IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organizing the entrepreneurial hospital: Hybridizing the logics of healthcare and innovation


  • Miller, Fiona A.
  • French, Martin


Contemporary research hospitals occupy a vexed position in the policy landscape. On the one hand, as healthcare providers, they must abide by the logic of healthcare policy, which expects health research to support improved health outcomes and high quality healthcare systems. On the other hand, as research facilities, they are beholden to the logic of innovation policy, which seeks to advance research-driven, science and technology-derived innovations, where industry is the key customer and client. At the intersection of these policy logics, the research hospital must orchestrate a range of interests that may not always coexist harmoniously. Through a detailed case study of a Canadian research hospital, we illustrate organizational efforts to hybridize healthcare and innovation logics. The need to be more ‘business like’ and the expected financial and reputational rewards encourage acceptance of a mandate for technology transfer and commercialization. As well, there is hope that the entrepreneurial turn can serve the hospital's own mission, by prioritizing the needs of patients and the organization itself as a user of its own innovations. Further, insofar as successful technology transfer and commercialization is a transformative force, it is expected to enable the research hospital to achieve its goal of translational and impactful health research. As we illustrate, there is much optimism that these hybridizing efforts will produce a successful cross. Yet the trajectory of change in the context of mixed logics is necessarily uncertain, and other hybrid futures cannot be foreclosed. More sterile or monstrous outcomes remain possible, with potentially significant implications for the intellectual, economic and health benefits that will arise as a result.

Suggested Citation

  • Miller, Fiona A. & French, Martin, 2016. "Organizing the entrepreneurial hospital: Hybridizing the logics of healthcare and innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1534-1544.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:45:y:2016:i:8:p:1534-1544
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.009

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Lehoux, P. & Daudelin, G. & Williams-Jones, B. & Denis, J.-L. & Longo, C., 2014. "How do business model and health technology design influence each other? Insights from a longitudinal case study of three academic spin-offs," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 1025-1038.
    2. Siegel, Donald S. & Waldman, David & Link, Albert, 2003. "Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 27-48, January.
    3. McMillan, G. Steven & Narin, Francis & Deeds, David L., 2000. "An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: the case of biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 1-8, January.
    4. Taran Thune & Magnus Gulbrandsen, 2011. "Institutionalization of university-industry interaction: an empirical study of the impact of formal structures on collaboration patterns," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 99-107, March.
    5. Morlacchi, Piera & Nelson, Richard R., 2011. "How medical practice evolves: Learning to treat failing hearts with an implantable device," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 511-525, May.
    6. Chapple, Wendy & Lockett, Andy & Siegel, Donald & Wright, Mike, 2005. "Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 369-384, April.
    7. Miller, Fiona Alice & Sanders, Carrie B. & Lehoux, Pascale, 2009. "Imagining value, imagining users: Academic technology transfer for health innovation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(8), pages 1481-1488, April.
    8. French, Martin & Miller, Fiona Alice, 2012. "Leveraging the “living laboratory”: On the emergence of the entrepreneurial hospital," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(4), pages 717-724.
    9. Dirk Czarnitzki & Andrew Toole, 2010. "Is there a trade-off between academic research and faculty entrepreneurship? Evidence from US NIH supported biomedical researchers," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(5), pages 505-520.
    10. Michael Gibbons, 2000. "Mode 2 society and the emergence of context-sensitive science," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 27(3), pages 159-163, June.
    11. Nelson, Richard R. & Buterbaugh, Kristin & Perl, Marcel & Gelijns, Annetine, 2011. "How medical know-how progresses," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1339-1344.
    12. Carrie B Sanders & Fiona Alice Miller, 2010. "Reframing norms: boundary maintenance and partial accommodations in the work of academic technology transfer," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 37(9), pages 689-701, November.
    13. Estabrooks, Carole A. & Norton, Peter & Birdsell, Judy M. & Newton, Mandi S. & Adewale, Adeniyi J. & Thornley, Richard, 2008. "Knowledge translation and research careers: Mode I and Mode II activity among health researchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6-7), pages 1066-1078, July.
    14. David C. Mowery & Bhaven N. Sampat, 2005. "The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University--Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(2_2), pages 115-127, January.
    15. Hacker, Jacob S., 2004. "Review Article: Dismantling the Health Care State? Political Institutions, Public Policies and the Comparative Politics of Health Reform," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(4), pages 693-724, October.
    16. Diana Hicks & J Sylvan Katz, 1996. "Hospitals: The hidden research system," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(5), pages 297-304, October.
    17. Janet Halliwell & Willie Smith, 2011. "Paradox and potential: trends in science policy and practice in Canada and New Zealand," Prometheus, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(4), pages 373-391, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. M. Beaulieu & P. Lehoux, 2019. "The emergence of health technology organizations among institutional healthcare and economic actors," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 1115-1151, December.
    2. Berggren, Christian & Karabag, Solmaz Filiz, 2019. "Scientific misconduct at an elite medical institute: The role of competing institutional logics and fragmented control," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 428-443.
    3. Vickers, Ian & Lyon, Fergus & Sepulveda, Leandro & McMullin, Caitlin, 2017. "Public service innovation and multiple institutional logics: The case of hybrid social enterprise providers of health and wellbeing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1755-1768.
    4. Yu Mu & Bart Bossink & Tsvi Vinig, 2018. "Employee involvement in ideation and healthcare service innovation quality," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(1-2), pages 67-86, January.
    5. Paul Pierce & Francesca Ricciardi & Alessandro Zardini, 2017. "Smart Cities as Organizational Fields: A Framework for Mapping Sustainability-Enabling Configurations," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(9), pages 1-21, August.
    6. Proksch, Dorian & Busch-Casler, Julia & Haberstroh, Marcus Max & Pinkwart, Andreas, 2019. "National health innovation systems: Clustering the OECD countries by innovative output in healthcare using a multi indicator approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 169-179.


    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:respol:v:45:y:2016:i:8:p:1534-1544. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.