IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joiaen/v12y2023i1d10.1186_s13731-023-00311-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New product development process and case studies for deep-tech academic research to commercialization

Author

Listed:
  • Pravee Kruachottikul

    (Chulalongkorn University
    Chulalongkorn University)

  • Poomsiri Dumrongvute

    (Chulalongkorn University)

  • Pinnaree Tea-makorn

    (Chulalongkorn University)

  • Santhaya Kittikowit

    (Chulalongkorn University)

  • Arisara Amrapala

    (Chulalongkorn University)

Abstract

This research proposes a new product development (NPD) framework for innovation-driven deep-tech research to commercialization and tested it with three case studies of different exploitation methods. The proposed framework, called Augmented Stage-Gate, integrates the next-generation Agile Stage-Gate development process with lean startup and design thinking approaches. The framework consists of six stages and five gates and focuses on critical thinking to help entrepreneurs avoid psychological traps and make the right decisions. Early activities focus on scouting for potential socioeconomically impactful deep-tech research, developing a business case, market analysis, and strategy for problem–solution fit, and then, moving to a build–measure–learn activity with a validated learning feedback loop. Next, suitable exploitation methods are decided using weight factor analysis, developing intellectual property (IP) strategy, completing the university technology transfer process, and participating in fundraising. To pass each gate, the committee board members, consisting of tech, business, IP and regulatory, and domain experts, will evaluate the passing criteria to decide Go/No-Go. Applying the framework to the case studies results in successful university research commercialization. The model, case study, and lessons learned in this paper can be useful for other deep-tech incubator programs to successfully launch deep-tech research for commercialization. The case studies’ positive outcomes validate the Augmented Stage-Gate framework, yet their success is not entirely guaranteed due to external factors like regulatory constraints, entrepreneur characteristics, timing, and the necessary ecosystem or infrastructure, particularly in emerging markets. These factors should be taken into account for future research purposes.

Suggested Citation

  • Pravee Kruachottikul & Poomsiri Dumrongvute & Pinnaree Tea-makorn & Santhaya Kittikowit & Arisara Amrapala, 2023. "New product development process and case studies for deep-tech academic research to commercialization," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-25, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:joiaen:v:12:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1186_s13731-023-00311-1
    DOI: 10.1186/s13731-023-00311-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13731-023-00311-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13731-023-00311-1?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. Eric von Hippel, 1986. "Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 791-805, July.
    2. von Hippel, Eric, 1976. "The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 212-239, July.
    3. Larry Howard & Thomas Tang & M. Jill Austin, 2015. "Teaching Critical Thinking Skills: Ability, Motivation, Intervention, and the Pygmalion Effect," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 128(1), pages 133-147, April.
    4. Loet Leydesdorff & Henry Etzkowitz, 1998. "The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 195-203, June.
    5. David A. Kirby & Hala H. El Hadidi, 2019. "University technology transfer efficiency in a factor driven economy: the need for a coherent policy in Egypt," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 1367-1395, October.
    6. Eram Abbasi & Imran Amin & Shama Siddiqui, 2022. "Towards developing innovation management framework (IMF) for ICT organizations at Pakistan," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, December.
    7. Ramya Ravi & Manthan D. Janodia, 2022. "University-Industry Technology Transfer in India: a Plausible Model Based on Success Stories from the USA, Japan, and Israel," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(2), pages 1692-1713, June.
    8. Ramya Ravi & Manthan D. Janodia, 2022. "Factors Affecting Technology Transfer and Commercialization of University Research in India: a Cross-sectional Study," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 13(1), pages 787-803, March.
    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. Arman Avadikyan & Gilles Lambert & Christophe Lerch, 2016. "A Multi-Level Perspective on Ambidexterity: The Case of a Synchrotron Research Facility," Working Papers of BETA 2016-44, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    2. Habicht, Hagen & Oliveira, Pedro & Shcherbatiuk, Viktoriia, 2012. "User Innovators: When Patients Set Out to Help Themselves and End Up Helping Many," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 66(3), pages 277-295.
    3. Pamela D. Morrison & John H. Roberts & Eric von Hippel, 2000. "Determinants of User Innovation and Innovation Sharing in a Local Market," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 46(12), pages 1513-1527, December.
    4. repec:wsi:acsxxx:v:21:y:2019:i:08:n:s1363919619500142 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Nicolai J. Foss & Keld Laursen & Torben Pedersen, 2011. "Linking Customer Interaction and Innovation: The Mediating Role of New Organizational Practices," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 980-999, August.
    6. Bosul Yoo & Sotaro Katsumata & Takeyasu Ichikohji, 2017. "The Impact of Customer Orientation on Quantity and Quality of User-Generated Content: A Multi-Country Case Study of Mobile Applications," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 17-12, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.
    7. Matt, M. & Colinet, L. & Gaunand, A. & Joly, P.B., 2015. "A typology of impact pathways generated by a public agricultural research organization," Working Papers 2015-03, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    8. Alexander Brem & Volker Bilgram & Adele Gutstein, 2021. "Involving Lead Users in Innovation: A Structured Summary of Research on the Lead User Method," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Alexander Brem (ed.), Emerging Issues and Trends in INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, chapter 2, pages 21-48, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    9. De Marchi, Valentina, 2012. "Environmental innovation and R&D cooperation: Empirical evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 614-623.
    10. Simon Wiederhold, 2012. "The Role of Public Procurement in Innovation: Theory and Empirical Evidence," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 43.
    11. Liliana Doganova, 2009. "Entrepreneurship as a process of collective exploration," Working Papers halshs-00431695, HAL.
    12. Zsolt Katona, 2015. "Democracy in product design: Consumer participation and differentiation strategies," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 359-394, December.
    13. Markus Ernst & Alexander Brem, 2017. "Social Media for Identifying Lead Users? Insights into Lead Users’ Social Media Habits," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(04), pages 1-21, August.
    14. Laura J. Kornish & Jeremy Hutchison‐Krupat, 2017. "Research on Idea Generation and Selection: Implications for Management of Technology," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 26(4), pages 633-651, April.
    15. Furrer, Olivier & Sudharshan, Devanathan & Tsiotsou, Rodoula H. & Liu, Ben S., 2016. "A framework for innovative service design," FSES Working Papers 476, Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Freiburg/Fribourg Switzerland.
    16. Schweisfurth, Tim G. & Dharmawan, Magha P., 2019. "Does lead userness foster idea implementation and diffusion? A study of internal shopfloor users," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 289-297.
    17. Edler, Jakob & Georghiou, Luke, 2007. "Public procurement and innovation--Resurrecting the demand side," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(7), pages 949-963, September.
    18. Zaborek Piotr & Mazur Jolanta, 2017. "Exploring Links Between Engaging Customers in Value Co-Creation and Product Innovativeness," International Journal of Management and Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, Collegium of World Economy, vol. 53(3), pages 82-106, September.
    19. Dalpé, Robert & DeBresson, Christian, 1989. "Le secteur public comme premier utilisateur d’innovations," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 65(1), pages 53-70, mars.
    20. Hong Y. Park & Il-Hyung Cho & Sook Jung & Dorrie Main, 2015. "Information and communication technology and user knowledge-driven innovation in services," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(1), pages 1078869-107, December.
    21. Nebojša Stojčić, 2021. "Collaborative innovation in emerging innovation systems: Evidence from Central and Eastern Europe," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 531-562, April.

    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:spr:joiaen:v:12:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1186_s13731-023-00311-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.