (Study commissioned by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, March 29, 2006)
Sure, every researcher has a research problem. He is the owner of a project.
Greetings
Definitely! In fact, it's an all-round researcher, who diligently undertakes his or her research activities, who earns the prestige of being an academic entrepreneur. Inversely, a good and productive entrepreneur is the one with sharp and keen sense in research!
Yes a researcher can become an entrepreneur. As an entrepreneur one should do innovative things. The R & D component should be there.
Yes, research and Development helps to improve entrepreneur activities
I am totally agree with Dr. James F Peters and Artur Victoria.
Best regards
The world of business means the transition from simple life, which is limited to a few responsibilities, to a difficult world full of interesting adventures that need a lot of skills to successfully overcome. When man creates his new work begins to integrate easily with him at the beginning, , And the need to increase production, and advertising, in order to gain more customers who are the basis for the success of any project, which means that the person who wants to enter the entrepreneurship must be available to have sufficient talent needed by any project in order to ability to
it is possible yes for example: Before 30 years Pr. Gerard-Jean Martin of the University of Nantes the father and the inventor of the method SNIF-NMR and founded the Euro-Fins scientific company with his own family, this company Actuellent is the world leader in bio-analysis of foods .
Research and entreprenurship are closely connected, though not in academic terms; I prefer Israel Kirzner's view of the entrepreneur.
Social entrepreneurship (e.g. in holistic health care) is nowadays a great research challenge, i.e. creating programs/systems that can meet unmet human needs ('social silicon valleys').
Well I am an artist and developed paradigm shifting technology (TRIZ analysis) with a combination of science and art (there is no distinction really).
I then had to drive the companies with my patents through start-up to commercialisation while trying to set up the research forum to 'hold the centre ground'. A paradigm shift really needs to be marketed through the core research group licensing base technology for development. Investors do not understand this.
The entrepreneur (I had to be one - raise the investment and run the companies as CEO) is not really someone that wants to make shed loads of cash and swan about in fast cars. The driver for these people is to get the important benefits of the technology to market and being used.
The problems with greed come with the investors. Start-up investors are usually manageable in that they have some sort of interest in the technology. It's when you have developed the initial technology and need the serious money (£m) to establish the ongoing research team, expand the patent space, get to market and form an exit that the trouble occurs. The 2nd stage investors are 'of another world'! Their 'purpose' is to take control in 1-2 steps. They want your share, the start up investors share and reduce sweet equity earned by the development team to meaningless proportions. They then want to drive to an early exit to make 'their' returns before next Tuesday and are not the least bit concerned if this compromises you, the company or any prospective subsequent investors, ie. if their approach is viable. They really are not very good.
It was also specifically pointed out to me that I would have to abandon any hopes of setting up a research team until they were sated. Why? - firstly they don't want their money spent on researchers (that's like taking a long term risk!) and secondly they don't trust the research community (including HEI's) to operate in an honest, business focused manner re: publications and confidentiality etc., irrespective of what you make the sign.
Finding this out cost me 10 years of unpaid hard labour! Don't try it unless you know people that really are very wealthy and right minded and open to what's actually required to make something work. This more important than the worth/potential benefit of the technology.
The researcher can become an effective entrepreneur, but in most cases he will lack the credibility that existed in the field of research work.
Researchers are academic entrepreneurs as they promote and elevate academic works.
Research pays rewards. A researcher can contribute in any dimension of the life. To me, An entrepreneur = a research Scholar
This can be done, needs an economic feasibility study, a good law firm to protect his rights, systems that allow business integration
Yes, a researcher can be an entrepreneur. And all of us know very successful entrepreneurs among scientists.
But we have to answer for ourselves: what is the most important thing for us: Research? Money? or Money earned due to Research findings?
In my view, each Research Institution has to have a special Division - to promote the novel things created by its Scientists. Do not distract Researchers from their main Hobby-Work.
The academic leader is the person who takes advantage of available resources and transforms them into research opportunities.
Hi James P,
I am a great admirer of your work and the group that publish together so I am disappointed in your contribution to this question.
Try this for a different 'perspective'.
The super insulation that some researchers enjoy from their institutions (businesses) with respect to the dirty aspect of making money, a serious business with real risk and dedication attached, is inextricably linked to the provision of technologies to aid society. This 'dirty business' provides the tax revenue to keep 'monks' insulated. The 'holier than thou' attitude of main steam research to the business dynamic is a false and superficial piety that needs debunking for the good of society as a whole - including the health of research? HEI's need to take on this attitude and educate.
The system is broken for sure but that is partly because of the attitude of researchers. I have experience of actively being undermined by researchers looking to maintain their personal egos over the public good. Their defence - my right to publish what I have heard.
Researcher can be an Entrepreneur if his research is for the public need with this if he research is for the medical purpose or for certain biological need he can certainly make a progress in the business for his research contribution & he can certainly become a successful Entrepreneur
This is my personal opinion
The traits required to become a successful researcher or a successful entrepreneur are different and it is extremely exceptional to find people who have excelled in both. It might be relevant to say that all entrepreneurial ventures involve great deal of research but this research is oriented more towards making an already developed product or service relevant to social and commercial cause. Researchers usually are oriented towards inventing or innovating with an intention of social, material or personal profit while the entrepreneurs are oriented towards driving commercial success by selling these inventions and innovations for similar intentions. Its rare to find people like Alfred Nobel who were successful both in research and entrepreneurship. Furthermore, interesting would be to ponder over - Can researchers be trained in entrepreneurial abilities to develop successful business ventures? OR alternatively - Can entrepreneurs be trained to have research acumen to lead and develop new products and services for their business ventures?
So my answer is - Yes, some researchers can be entrepreneurs (this is possible for researchers that have acquired abilities, either naturally or artificially, that entrepreneurs possess in developing, leading and managing business ventures)
In my view, you have to broaden this assessment. You cannot paint this complex question so broadly. Researcher in what subject? Do you expect, say, a researcher in geography or earth science to be an entrepreneur? What about someone studying healthcare? As an entrepreneur you are expected to be able to commercialize, can researchers be as good in commercializing their research interests along with conducting good research?
Sure, there are exceptions, some folks happen to commercialize their research findings later on in their career, however, these are a select few individuals who have the understanding and drive - expecting an educator (as the majority of researchers we have right now across the world are also educators) to multi-task. Can a researcher, who is also multi-tasked with education, can further multi-task and perform entrepreneurial engagements? Wouldn't the output be affected? How do you be good at any of these areas if you don't specialize?
A researcher in business, then there is some scope, but for other areas of research, I don't think this should be the case. Field should determine if the researcher should look to entrepreneurship.
Yes! He can, especially in applied research.
Regards
Dr. Kamath Madhusudhana
Researcher entrepreneur,
Good mask for those who wanted to use science as business tool. Not necessarily in negative terms, but yes it could have negative consequences for reputation of scholarly world as well.
In my own opinion, all researchers have entrepreneurial tendencies that need to be explored.
Among the advantages of entrepreneurship: Encouraging more research work and studies. Promote the improvement and development of the work of devices and equipment in the local market.
There was a few decades ago a time when researchers received nothing for their results, even though they earned a company or university a fortune. This may have been a reaction to people like Edison and Alexander Bell who claimed inventions not their own and became extremely rich. Also of course it reflected more group-based research.
Alexander Fleming the heralded discoverer (sic) of penicillin was the head of a laboratory that did the research, claiming the results as his own. He certainly made money from his claim as well as gaining fame and status. His researchers made very little.
But: the answer is yes. There is no reason that researchers should be poor and non-creative types benefit from their efforts.
Yes, researchers can be entrepreneurs in any (supportive or offensive) business environment. The major problem is that entrepreneurship demands different forms and usually higher overall level of risk-propensity, higher agility and greater persistence than most academic researchers are accustomed to (see enclosed a paper on scientist-entrepreneur's life and required personal charateristics).
Bests,
Igor Gurkov
In our University Startup incubator we see proof of this every day. Read my blog on this subject here:
https://utrechtinc.nl/how-scientists-and-entrepreneurs-can-join-forces/?lang=en
Yes,
I see it as boost to be a diligent entrepreneurship and to explore his/her ideas effectively.
Generally, research expeditions are used to be pretty straightforward. A scientist or researcher had a new idea, performed the research, and disseminated the outputs broadly through article publications. At present, that paradigm has shifted. In reality, researchers can possibly take their results beyond a publication by patenting and commercialising resulting technologies. The authority and universities alike are encouraging researchers to take their work out of the lab and into the commercial sector. As a result, there is a new career path for those with creativity, courage, and capability: academic entrepreneurship. Today, many successful academic entrepreneurs show us that it is possible to be part of the publication race while commercialising scientific findings.
Generally, researchers are too much academic and lack execution skills that are required to be an Entrepreneur.
Similarly, generally, Entrepreneurs lack discipline and patience to be a researcher.
Of course, there are going to be some exceptions :)
The common denominator between research and entrepreneurship Artur Victoria Sascha Kraus Kaukab Abid Azhar is opportunity identification if you Ventakaram, Shane et al or opportunity creation if you follow Barney et al. If you cannot identify a researchable topic that adds value or a market opportunity - a big enough or pressing problem or opportunity in the entrepreneurial space, you will not get out of the starting block in both areas. Equally, if you cannot de-risk and exploit or develop you research question further etc., you will not make it. Net, the parallels are pretty strong and similar.
Indeed, researchers are entrepreneurs in the sense that they employ their means (time, skills, ...) to attain some goals when the outcome of their efforts is highly uncertain. Academics, too, must exercise judgment on how they allocate their scarce means. Hence, they act entrepreneurially.
I agree. Especially the past few years with the academic environment becoming increasingly uncertain and unpredictable. Definitely in South Africa where resources are becoming scarcer. I think this is where effectuation plays an important role - knowing who you and what do you know, and who you know. The competition to publish in A-listed journals are becoming increasingly difficult as the quality and quantity is increasing. Therefore one needs to think about new ways of presenting findings to make it attractive to both researchers and practitioners.
I cannot agree more with the few previous statements, researchers are a mixture between entrepreneurs and ,mostly, small craftsmen and tradesmen, too often also being isolated artists.
- Badges
- Science topic