IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/techno/v116y2022ics0166497221001553.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systematizing serendipity for big science infrastructures: The ATTRACT project

Author

Listed:
  • Wareham, Jonathan
  • Pujol Priego, Laia
  • Romasanta, Angelo Kenneth
  • Mathiassen, Thomas Wareham
  • Nordberg, Markus
  • Tello, Pablo Garcia

Abstract

Big Science Research Infrastructures (BSRIs) are tremendous sources of ‘deep-tech’ with the potential to foment alternative commercial applications in diverse industries. Yet, cultivating novel applications of BSRI technologies is not straightforward due to misalignment between their scientific mission, large technological risks, market uncertainties, and long development times. Given these challenges, research is needed to understand if- and how-serendipitous innovations can be purposefully developed from BSRIs. In this study, we analyse ATTRACT, a novel initiative funded by the European Commission's Horizon 2020 program, which funded 170 projects with €100,000 each to develop a proof-of-concept commercial application of BSRI technologies within one year. Our analysis of this dataset identifies three modes employed by researchers to come up with alternate applications: (1) combining different technologies, (2) applying technology into a different field, and (3) using artificial intelligence or machine learning. In a second step, we conducted multinomial logistic regressions using the project data, expert evaluations, and a questionnaire to identify the antecedents associated with the pursuit of each of the three modes. Our findings suggest that scientists and engineers develop many new ideas about novel potential applications of BSRI technologies in their daily work. The main value of ATTRACT is in facilitating project development through financial resources, brokering relationships with industrial partners, and facilitating the applications of technologies in domains outside of the immediate purview of BSRIs.

Suggested Citation

  • Wareham, Jonathan & Pujol Priego, Laia & Romasanta, Angelo Kenneth & Mathiassen, Thomas Wareham & Nordberg, Markus & Tello, Pablo Garcia, 2022. "Systematizing serendipity for big science infrastructures: The ATTRACT project," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:116:y:2022:i:c:s0166497221001553
    DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102374
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497221001553
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102374?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scaringella, Laurent & Chanaron, Jean-Jacques, 2016. "Grenoble–GIANT Territorial Innovation Models: Are investments in research infrastructures worthwhile?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 92-101.
    2. Loureiro, Sandra Maria Correia & Guerreiro, João & Tussyadiah, Iis, 2021. "Artificial intelligence in business: State of the art and future research agenda," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 911-926.
    3. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    4. Haefner, Naomi & Wincent, Joakim & Parida, Vinit & Gassmann, Oliver, 2021. "Artificial intelligence and innovation management: A review, framework, and research agenda✰," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    5. Auerswald, Philip E & Branscomb, Lewis M, 2003. "Valleys of Death and Darwinian Seas: Financing the Invention to Innovation Transition in the United States," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 28(3-4), pages 227-239, August.
    6. Liu, Jun & Chang, Huihong & Forrest, Jeffrey Yi-Lin & Yang, Baohua, 2020. "Influence of artificial intelligence on technological innovation: Evidence from the panel data of china's manufacturing sectors," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    7. Stephann Makri & Ann Blandford & Mel Woods & Sarah Sharples & Deborah Maxwell, 2014. "“Making my own luck”: Serendipity strategies and how to support them in digital information environments," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(11), pages 2179-2194, November.
    8. Mariana Mazzucato, 2016. "From market fixing to market-creating: a new framework for innovation policy," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 140-156, February.
    9. T. M. A. Fink & M. Reeves & R. Palma & R. S. Farr, 2016. "Serendipity and strategy in rapid innovation," Papers 1608.01900, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2017.
    10. Andriani, Pierpaolo & Kaminska, Renata, 2021. "Exploring the dynamics of novelty production through exaptation: a historical analysis of coal tar-based innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    11. Yoruk, Deniz E., 2019. "Dynamics of firm-level upgrading and the role of learning in networks in emerging markets," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 341-369.
    12. Ben R. Martin, 2016. "Twenty challenges for innovation studies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 432-450.
    13. Tad Anderson & Elizabeth Michael & James Peirce, 2012. "Innovative Approaches for Managing Public-Private Academic Partnerships in Big Science and Engineering," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, March.
    14. Cunha, Miguel Pina e & Clegg, Stewart R. & Mendonça, Sandro, 2010. "On serendipity and organizing," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 319-330, October.
    15. Yaqub, Ohid, 2018. "Serendipity: Towards a taxonomy and a theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 169-179.
    16. Kosuke Kato & Shin Ito & Kazuhiko Itaya, 2019. "Can Accidental Discoveries be Managed? Exploring Key Factors Impacting Idea Generation in R&D Sites in Japan," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(06), pages 1-16, October.
    17. Lee Fleming, 2001. "Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 117-132, January.
    18. Florio, Massimo & Sirtori, Emanuela, 2016. "Social benefits and costs of large scale research infrastructures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 65-78.
    19. Napier, Nancy K. & Vuong, Quan-Hoang, 2013. "Serendipity as a Strategic Advantage?," OSF Preprints es3rv, Center for Open Science.
    20. Autio, Erkko & Hameri, Ari-Pekka & Vuola, Olli, 2004. "A framework of industrial knowledge spillovers in big-science centers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 107-126, January.
    21. Robert D. Austin & Lee Devin & Erin E. Sullivan, 2012. "Accidental Innovation: Supporting Valuable Unpredictability in the Creative Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1505-1522, October.
    22. Florio, Massimo & Forte, Stefano & Sirtori, Emanuela, 2016. "Forecasting the socio-economic impact of the Large Hadron Collider: A cost–benefit analysis to 2025 and beyond," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 38-53.
    23. Raghu Garud & Joel Gehman & Antonio Paco Giuliani, 2018. "Serendipity Arrangements for Exapting Science-Based Innovations," Post-Print hal-02570931, HAL.
    24. Kafouros, Mario I. & Buckley, Peter J. & Clegg, Jeremy, 2012. "The effects of global knowledge reservoirs on the productivity of multinational enterprises: The role of international depth and breadth," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 848-861.
    25. T. M. A. Fink & M. Reeves & R. Palma & R. S. Farr, 2017. "Serendipity and strategy in rapid innovation," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    26. Hallonsten, Olof, 2020. "Research Infrastructures in Europe: The Hype and the Field," European Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(4), pages 617-635, August.
    27. Dennis Patrick Leyden & Matthias Menter, 2018. "The legacy and promise of Vannevar Bush: rethinking the model of innovation and the role of public policy," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(3), pages 225-242, April.
    28. Sam Arts & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2015. "Technology familiarity, recombinant novelty, and breakthrough invention," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 24(6), pages 1215-1246.
    29. Schopper, Herwig, 2016. "Some remarks concerning the cost/benefit analysis applied to LHC at CERN," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 54-64.
    30. Dosi, Giovanni & Llerena, Patrick & Labini, Mauro Sylos, 2006. "The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation: An illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called `European Paradox'," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1450-1464, December.
    31. Stuart, Toby E. & Ozdemir, Salih Zeki & Ding, Waverly W., 2007. "Vertical alliance networks: The case of university-biotechnology-pharmaceutical alliance chains," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 477-498, May.
    32. Lori McCay-Peet & Elaine G. Toms, 2015. "Investigating serendipity: How it unfolds and what may influence it," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(7), pages 1463-1476, July.
    33. Bozeman, Barry, 2000. "Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and theory," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 627-655, April.
    34. Stuart, Toby & Sorenson, Olav, 2003. "The geography of opportunity: spatial heterogeneity in founding rates and the performance of biotechnology firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 229-253, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pyung Nahm & Raviv Murciano-Goroff & Michael Park & Russell J. Funk, 2023. "Serendipity in Science," Papers 2308.07519, arXiv.org.
    2. , Aisdl, 2020. "The Serendipity Mindset," OSF Preprints w52y9, Center for Open Science.
    3. , Aisdl, 2020. "Becoming Attuned," OSF Preprints j7f8y, Center for Open Science.
    4. Scarrà, Deepa & Piccaluga, Andrea, 2022. "The impact of technology transfer and knowledge spillover from Big Science: a literature review," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    5. Castelnovo, Paolo & Florio, Massimo & Forte, Stefano & Rossi, Lucio & Sirtori, Emanuela, 2018. "The economic impact of technological procurement for large-scale research infrastructures: Evidence from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1853-1867.
    6. , Aisdl, 2019. "Resources of The Serendipity Society," OSF Preprints sb9kp, Center for Open Science.
    7. Jethromel M. Meneses, 2023. "A Penetrating Effect: From Becquerel’s Serendipity to A Scientific Knowledge," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 7(5), pages 1061-1080, May.
    8. Kroll, Henning & Hansmeier, Hendrik & Hufnagl, Miriam, 2022. "Productive interactions in basic research an enquiry into impact pathways at the DESY synchrotron," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    9. Paolo CASTELNOVO & Massimo FLORIO, 2019. "Mission-oriented Public Organizations for Knowledge Creation," Departmental Working Papers 2019-09, Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods at Università degli Studi di Milano.
    10. Andrea Bastianin & Paolo Castelnovo & Massimo Florio & Anna Giunta, 2022. "Big science and innovation: gestation lag from procurement to patents for CERN suppliers," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 531-555, April.
    11. Švarc, Jadranka & Dabić, Marina, 2021. "Transformative innovation policy or how to escape peripheral policy paradox in European research peripheral countries," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    12. Stephanie Cheng & Pengkai Lin & Yinliang Tan & Yuchen Zhang, 2023. "“High” innovators? Marijuana legalization and regional innovation," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(3), pages 685-703, March.
    13. Malo, Stéphane, 2009. "The contribution of (not so) public research to commercial innovations in the field of combinatorial chemistry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 957-970, July.
    14. Sofia Patsali, 2021. "University Procurement-led Innovation," GREDEG Working Papers 2021-13, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    15. Castelnovo, Paolo & Clò, Stefano & Florio, Massimo, 2023. "A quasi-experimental design to assess the innovative impact of public procurement: An application to the Italian space industry," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    16. James, Steffan & Liu, Zheng & Stephens, Victoria & White, Gareth R.T., 2022. "Innovation in crisis: The role of ‘exaptive relations’ for medical device development in response to COVID-19," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    17. Massimo Florio & Francesco Giffoni & Anna Giunta & Emanuela Sirtori, 2018. "Big science, learning, and innovation: evidence from CERN procurement," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(5), pages 915-936.
    18. Paolo Castelnovo & Martina Dal Molin, 2021. "The learning mechanisms through public procurement for innovation: The case of government‐funded basic research organizations," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(3), pages 411-446, September.
    19. Haessler, Philipp & Giones, Ferran & Brem, Alexander, 2023. "The who and how of commercializing emerging technologies: A technology-focused review," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    20. Andrea Borsato & Andre Lorentz, 2023. "Open Science vs. Mission-oriented Policies and the Long-run Dynamics of Integrated Economies: An Agent-based Model with a Kaldorian Flavour," Working Papers of BETA 2023-17, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:techno:v:116:y:2022:i:c:s0166497221001553. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/01664972 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.