Episode 4: From Research to Reality – Turning Academic Insights into Innovation

[Pamela Spokes]

Welcome to the Innovators at Work podcast. We are both experts and explorers in the areas of service, design, innovation, culture, and entrepreneurial thinking. We want to break down these buzzwordy concepts to make them approachable and usable for everyone. We believe that everyone can be an innovator in their own work.

[Juha Järvinen]

In this episode titled “From Research to Reality: Turning Academic Insights into Innovation” we are taking research outcomes and understanding how and when to make it a viable commercial product or service. I’m Juha Järvinen

[Pamela]

And I’m Pamela Spokes. Today, we’re exploring a question that is often asked but not often solved, how do we move academic research into the real world.

[Juha]

More specifically, how do we turn academic insights into impact? Because let’s be honest, there’s a lot of brilliant research sitting on digital shelves, never making its way into the products, services, or policies that could change lives. And while the world is becoming digitalized, tangible results, devices, prototypes and technology in general can also go untapped. It should also be remembered that not everything that is done in universities of applied sciences is digital. After all, we have a huge amount of experimental development work that is constantly creating new things.

[Pamela]

So, let’s start. With the big question, why doesn’t most academic research reach the market?

[Juha]

There are lots of reasons, some structural and some are cultural. Universities of Applied Sciences have a mandate to contribute to society, but too often research is seen as something to be published, like a policy recommendation, but not something to be used. Of course, there is a long way to go from a single survey results or a product concept to something that can be picked up from the store self. But if you don’t know those results exist, they’ll never end up anywhere. 

[Pamela]

Exactly! And we exist in a system that rewards publishing over productizing and getting things out there, which is problematic. Many researchers don’t even consider that their findings could become a service or even a business?

[Juha]

Yeah, productization is a long path. And the deeper you grow into basic research, the longer it takes before a research result can become, for example, a commercial product or service. In Universities of Applied Sciences there is less or very little basic research so as makers of applied research, there are good opportunities to develop new results in the business, for example. But problems are easy to find. The solutions to them, on the other hand, are not. The focus, of course, is on how to find suitable results that arise from research and development work. So how do we recognise research that could be commercialised?

[Pamela]

A great place to start is to look for pain points. This is exactly what we’re doing with service design. It is important to ask yourself a few questions to dig down for actual pain points in any scenario. In this case, the researchers should be asking themselves, does my or our research solve a real-world problem? Is there a clear user group or target audience? Could this be packaged as a toolkit, an app, or a consulting service?

[Juha]

Right, those are good starting points. Sometimes it can happen that a team or researcher believes in the significance of the result they have developed even too much. That’s understandable if you work on something for a very long time, it can happen that you won’t go see its problem areas, but only its benefits. I think we all have this problem, at least to some extent, especially if you are working alone. You can easily forget a few quick key questions to keep in mind all the time while you’re doing your development work and when the results starts to come in. I have a lot of conversations with teams and also individual developers here at Metropolia. And I usually go through the following with them and try to find the answer to at least the following questions. Now, first of all, and this may be a silly question, but it’s very central. What is it? Whether it’s a product, a computer programme, a game or some other application, it’s very important that developers, they know how to answer this most important question. If they take a step back at this point, it may be that even for them it’s not yet clear whether there is something at hand that can actually be utilised. 

And secondly, what is the problem it solves? Is there a competition? I always emphasize that if a team has found a similar solution somewhere, there is no point in being annoyed. It just means that there is something interesting about the concept. If someone else has thought about it, sometimes it feels like everything has already been invented and that’s not really the case. But the kind of technologies that are topical right now, there’s also a lot of development around them and then the technology in question may already seem completely drained. And conversely, of course, hot topics are the ones for which everyone would like to find new perspectives, research results, and ultimately commerciality. That is product, services, and companies will think about AI, for example, they are trying to develop all kinds of applications for it. But if this then you have to be really careful. If there is no competition in the field of the technology or at the resulting question, or there is nothing in the market, a little bit more generally than there can only be two things at hand. One: this is a new and revolutionary technology that no one else has yet developed or two: the issue has been considered before, but it has not seen any commercial potential even if it was technically possible. So, if there is no competition, try to find out why.

[Pamela]

Yes, not having competition is neither positive or negative. It is very much situational. So, Google was not the first browser that came into existence. You know, we had Netscape before that and Internet Explorer, they could see how explore and Netscape could be improved and based their vision and steps on that. It is often that the products that make the real commercial breakthrough are not necessarily the first. Facebook was not the first social network. There was Myspace before that, but also there being no competition can be an indication that the space isn’t mature enough to warrant a dedicated company yet. So definitely, you need to find out why it doesn’t exist.

[Juha]

Wow, Netscape feels like a very long time ago, but this brings us to the last and most important question. Is there a need for it? Have you identified a problem worth solving? And in general, what kind of business logic is there in the result or can be? And how can you make money with it? And this is where tools like business pattern cards we use a Turbiini come in handy. They help frame research findings in terms of business logic, value proposition, user needs, delivery channels, and so. On. We will talk about business pattern calls a bit later on.

[Pamela]

These are really all the same questions that we are asking students to answer who join Turbiini. These are the questions that they have to pose to themselves. You [Juha] are able to ask these questions to bridge between research and entrepreneurship. For those people who maybe don’t realise that there is more or something else that could be done with their research. Basically they don’t know what they don’t know. Thinking about this idea that they don’t know what they don’t know, let’s talk about some other barriers because even when researchers do see potential, the path to commercialization can feel like walking into an unknown place.

[Juha]

Right. It’s a language barrier, a mindset shift and lack of support systems. Researchers may not see themselves as entrepreneurs. There’s fear of failure or lack of business skills, and sometimes a misunderstanding of what innovation actually means. Indeed, sometimes it can also be a matter of attitude that the team may have a great result of development, but they feel that they are researchers, not potential entrepreneurs. They think they may not be up to it. Then they go to the innovation services present the results and tell them ‘please commercialize the result’. Now we exaggerate a bit. But then they happily return to the lab to develop more on something else. I’ve actually seen this happen but not in Metropolia though. There’s nothing wrong with that. In part, it must also be due to the fact that if you think the traditional research and development work is seen as a linear process of moving towards a goal, which is then the expected result and at the end the result comes out. It’s [the research result] exploitation, is not perceived as being the task of the developer team. They feel they had already done their job at that point.

[Pamela]

Not to mention the institutional red tape, unclear IP ownership, and limited access to early stage funding. So many barriers.

[Juha]

Yes, you mentioned the abbreviation IP, which means towards intellectual property and the word innovation has already been featured in this discussion. And it’s in the name of our podcast. So, should we discuss them a bit in today’s context, the word innovation is used a lot, but how many people know what it really means?

[Pamela]

Right. Can you open up this concept a bit?

[Juha]

Surely. Innovation is often confused with idea and invention, but in fact they are components of innovation. There’s an idea at first, something that is a good starting point, and when an idea comes to reality, some result is obtained and that result could be an invention. That is a solution that has not been known before and this invention, it can be patented and although we do not address patenting today, it is a key part of the commercialization of research results. In any case, an invention or even a patent, it is still not enough. Because a patent is an exclusive right granted by the authorities to exploit the invention in question, but it also requires financial resources. And we need a utilisation channel. It is required. How will the result be used by commercialization or sharing it for free with a group of users? So, innovation therefore it is the new, perhaps inventive result which is concretised from the idea with an exploitation channel. To put it shortly, an idea is not yet an innovation and even an invention is not an innovation and then back to the letters IP. So, it stands for intellectual property, so it can be thought of as consisting of two components or blocks, copyright and intellectual property rights. And copyright, in turn, is divided into two: copyright and related rights.

[Pamela]

Juha, we are going to have to attach a flow chart in a PDF download to this podcast soon.

[Juha]

Yeah, it can be getting detailed, but just to indulge me a little bit longer, the copyright is created automatically by the author when the work is made. Of course, the work must exceed the original threshold of the work, that is, it is sufficiently original. For example, when we write the script for a podcast, we get copyright on it related rights on the rights belonging to the individual who performs the work. So, if I write a song, I wonder what that would be. But anyway, and you perform it on a recording, then you get related rights to your work and so on. And then the industrial rights, they are divided into 3, namely trademarks, model rights and patents. Now the Finnish Patent and Registration Office explains trademarks “a trademark is a sign that distinguishes one company’s goods and services from similar goods and services from other companies”.

Then model rights. They projected the appearance and design of products and a patent is an exclusive right. No more, no less. So, the inventor prohibits others to utilise the invention without a permit. However, a patent does not automatically mean the invention will be commercially successful. Of course, the patent application often describes the usefulness of the invention in question. But it still doesn’t take a position on whether the invention is commercially successful or not. I mean, I’ve talked many times over the years with developers or researchers whose first thought is that you have to apply for a patent for a result. And patents are of course, the most important thing when it comes to selling technology, for example. But it has its limitations. And patenting also costs a lot. Otherwise it may happen that an invention is granted a patent, but its application costs are greater than its true commercial value. Now although, I myself, took the discussion in the direction of IP issues today and the world of patents and other forms of protection is its exciting. But we do not have time to go deeper today, so however, these matters are the rules of the game, which are also related to the exploitation of university-based research results. So, in any case, the most important thing to remember is when it seems that you have made an invention, don’t introduce the invention publicly until you’ve worked with an expert to determine if it’s an invention or not. Because the reason is that public demonstration prevents the invention from being protected. May that be a patent or the like, it doesn’t spoil the invention, but it can no longer be patented.

[Pamela]

You have, I think that this is a very valuable piece of information for anybody listening. The fact that they can lose their possibility of even patenting if they demonstrate their invention too early in public. I didn’t know that before, so it’s good that you mentioned that you know the cost of patenting is quite high, but this idea that you shouldn’t publicly display it is vital for people to know.

[Juha]

Yes, true. Getting back to the costs involved, it is also important and we also need to talk about funding. This is crucial and finance is always interesting, isn’t it? Academic entrepreneurs need tailored support.

[Pamela]

Exactly. In Finland and across Europe, there are grants and programmes designed for this, like Business Finland’s Research-to-Business Programme, Horizon Europe funding and innovation vouchers, etcetera.

[Juha]

Yes, many UAS innovation units also have pre-incubators and support services to help validate the idea before seeking larger investments. However, this is not the biggest challenge. When a project produces a result, its value must somehow be determined. For example, as we discussed previously, is there inventiveness? In the past, different financial instruments were used in Finland, but in practice, they no longer exist. Even a good result may not go anywhere if its inventiveness, patentability or commercial value cannot, at first, be ascertained. Even though the developers already are sure that there is something significantly new in the result, or that the university specialist knows there is a significant result, since there are no funds to determine how significant or what part of it is significant new, even inventive, it remains not utilised. If you don’t have an open wallet in the university, for example, nothing actually happens. And it’s not going to happen because there is no funding. On the other hand, large financiers, they often demand that the team has been built around that certain result under and business as well and that cannot be created because the result is not even made to take its first steps, unless, of course someone from the team wants to pay the costs themselves.

[Pamela]

So, while funding is available, it’s for later stages or further research, not for the evaluation of commercialization. So there currently isn’t funding for the initial assessment unless you count the good old FFF crowd friends, family, and fools.

[Juha]

Yes, that’s right. And it’s unfortunate that many good results and inventions and concepts and service ideas and so on. They’re likely to go unused, although in many cases they could be promoted with very little financial support. The friends, family and fools folks, they are more of a textbook example that is rarely realised, so the most pressing need would be to have a financial tool in Finland for universities that could cover the cost at the very initial stages when there is a need to find out the answer to the question is the solution I’m proposing the right one instead of taking unnecessary risks. And, as we discussed earlier, the results are very rarely readily exploitable. They require a lot of further development and also prototypes. We talked about that in the previous episode and if we could get the funding in place, the next thing we need to tackle is the mindset. So how do we shift the academic mindset?

[Pamela]

I mean, one of the things that we have to look at is starting with permission. Giving researchers permission to explore commercialization not as selling out, but as scaling up their impact.

[Juha]

Mm-hmm. And by embedding entrepreneurship into their research process itself. Showing that innovation isn’t something business people do, it is something people with insight and empathy do. That includes researchers and being creative.

[Pamela]

So, what’s the impetus? Why bother turning research into innovation?

[Juha]

Because we have a mandate to make a positive impact on society, it’s written into the DNA of UASs. We are meant to be connected to the real world. Solving real challenges.

[Pamela]

That’s the universities’ point of view. But what do researchers and developers get from it?

[Juha]

Utilising the results will provide new career opportunities. Not everyone can and ever should become an entrepreneur, but for those who want to capitalise development results beyond publications. They need to have the tools and support to start a business. That’s what we do at Metropolia’s Turbiini incubator, for example, we make it possible and support the mindset.

[Pamela]

And if we want our research to matter beyond citations. It needs to be seen, used and valued in the wild.

[Juha]

Speaking of innovation, out in the wild, let’s share a quick success story. The business pattern cards project was born from academic research, but it didn’t stay there.

[Pamela]

No, it didn’t. It’s very interesting. This case study that we have of the Business Pattern Cards. So, research at the Institute of Technology Management at the University of Saint Gallen, that’s been happening since 2010 onwards, took the research that was generated by PhD and master students on business models and they were able to turn this into a book called the Business Model Navigator. And in that they created this set of cards that would explain what the basic business models that existed out in the world. 90% of almost all business models were in a pack of 55 different examples and in that they were able to create these cards and they made these cards available through creative commons on their website. It was a nice output for their research but it became so popular that they decided to commercialise the cards themselves and then you could buy the cards in a card deck to use. And by 2013 there is so much interest generated in these business model cards and in the research that they had completed, that people were coming to them, businesses were coming to them and asking them, you know, how can we create new business models in traditional industries? How can we change the way that we do work? So, in 2013, they set up BMI Labs. And there they were, able to offer these consulting services and the actual original authors of that book are the two leaders of this consultancy. And they’re able to use their research that they generated in this institute and commercialise it to the point where they now have a company that has spun off and does its own entire thing. So, I think this is a really great example of how somebody could commercialise their research.

[Juha]

Wow, that’s really interesting because this whole story could have been ending up differently, like the whole process written as a report and ending up in on, on a shelf somewhere in the laboratory, and that’s it. Instead of becoming a successful business.

[Pamela]

Yup. This research was able to become a tangible tool that now is used across universities and startups and established businesses to help people visualise business models. It’s collaborative and accessible and usable, and a perfect example of research turning into impact.

[Juha]

But hey, let’s be real. Despite these success stories, not every researcher wants to become the founder. So, what then?

[Pamela]

Yeah, it’s totally fine. Commercialization doesn’t always mean you have to start the company. You can licence the idea, partner with an existing business, or support a spin-off team. It’s about impact, not ego.

[Juha]

Exactly so your research can still reach the world without you quitting your day job. But you need the right network support and mindset.

[Pamela]

So, do all the researchers listening your ideas matter. Your research matters. They might just be the next great innovation if you give them path to grow.

[Juha]

And the world needs your insights, not just in journals, but in classrooms, businesses, communities, and systems. So, ask yourself, what could my research become?

[Pamela]

That’s a great question to leave all these listeners thinking about Juha. Thank you and thanks to everybody for joining us today on the Innovators at Work Podcast. This episode covered many issues as usual and if you take nothing else with you, please take away these three key points: 1) remember to keep your eyes open. Whether you’re studying or working on a project, keep track of what is happening that may be commercialised. 2), when you see something promising, ask yourself, does it solve the problem the right way? And 3), you can refine the idea with the support from your institution’s innovation services, which may also include entrepreneurship training for you and your team.