Part 2: Assumptions Overturned
The session surfaced assumptions that may be shaping how we think about research, translation, impact, success and the role of universities.
Assumption Type
Evidence-based Reality
Success and failure of research translation to impact (RT2i), innovation projects, adoption or take up, and impact are not predictable.
They are predictable more often than not. More research will expand knowledge of indicators of adoption, deliver further insights on necessary organisational conditions, and which capabilities matter at different stages. But current research enables useful predictive accuracy for adoption and can be applied now to improve results and supprt.
Impact can only be evaluated or measured post hoc, after it has been widely achieved.
Impact universally requires adoption. Progress towards adoption can be measured objectively from an early stage, well before it has happened.
Industry demand for university research is weak. Businesses won’t pay the full cost of university R&D.
Businesses regularly do pay the full cost of R&D. When they do not engage universities, this is due to friction, inefficiencies, and lack of alignment - all solvable problems.
The best RT2i opportunities that will lead to the greatest impact are and will always be obvious to people with the right experience.
Selection by a panel of experts, senior executives, venture capitalists, and the like results in failure rates higher than random selection.
High failure rates in research translation to impact efforts are the result of lack of funding and limited researcher capability.
There is not a funding “valley of death” but rather a shortage of focus on value creation. Many successful RT2i projects and tech-based startups are led by entirely inexperienced participants. The primary impediments to RT2i success are often related to organisational policies and internal friction. For example, research shows that large equity stakes held by universities negatively affect a project’s ability to raise capital or succeed.
The RT2i ecosystem is full of people who have the necessary ‘business’ and VC experience to effectively translate research into impact.
Success in a large organisation does not translate into useful expertise for RT2i projects. Venture capital and market analysis also do not represent useful expertise for RT2i projects until they have achieved traction (adoption) and are seeking capital.
IP disclosures, patents, creation of new ABNs, and total dollars in capital raised are effective indicators of progress towards impact.
These measures are, in fact, harmful. They do not correlate with sustained adoption, new jobs, productivity, or impact. They distract RT2i effort and funding from achieving adoption outcomes and other critical value creation and generation activities.
Emulating other purportedly successful Australian and international RT2i support programs and using their tools will be effective because those programs, tools, and methods have proven effective.
Research shows that a substantial majority of incubator, accelerator, and pre-accelerator programs that draw on tools and methodologies such as Lean Canvases, Technology Readiness Level (TRL), and pitch competitions negatively affect startup commercial success and survivability. The perceived success of such programs largely stems from anecdotes about unicorns or massive capital raises for a tiny fraction of participants. Most programs report only on participant experiences, new startups created, total dollars raised, IPOs, and exits, but not on their effectiveness in producing businesses that achieve sustained adoption, profitability, impact, and employment. They do not report on iterative improvements to the efficacy of their programs or methods. Research exists on what is effective. But emulating others and using the pantheon of existing, widely used tools is ineffective.
Innovation and successful RT2i only come from the laboratory or deep tech and research-intensive discoveries. Great ideas are solely the product of genius individuals and flashes of inspiration.
Most innovations that are broadly adopted and generate positive societal impact are the product of collaboration across multiple disciplines and areas of expertise. They result from the novel combination of existing (not new) technologies to achieve a beneficial outcome or solve a problem, and do not directly involve new science or laboratories.
Part 2a
Assumptions To Question
The session surfaced assumptions that may be shaping how we think about research, translation, impact, success and the role of universities.
RESEARCHERS, UNIVERSITIES, & CAPABILITY
Assumption
What might we need to question?
“Researchers can simply be trained in research translation.”
What changes to incentives and systems are also required to support translation?
“Researchers have the time and incentives to drive translation of their research.”
What do workload allocations currently allow? What do promotion systems currently reward?
“Researchers generate ideas independently.”
“Not understanding the need is an acceptable starting point.”
What role might users, industry, and broader ecosystems play in generating high-impact ideas?
“Research translation is the responsibility of the researcher alone.”
What responsibilities need to be shared across the system?
"All failure is bad.”
What change in culture and process can we make so that failure is viewed as part of learning and progress?
INDUSTRY, FUNDING, IP & THE SYSTEM
Assumption
What might we need to question?
“Money will solve the translation problem.”
Where are capability, policy, or incentive bottlenecks more significant?
“Universities must retain significant ownership of the IP their researchers develop.”
What IP approaches create value for researchers, universities, and partners?
“Australian R&D happens within national borders.”
What does the broader global ecosystem look like?
Part 3: References
The following references are not a complete or systematically generated list of the relevant research. Each reference is, however, relevant to the topics we discussed and provide evidence that directly supports the principles, actions, insights, and conclusions we have collectively arrived at.
Andes, S. (2016). Technology Transfer 2.0: Finding economic value in university R&D.
Chen, X. (2025, October 9). Small sample, big impact: How talking to just 5 people can improve startup success. The Conversation https://theconversation.com/small-sample-big-impact-how-talking-to-just-5-people-can-improve-startup-success-266661
Chen, X., & Zhang, S. X. (2024). Too much of two good things: The curvilinear effects of self-efficacy and market validation in new ventures. Journal of Business Research, 183, 114845.
Cherney, A., Head, B., Boreham, P., Povey, J., & Ferguson, M. (2012). Perspectives of academic social scientists on knowledge transfer and research collaborations: a cross-sectional survey of Australian academics. Evidence & Policy, 8(4), 433-453.
Czarnitzki, D., & Delanote, J. (2015). R&D policies for young SMEs: input and output effects. Small Business Economics, 45(3), 465-485.
Czarnitzki, D., Hussinger, K., & Schneider, C. (2012). The nexus between science and industry: evidence from faculty inventions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(5), 755-776.
Czarnitzki, D., Doherr, T., Hussinger, K., Schliessler, P., & Toole, A. (2015). Individual versus institutional ownership of university-discovered inventions. ZEW-Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper, (15-007).
De Beer, C., Secundo, G., Passiante, G., & Schutte, C. S. (2017). A mechanism for sharing best practices between university technology transfer offices. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 15(4), 523-532.
Ejermo, O., & Toivanen, H. (2018). University invention and the abolishment of the professor's privilege in Finland. Research Policy, 47(4), 814-825.
Gius, L. (2025). Disagreement predicts startup success: Evidence from venture competitions. Strategy Science, 10(2), 93-108.
Gompers, P., Kovner, A., Lerner, J., & Scharfstein, D. S. (2006). Skill vs. luck in entrepreneurship and venture capital: Evidence from serial entrepreneurs.
Hellmann, Mula, and Quinn (2026). The Burden of University Equity Stakes
Hvide, H. K., & Jones, B. F. (2018). University innovation and the professor's privilege. American Economic Review, 108(7), 1860-1898.
Jamali, H. R. (2024). Navigating intellectual property (IP): A comparative analysis of Australian universities’ IP policies. Plos one, 19(5), e0304647.
Korteweg, A., & Sorensen, M. (2017). Skill and luck in private equity performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 124(3), 535-562.
Knicker, Sina M., Bouchaud, J. P., & Benzaquen, M. (2026). Do Venture Capitalists Beat Random Allocation?. Jean-Philippe and Benzaquen, Michael, Do Venture Capitalists Beat Random Allocation.
Lange, G. S., & Johnston, W. J. (2020). The value of business accelerators and incubators–an entrepreneur’s perspective. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 35(10), 1563-1572.
Leitão, J., Pereira, D., & Gonçalves, Â. (2022). Business incubators, accelerators, and performance of technology-based ventures: A systematic literature review. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 8(1), 46.
Lerner, J., Manley, H. J., Stein, C., & Williams, H. (2024). The wandering scholars: Understanding the heterogeneity of university commercialization (No. w32069). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Madaleno, M., Nathan, M., Overman, H., & Waights, S. (2022). Incubators, accelerators and urban economic development. Urban Studies, 59(2), 281-300.
Martínez, C., & Sterzi, V. (2021). The impact of the abolishment of the professor’s privilege on European university-owned patents. Industry and Innovation, 28(3), 247-282.
Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2016). University support and the creation of technology and non-technology academic spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 47(2), 345-362.
Merguei, N. (2022). Venturing out: Designing effective pre-acceleration programs. Technovation, 116, 102500.
Moroz, P. W., Sierra, O., & Anderson, R. (2024). A structured review of start-up accelerator performance measurement: An integrated entrepreneurial program evaluation approach. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 36(3-4), 460-488.
Nanda, R., Samila, S., & Sorenson, O. (2020). The persistent effect of initial success: Evidence from venture capital. Journal of Financial Economics, 137(1), 231-248.
Ouellette, L. L., & Tutt, A. (2020). How do patent incentives affect university researchers?. International Review of Law and Economics, 61, 105883.
Pearce, J. M. (2024). Do Universities Investing In Technology Transfer Via Patenting Lose Money?. Transfer Technológií Bulletin, (2), 11-21.
Pronay, S., Keszey, T., Buzás, N., Sakai, T., & Inai, K. (2022). Performance of university technology transfer offices: evidence from Europe and Japan. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 71(4), 1343-1364.
Pustovrh, A. (2025). Startup Accelerator Returns: J Curve or L Curve? A Comparative Performance Analysis Between a Venture Accelerator and Early-Stage Venture Capital. Economic and Business Review, 27(2), 115-129.
Romero-Sánchez, A., Burbano Vallejo, E. L., & Perdomo-Charry, G. (2025). Mediating role of incentives and funding in academic spin-off creation: a PLS-SEM approach. Cogent Business & Management, 12(1), 2525501.
ecundo, G., De Beer, C., & Passiante, G. (2016). Measuring university technology transfer efficiency: a maturity level approach. Measuring Business Excellence, 20(3), 42-54.
Seitz, N., Buratti, M., Lehmann, E. E., & Kurrle, J. (2026). A meta-analysis towards the effectiveness of startup accelerators. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 51(1), 373-413.
Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: time for a rethink?. British journal of management, 26(4), 582-595.
Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Chapter One. University Technology Transfer Offices, Licensing, and Start-Ups. In The Chicago handbook of university technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship (pp. 1-40). University of Chicago Press.
Tank, P. S., Sharma, D., & Jain, D. (2024). No substitute for strong institutions: Impact of accelerators on new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 22, e00491.
Tantiyaswasdikul, K. (2013). Intellectual property rights policy and university technology transfer output in Canadian universities. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 2(2), 467.
UK Research and Innovation ICURe Evaluation
Valdavia W.D. (2013, November) University start-ups: Critical for improving technology transfer. Brookings Institution.
Valentin, F., & Jensen, R. L. (2007). Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(3), 251-276.
Van Norman, G. A., & Eisenkot, R. (2017). Technology transfer: from the research bench to commercialization: part 1: intellectual property rights—basics of patents and copyrights. JACC: Basic to translational science, 2(1), 85-97.
Vazquez-Hernandez, C. (2025). Critical Considerations for Conducting Behavioral Experiments: A Primer for Innovation Researchers. Journal of Innovation Management, 13(3), 24-65.
Wu, Y., Welch, E. W., & Huang, W. L. (2015). Commercialization of university inventions: Individual and institutional factors affecting licensing of university patents. Technovation, 36, 12-25.
Youtie, J., Kwon, S., & Woo, S. (2021). The impact of I-Corps on accelerating venture discontinuation in a southeastern US university. Science and Public Policy, 48(4), 474-487.
Yu, S. (2020). How do accelerators impact the performance of high-technology ventures?. Management Science, 66(2), 530-552.
Zhang, S. X., & Cueto, J. (2017). The study of bias in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship theory and Practice, 41(3), 419-454.
Žmuidzinaitė, R., Žalgevičienė, S., & Užienė, L. (2021). Factors influencing the performance of technology transfer offices: The case of the european consortium of innovative universities. Engineering Economics, 32(3), 221-233.