University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Corporate innovation labs: exploring the role of university research park innovation lab leaders

(USC Thesis Other)

Corporate innovation labs: exploring the role of university research park innovation lab leaders

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Corporate Innovation Labs:
Exploring the Role of University Research Park Innovation Lab Leaders

By
David Scott Charles

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

December 2022

© Copyright by David Scott Charles 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for David Scott Charles certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Alison Muraszewski
Anthony Maddox
Kimberly Hirabayashi, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv

Abstract
This study is a qualitative case study of leaders of corporate innovation labs in university
research parks (URPs). The conceptual framework for this study was Clark and Estes’s (2008)
gap analysis that seeks how knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) structures can be
improved to close performance gaps. Twelve participants, current and past leaders of corporate
innovation labs in university research parks (CILURP) took part in semistructured interviews to
provide the data. The findings show CILURP leaders require large amount of knowledge,
including university ecosystem knowledge, parent company knowledge, technology application
knowledge, and workplace administration knowledge, to be successful. CILURP leaders were
primarily motivated by task value and intrinsic motivation. The organizational findings suggest
(a) organizational structure impacts the support of the CILURP through the access to needs and
expectations of output; (b) organizational processes impact the productivity of the CILURP,
particularly human resources, information technology, and procurement processes; and (c)
organizational culture impacts the behavior of the CILURP through the propensity to cooperate
and the propensity to experiment. The study generated recommendations for practice: (a)
creating a shared understanding of the CILURP, (b) developing a shared way of working with
the CILURP, (c) designating an executive sponsor for the CILURP, (d) providing comprehensive
training for the CILURP leader, and (e) expanding organizational process for flexibility to
support the CILURP.

v

Dedication
To my grandparents. Your life sacrifices and learning lessons have made me a better
person.
To those I lost during the pandemic: I miss your spirit and love.

vi

Acknowledgements
I am thankful for my parents, Virgilio “Virgil” Alejandro Charles and Claudette Charles.
Your love put me on this earth to do impactful work. This dissertation is just one example.
Thank you to my brother and his wife Christopher Brian Charles and Dr. Maho (Yamaguchi)
Charles for giving me a home away from home when I needed it.
Thank you to my dissertation committee members: committee chair Dr. Kimberly
Hirabayashi, Dr. Alison Muraszewski, and Dr. Anthony Maddox. Your guidance, support, and
belief in me throughout this process was instrumental in the completion of this study, my growth
as a human being, and believing what is possible for my future.
I am thankful for every interaction, experience, learning opportunity, and memory created
with the members of OCL’s Cohort 16. I appreciate the diverse viewpoints of my peers and their
willingness to listen, understand, laugh, and cry together. Fight on!
Thank you to my friends and study group partners. I was blessed with two. First, Dr.
Cynthia Baker, Rabbi Dr. Eleanor Steinman, Dr. Amy Heerschap, Dr. Nan Ho, and Dr. Steven
Holley. I looked forward to seeing you every Sunday. Second, Dr. Maria Barrios (mi prima), Dr.
Sue Padernacht, Dr. Alfonso Cobb, and Dr. Lyn Kelly. Thank you for picking up the phone
when I needed you and always reminding me about the balance between performance and
mastery. You both have improved my mind, enhanced my heart, and expanded my spirit forever.
Thank you for going with me on this life journey.
I am grateful to my family and friends, both past and present, who lovingly supported me
as I achieved a life dream, poured into me during difficult life circumstances, believed in me
when I did not believe in myself, and strengthened my resolve through the trials and tribulations.

vii

Thank you to my study participants, who inspired me by our discussions and what you
taught me. Thank you to the industry professionals that offered advice, guidance, and reality
checks. Thank you to the research scholars who responded to my emails, took my calls, and
guided me to more information. Thank you to the many mentors who took me under their wing,
helped me keep things in perspective, challenged my thinking to make me better, and laid the
foundation to make this possible.
Last, but not least, I would like to acknowledge myself, David Scott Charles. I am proud
of myself for putting in the work to see this through. I love you.

viii

Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. ix
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. x
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study ........................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 3
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 3
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology ..................................................... 5
Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 5
Organization of the Dissertation .......................................................................................... 6
Chapter Two: Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 8
Importance of Corporate Innovation Laboratories in University Research Parks ............... 8
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 33
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 35
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 37
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 37
Overview of Design ........................................................................................................... 37
Research Setting ................................................................................................................ 38
The Researcher .................................................................................................................. 38
Data Sources ...................................................................................................................... 39
Chapter Four: Findings .................................................................................................................. 44
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 45
Research Question 1 .......................................................................................................... 49
Research Question 2 .......................................................................................................... 77
Chapter Five: Recommendations .................................................................................................. 96
Discuss of Findings ........................................................................................................... 96
Recommendations for Practice ........................................................................................ 101
Limitations and Delimitation ........................................................................................... 108
Recommendations for Future Research ........................................................................... 109
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 111
References ................................................................................................................................... 113
Appendix ......................................................................................................................... 128
Name of Appendix .......................................................................................................... 128

ix

List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Information: CIL Leader Experience ............................................................ 46
Table 2: Participant Information: Highest Degree Attained .......................................................... 46
Table 3: Participant Information: Work Experience ..................................................................... 46
Table 4: Participant Information: Alumni ..................................................................................... 46
Table 5: Corporate Innovation Lab Information: Staff ................................................................. 47
Table 6: Corporate Innovation Lab Information: Industry ............................................................ 47
Table 7: Corporate Innovation Lab Information: Function ........................................................... 48
Table 8: Corporate Innovation Lab Information: Value-Add ....................................................... 49

x

List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................. 35
Figure 2: Corporate Innovation Lab University Research Park Roles .......................................... 50
Figure 3: Knowledge Themes ....................................................................................................... 51
Figure 4: Motivation Themes ........................................................................................................ 69
Figure 5: Organization Themes ..................................................................................................... 78

1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
This study addresses the problem of firms struggling to yield direct revenue impact from
innovation in their corporate innovation laboratories (CILs) in university research parks (URPs).
A Capgemini global survey of 340 firms with over $1 billion in annual revenue found of firms
with CILs, only 17% reported moving innovation beyond their innovation laboratories, which
demonstrates that this is a problem (Buvat et al., 2017). Further, a Boston Consulting Group
survey of 1,000 companies found only 20% of firms were ready to scale innovation (Manly et
al., 2021). Firms have partnered with URPs to establish CILs that support the innovation goals of
the firm by using the URP ecosystem (Ng et al., 2020); however, firms’ have achieved mixed
results from their CILs (Frost & Sullivan, 2019). The evidence highlights that a firm’s ability to
acquire, assimilate, transform, and exploit knowledge influences the innovation performance of
CILURP (Ubeda et al., 2018). This problem is important to address because of the economic
impact on the region’s community, on the firm’s viability, and on the employees’ development
(Battelle, 2012; Bradley et al., 2015; Pisano, 2019).
Context and Background of the Problem
A global survey of firms earning over $1 billion in annual revenue found 51% of
executives felt their firms could not keep pace with market changes (Buvat et al., 2017). Firm
innovation addresses rapid changes in customer needs, while responding to highly competitive
markets (Kalay & Lynn, 2015). Crossan and Apaydin (2010) defined innovation as “production
or adoption, assimilation, and exploitation of a value-added novelty in economic and social
spheres; renewal and enlargement of products, services, and markets; development of new
methods of production; and establishment of new management systems” (p. 1,155). The speed
2

and breadth of customer and market changes require firms to build innovation capabilities to
survive (Nambisan et al., 2017). Innovation capabilities are the human talent and organizational
structures and processes used to identify problems and needs, produce and assess ideas, and
develop and execute action plans to implement those ideas in the market (Holtzman, 2014).
Researchers have proposed using CILs to help firms build innovation capabilities (Gey et
al., 2013; Lewis & Moultrie, 2005; Solis et al., 2015). Innovation laboratories (labs) are physical
spaces for inspiring creative behaviors to develop and execute innovation projects (Lewis &
Moultrie, 2005). Firms benefit from CILs by strategically using the ecosystem of their locations
to accelerate the speed of innovation, provide a new source of ideas, enhance risk-taking
abilities, attract talent, drive employee engagement, and build cultures of innovation (Solis et al.,
2015). Ubeda et al. (2018) uncovered that locating CILs in URP enhances firms’ innovation
performances. University research parks are a cluster of firms situated in or near a university
campus (Link, 2009). Ng et al. (2020) posited firms benefit as URP tenants through knowledge
sharing, the vicinity of firms in similar sectors, the closeness of markets and customers, the
livability of the site, the image and prestige of the site, and the cost of accommodation and
services. Similarly, universities gain value from URP tenant connections through more effective
development of knowledge the firms seek (Link & Scott, 2017).
In recent years, researchers have found some CILs do not produce the results expected by
the firm; however, the exact causes are not conclusive (Ahuja, 2019; Ringel et al., 2015; Staack
& Cole, 2017; Viki, 2018). Kahn (2018) proposed the word innovation and the interchangeable
meanings cause confusion. For example, innovation as a process focuses on method; innovation
as a mindset internalizes a supportive culture; innovation as an outcome emphasizes output
(Kahn, 2018).
3

Ahuja (2019) suggested the failure rate of innovation labs is due to a lack of alignment
with the business, metrics to track success, and expertise balance on the team. Ringel et al.
(2015) highlighted the top four barriers to returns on innovation are (a) long development times,
(b) idea selection, (c) risk-averse culture, and (d) lack of coordination. Correspondingly, Kuratko
et al. (2014) found the key issues to corporate innovation difficulty are understanding the type of
innovation being sought, coordinating managerial roles, effectively using operating controls, and
properly training and preparing individuals. Together, the varying points of view of innovating at
CILURPs highlight the complexity of achieving the intended results. Regardless of the causes,
the innovation leader is at the center of correcting the problem (Gliddon & Rothwell, 2018).
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to explore and understand the practices of CILURP leaders
in developing innovation in their organizations. The research questions to understand the factors
supporting or hindering an CILURP leaders’ ability to develop innovation in the CILURP were
1. What are the CILURP leaders’ knowledge and motivation related to using the
CILURP to develop innovation in their organizations?
2. How do a firm’s culture, structure, and processes impact a CILURP leaders’ ability to
use the CILURP to develop innovation within their organizations?
Importance of the Study
It is important to study this problem for three reasons. First, firms with CILs may be
better equipped to develop new products, services, and business models to meet customer needs
and remain viable (Solis et al., 2015). New market entrants innovate and scale new business
models to meet new consumer needs faster than incumbent companies do (Bradley et al., 2015).
Anthony et al. (2018) estimated the average lifespan of a firm on the Standard and Poors (S&P)
4

500 Index to be 12 years by 2027, down from 24 years in 2016 and 33 years in 1964.
Technology creation and adoption pressure incumbent companies to evolve and reallocate
resources (Dougherty & Hardy, 1996). If workers do not adapt, they become unemployed; if
companies do not adapt, they will be out of business (Collins & Ryan, 2007). Successful
companies learn to balance implementing organizational and operational changes and training
the workforce for the new roles that come from technological advancements (Collins & Ryan,
2007; Heater, 2017). Prosperous companies develop the right processes to balance operational
and experimental needs (Brix, 2019) and have the clarity on the meaning of and expectation for
innovation (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010).
Second, URPs have a significant economic impact on the region in which they reside and
the university with which they are associated (Battelle, 2012). Successful operation of the
CILURP could support maintaining that impact and prosperity for all those living in that region
and the anchoring university (Hobbs et al., 2020).
Third, understanding how to run a successful CILURP could help leaders develop the
skills needed for building the organizational capability of innovation and the culture to support it
(Pisano, 2019). Pisano (2019) hypothesized five leadership challenges of building a culture of
innovation: (a) tolerance for failure but no tolerance for incompetence, (b) willingness to
experiment while being highly disciplined, (c) creating psychological safety while being brutally
candid, (d) collectively collaborative with individual accountability, and (e) flat organizational
hierarchies with strong leadership supporting decentralized decision-making for speed.
Mastering these challenges will help lead future leaders to successfully supporting the
sustainability of their firm.
5

Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
The theory used to explore this problem of practice is Clark and Estes’s (2008)
knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) gap analysis model. Clark and Estes developed
a model to diagnose performance gap causes and develop possible solutions that align with
organizational goals. There are three parts to the model: (a) knowledge and skills, (b) motivation,
and (c) organizational influences (Clark & Estes, 2008). Knowledge and skills indicate the
information, job aids, training, and education needed for performance. Motivation denotes the
active choice, persistence, and mental effort that impact performance. Organizational influences
refer to work processing, material resources, and culture that affect performance.
The approach to this study is qualitative. Qualitative research is an effective approach
when seeking to understand sensemaking, meaning-making, process delineation, or experience
interpretation of people (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The design of the study is phenomenological
using semistructured interviews. A phenomenological research study as a design is useful when
seeking to “describe the lived experiences about a phenomenon as described by participants”
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 13). The approach and design are well suited to explore and
understand the CIL leaders’ description of the process used in the CILURP and their lived
experiences from developing innovation in their organization.
Definitions
The key concepts that emerged from the review process areas are the following.
Absorptive capacity is the firm’s ability to acquire, assimilate, transform, and exploit
knowledge (Zahra & George, 2002).
A CIL is a dedicated physical space in a firm designed to inspire creative behaviors and
support innovation projects in a company (Lewis & Moultrie, 2005).
6

Innovation is the process of developing ideas and turning those ideas into experiments
that can help a firm exploit new features, products, services or business models that will enhance
business performance (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010).
Innovation capabilities are the human talent and organizational structure and processes to
identify problems and needs, produce and assess ideas, and develop and execute action plans to
implement those ideas in the market (Holtzman, 2014).
Innovation capacity is a firm’s ability to shift between exploration and exploitation
activities through its organizational context, culture, and leadership (Brix, 2019).
Innovation leadership is the application of leadership and change management principles
to inspire ideation and implementation of new products, services, and solutions (Gliddon &
Rothwell, 2018).
Organizational innovation is the development or implementation of an idea or behavior
new to a firm through structure forms, processes of learning, and capacity for change (Lam,
2005).
A URP is the physical environment that can generate, attract and retain firms and talent in
alignment with sponsoring universities enabling the flow of ideas between innovation generators
and companies located in both the research park and the surrounding region (Association of
University Research Parks [AURP], n.d.).
Organization of the Dissertation
The researcher structured this study into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides context and
background to the problem along with key definitions, the purpose of the research project and
subsequent research questions, the importance of the study, and an overview of the theoretical
framework and methodology used. Chapter 2 reviews the relevant literature and the conceptual
7

framework for the study. Chapter 3 offers an overview of the design of the study and details the
research methodology. Chapter 4 explores the results and findings. Chapter 5 discusses the
findings and the proposed recommendations.

8

Chapter Two: Literature Review
This literature review aims to provide the reader with a general overview of CILs in
URPs. The first part of this chapter gives an overview of the importance of CILURP by
exploring the definition of innovation, examining the industry context, studying perceptions of
executives on innovation, reviewing the history of URP, and defining the innovation laboratory.
The next part provides a synthesis of the challenges of a CILURP by investigating corporate
innovation, innovation laboratories, URPs, and innovation outposts. The discussion continues
with the strategies of CILURP through the lens of innovation outpost as brokers and the value-
add functionality of innovation laboratories. Finally, this chapter introduces the study’s
conceptual framework, based on Clark and Estes’s (2008) KMO gap analysis framework.
Importance of Corporate Innovation Laboratories in University Research Parks
Innovation is a vital source of a firm’s competitive advantage (Tohidi & Jabbari, 2012;
Visnjic et al., 2016). Innovation capabilities help address rapid changes in customer needs, while
responding to highly competitive markets (Kalay & Lynn, 2015); however, while the importance
of innovation is known, firms and their executives struggle to achieve the innovation output they
seek (Bennett & Parks, 2015). To develop a competitive advantage, firms build innovation
capacity through CILURP in the hopes that it will yield new products, services, and business
models (Decreton et al., 2021).
Definition of Innovation
Scholars have credited Schumpeter (1934) with the earliest definition of innovation, with
innovation as a phenomenon that involves a new way of doing things (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010;
Fritsch, 2017; Gonzales-Bustos & Hernández-Lara, 2016). Definitions of innovation have
evolved over decades, leading to further clarification of innovation of what is sought (Crossan &
9

Apaydin, 2010). Kahn (2018) proposed innovation means three things: (a) process, (b) outcome,
and (c) mindset. Innovation as a process focuses on the method (Kahn, 2018). These methods
organize innovation to reduce risk and increase efficiency to arrive at an output. Innovation as a
mindset internalizes a supportive culture. The mindset creates and encourages new ways of
thinking through skills, collaboration, and design. Finally, innovation as an outcome emphasizes
output (Kahn, 2018). Kahn (2018) described several outputs related to innovation and the
associated improvement; production innovation improves what is sold, process innovation
improves the making of what is sold, marketing innovation improves how is it sold, business
model innovation improves the industry in which is it sold, supply chain innovation improves the
collection of materials to make what is sold, and organizational innovation improves the
structure, management, and work environment that make it all happen. Kahn’s work
demonstrates how and why the word innovation can be confusing to those who use it.
Baregheh et al. (2009) studied definitions of innovation across seven disciplines—(a)
business and management, (b) economics, (c) organizational studies, (d) innovation and
entrepreneurship, © technology, science, and engineering, (f) knowledge management, and (g)
marketing—to identify common attributes. Baregheh et al. uncovered six attributes of
innovation: (a) stages, (b) means, (c) social context, (d) aim, (e) type, and (f) nature. Nature
indicates the form of the innovation. Type indicates the kind of innovation. Stages indicate the
step taken to innovate. Social context indicates the people involved in the innovation process.
Means indicate the resources vital for innovation to happen. Aim indicates the result from the
innovation. These six attributes demonstrate that innovation means different things to different
people in different contexts.
10

Edison et al. (2013) studied the meaning of innovation to measure innovation. The
researchers reviewed the existing literature, conducted semistructured interviews, and conducted
a survey, which, together, uncovered three delineations of innovation: (a) impact, referring to the
degree of change incremental, breakthrough, or radical; (b) type, referring to product, process,
market, or organization; and (c) degree of novelty, newness to the firm, market, industry, or
world. Edison et al. found not having a consist way of examining innovation affected the ability
to develop useful metrics to monitor progress. Edison et al. suggested an innovation measure
model that focuses on innovation capability, output, and performance.
In summary, there are many ways to define innovation, and the word means different
things to different people. Therefore, finding a definition broad enough to embody the
expectations of its use is challenging. As a result, to guide the study the researcher will use
Crossan and Apaydin (2010) definition of innovation as “production or adoption, assimilation,
and exploitation of a value-added novelty in economic and social spheres; renewal and
enlargement of products, services, and markets; development of new methods of production; and
establishment of new management systems” (p. 1,155). Crossan and Apaydin’s definition
emphasizes the broad meaning, discussed by Kahn (2018), with the new way of doing things,
noted by Schumpeter (1934), while capturing the contextual nuances Baregheh et al. (2009)
uncovered.
Corporate Innovation Laboratories
Lewis and Moultrie (2005) defined a laboratory as “a physical research setting dedicated
to conducting types of experiments” (p. 74). Gey et al.’s (2013) definition of “an innovation
laboratory is a physical place supporting the development of innovations” (p. 1). Lewis and
11

Moultrie cited MG Taylor as creating the first facilities recognized as innovation laboratories. In
addition, MG Taylor had workspaces to develop business growth strategies.
Literature on CILs is fragmented. Some researchers have discussed the topic as part of
corporate entrepreneurship and innovation effort, an innovation hub, a digital innovation lab, a
digital innovation unit, an innovation outpost, or as a tenant of a research park (Decreton et al.,
2021; Elfsberg et al., 2020; Iho & Missonier, 2021; Kuratko et al., 2014; Ng et al., 2020; Raabe
et al., 2020). Despite the theme of needing a different environment to perform forward-looking
work to advance the firm, the disparate naming highlights a lack of accepted terms and
definitions.
More recent literature has described innovation laboratories as having four dimensions
(Memon & Meyer, 2017). The first dimension is the physical environment, including
architecture and interior design (Lewis & Moultrie, 2005; Magadley & Birdi, 2009). The second
dimension is the people involved, including the laboratory designer, the laboratory workers, and
the consumers or users of the output from the laboratory (Gey et al., 2013). The third dimension
is the structure, configuration, and focus of the innovation projects conducted (Lewis &
Moultrie, 2005). The fourth dimension is the labo’atory's resources and services in the
innovation process (Memon & Meyer, 2017; Memon et al., 2014). The purpose of the innovation
laboratory influences each dimension’s manifestation (Santarsiero et al., 2020). The four
dimensions provide a way to understand how an innovation laboratory adds value.
Memon et al. (2014) found innovation laboratories offer varying resources and services.
Innovation laboratories provide knowledge resources in information technology (IT) and
software development, business processes, services engineering, social services, electrical and
mechanical engineering. Innovation laboratories also offer a range of services, such as
12

connections to experts, moderated innovation sessions, startup mentoring, consulting services,
open meeting spaces, office space, rapid prototyping, engineering tools, and training. This mix of
resources and services leads to functional roles an innovation lab can serve (Memon & Meyer,
2017). Innovation laboratories perform seven roles: (a) creativity stimulation, (b) knowledge
dissemination, (c) business incubation, (d) network forma©n, (e) resource provision, (f) process
intermediation, (g) research and development (R&D), and (h) market research. Each functional
role supports the innovation process both directly and indirectly (Memon & Meyer, 2017). In
summary, understanding the dimensions of an innovation laboratory help define the services and
resources they will provide to the stakeholders.
University Research Parks
University research parks in the United States have existed since the 1950s (Link &
Scott, 2017). Despite the varying definitions by industry associations and typologies used by
URPs, the focus of their existence remains knowledge sharing between companies and
universities. Companies aim to improve their growth, innovation, and external brand while the
university aims to improve their talent development, the impact of their research, and
contribution to the local innovation ecosystem (Olvera et al., 2020).
Global Definition Variation
Over the last 15 years, descriptions of parks have evolved. Link (2009) noted, “The term
research park was more prevalent in the United States, the term science park was more prevalent
in Europe, and the term technology park was more prevalent in Asia” (p. 127-128); however,
Hobbs et al. (2017b) posited the evolution of descriptions now connotates’the park's distinction
versus the type of work in the park. Regardless of the name, most parks affiliate with a
university. Therefore, for the rest of the paper, the term URP will be used.
13

There are several definitions of URP. Hobbs et al. (2017b) credited the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, n.d.) with the broadest definition:
The term “science and technology park” encompasses any kind of high-tech cluster such
as: technopolis, science park, science city, cyber park, hi tech (industrial) park,
innovation centre, R&D park, university research park, research and technology park,
science and technology park, science city, science town, technology park, technology
incubator, technology park, technopark, technopole and technology business incubator.
(para. 4)
In addition to world organizations, park associations around the world have developed their
definition. For example, International Association of Science Parks (IASP, n.d.), based in Spain,
defined a science park:
a science pa13nowledge13d13anisation ma13nowledge13decialised professionals, whose
main aim is to increase the wealth of its community by promoting the culture of
innovation and the competitiveness of its associated businesses and knowledge-based
institutions. (para. 1)
The United Kingdom Science Park Association (UKSPA, n.d.) articles of association defined a
science park as
a property-based initiative however named or designated which has formal and
operational links with a University, other higher educational institute or major center of
research or technology, is designed to encourage the formation and growth of knowledge
based businesses and other organizations normally resident on site, and has a
management function which is actively engaged in the transfer of technology and
business skills to the organizations on site. (p 1.)
14

The Association of Science and Technology Parks of Spain (APTE) defined a science and
technology park:
It is a Project, generally associated with a physical space, with the following
characteristics:
1. Formal and operational dealings with universities, research centers and higher
educational institutions.
2. Designed to encourage the creation and growth of knowledge-based companies and
other organizations belonging to the service sector, which are normally established in
the park itself, with a high added value.
3. A stable managing body that promotes the transfer of technology and fosters
innovation between the companies and organizations using the park. (APTE, n.d.,
para. 1)
Finally, the AURP (n.d.) defined a URP:
University research parks are physical environments that can generate, attract and retain
science and technology companies and talent in alignment with sponsoring research
institutions that include, universities, as well as public, private, and federal research
laboratories. Research parks enable the flow of ideas between innovation generators such
as, universities, federal labs, and non-profit R&D institutions and companies located in
both the research park and the surrounding region. (para. 1)
The shared themes across each of these definitions are knowledge sharing between business and
universities to drive innovative activity. Going forward, I will use the definition proposed by
Link and Scott (2017) to guide the research:
15

A university research park is a cluster of technology-based organizations that locate on or
near a university campus in order to benefit from the university’s knowledge base and
ongoing research. The university not only transfers knowledge but expects to develop
knowledge more effectively given the association with the tenants in the research park.
(p. 44).
This definition highlights the bidirectional nature of knowledge sharing between universities and
companies. Further, the presence of the CILURPs help facilitate the relationship between both
parties helping each side achieve their respective goals (Decreton et al., 2021).
History in the United States
According to Link and Scott (2017), United States URPs started in the 1950s. Stanford
Research Park was established in 1951; Cornell Business and Technology Park was established
in 1952; and Research Triangle Park of North Carolina was established in 1959. University
research parks saw rapid growth during the early 1980s and early 2000s (Link & Scott, 2017).
Link and Scott posited private sector demand and public policy initiatives were key drivers of
this growth. Link and Scott suggested companies were seeking to expand their research
portfolios through University-Industry collaborations. They also highlighted The Bayh-Doyle
Act, the Research and Experimentation (R&E) tax, credit, and the National Cooperative
Research Act as key public policy drivers. The Bayh-Doyle Act (the University and Small
Business Patent Procedure Act of 1980) “reformed federal patent policy by providing increased
incentives for the diffusion of federally funded innovation results. Universities were permitted to
obtain titles to innovations developed with government funds” (Link & Scott, 2017, p. 45). The
R&E tax credit rewards companies’ increased R&D spending year over year with corporate tax
benefits. Cooperative Research Act of 1984 described a policy method to stimulate “the
16

formation of research joint ventures (RJVs) among U.S. firms—and universities were partners in
many of those ventures” (Link & Scott, 2017, p. 45). The history of URP helps understand their
formation. Exploring the definition provides a perspective on what URPs do.
Design Characteristics
No agreed-upon typology of a URP exists. The triple helix model of innovation provides
a perspective on URP development (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1995). The triple helix innovation
model refers to a framework to demonstrate the interaction between universities, industries, and
governments (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1995). Etzkowitz and Zhou (2018) described five
different models of development that emphasize the path of URP creation: (a) forward-linear is
from university to industry; (b) reverse-linear is from industry to university; (c) top-down is from
the government to university; (d) bottom-up is from university to governme© and (e) nonlinear
is nonlinear modes by any actor or all actors.
University research park specialization and development strategies can shape typologies
(McCarthy et al., 2018). McCarthy et al. (2018) proposed a four-part conceptual model using the
level of specialization and development strategies to focus on and describe the role of the URP:
(a) matchmaker: a high-specialization and low-development strategy, (b) gardener: a high-
specialization and high-development strategy, (c) landlord: a low-specialization and low-
development strategy, and (d) coach: a low-specialization and high-development strategy.
Clustering characteristics can offer insights into typological considerations (Ng et al.,
2019). Ng et al. (2019) studied the characteristics of 82 URPs in Europe. The researchers
uncovered three clusters: (a) research locations, (b) cooperative locations, and (c) incubator
locations. Studying URP typologies helps understand the purpose of the URP. Examining the
value of the URP features to the tenant is the next logical step.
17

Ng et al. (2021) studied 12 Dutch URPs investigating how proximity, real estate, and
managerial attributes met company needs. Ng et al. found the strongest proximity attribute was
attracting human talent due to the proximity to the university. The strongest real estate attribute
was cost savings through R&D equipment and facilities. The strongest managerial attribute was
developing ties with other firms. The study population was primarily small and medium-sized
businesses, suggesting there is an opportunity to examine the needs of large companies. As
discussed in the definition, there is no one type of URP. Therefore, the role of the URP becomes
more important to help broker value based on the URPs offerings (Ng et al., 2020).
Corporate Innovation Laboratories in University Research Parks
A CILURP is a CIL specifically located in a URP. As discussed earlier, companies use
CILs to advance innovation projects and the ecosystem of the URP offers access to the flow of
ideas and talent between the anchoring university and the companies (Link & Scott, 2017;
Memon & Meyer, 2017). There are limited studies on the value creation of a CILURP for a
company in the United States. Studies either target Silicon Valley, CA, CILs or attempt to
generalize the state of CILURP through global sampling (Memon & Meyer, 2017).
Link (2009) classified empirical studies on URPs into four dimensions: (a) factors
affecting company decisions to locate in a URP; (b) formation of a URP and university
performance; (c) value to a company located in a URP; (d) URP and regional economic growth
development. The researcher’s study concentrates on the third dimension. Albahari et al. (2010)
classified empirical studies on company performance located in a URP into three categories:
economic value, innovation value, and knowledge value.
Empirical studies have shown mixed results on firm economic value by being in a URP.
Internal innovation capabilities influence new product sales (Vasquez-Urriago et al., 2016b).
18

Vasquez-Urriago et al. (2016b) examined 39,722 Spanish firms located in 22 of the 25 Spanish
URPs. Their results showed URP location had a strong positive effect on new product sales;
however, this effect varied by company size and internal innovation capabilities. For example,
smaller companies saw a greater impact on sales and companies with no internal innovation
capabilities yielded no benefit from the URP (Vasquez-Urriago et al., 2016a). Conversely, some
studies showed no effect on business performance (Liberati et al., 2016). Liberati et al. (2016)
studied companies in Italian URPs and uncovered no difference in business performance
between those companies in the URP and those outside of the URP. Similarly, Lamperti et al.’s
(2017) analysis of Italian URPs and associated companies found that company growth was not
connected to being in the URP despite improvements in their innovativeness and propensity to
invest in R&D. Investigating economic value helps understand the full manifestation of the
impact on a company. Exploring the innovation value will help some intangibles.
How companies derive innovation value is inconclusive. Cooperation for innovation
increases by being located in a URP (Vásquez-Urriago et al., 2016). Vasquez-Urriago et al.
(2016) analyzed results from the 2007 Spanish Survey of Technology Innovation in Companies.
Vasquez-Urriago et al. found locating in a URP had a positive effect on the likelihood of
cooperation for innovation and cooperation with the companies’ primary innovation partner.
Innovation capacity is increased due to a URP presence (Díez-Vial & Montoro-Sánchez, 2016).
Diez-Vial and Montoro-Sanchez (2016) interviewed and network mapped 76 managers of
companies located in the Madrid Science Park. Diez-Vial and Montoro-Sanchez learned
companies gathering knowledge from the university increased their innovation capacities. They
also found a central position in the network led to increasing innovations. Prior university
engagement experience helps harness knowledge from the URP. Diez-Vial and Fernandez-
19

Olmos performed a longitudinal analysis on 11,201 Spanish companies. Diez-Vial and
Fernandez-Olmos learned companies with prior experience working with universities can use the
knowledge gathered by the companies’ presences in the URP, resulting in increasing innovative
capacity. Diez-Vial and Fernandez-Olmos attributed this finding to companies understanding
how to comprehend and use the knowledge from formal and informal channels common to
higher education environments. Inspecting innovation value helps understand how companies
may garner value through innovation. Exploring knowledge value helps with understanding ways
it translates into usefulness for companies.
Empirical studies have shown mixed results on firm knowledge value by being in a URP.
Companies can improve their intellectual capital (IC) performance by being located in a URP
(Schiavone et al., 2014). Intellectual capital is comprised of the knowledge and skill assets
possessed by a company (Chen et al., 2014). Schiavone et al. (2014) studied 183 Italian firms
located in and outside the URP and concluded IC performance was enhanced by being in the
URP, noting services by the URP support companies focusing on the core activities that drive IC
and the network benefits to enhance IC efficiency.
Companies can use their absorptive capacity to extract the value from the URP (Ubeda et
al., 2019). Absorptive capacity is a company’s ability to acquire, assimilate, transform, and
exploit knowledge (Zahra & George, 2002). Ubeda et al. (2019) analyzed 3,844 Spanish firms
using the Technological Innovation Panel survey. Ubeda et al. categorized three types of firms:
(a) precatching up companies: those below a minimum threshold of absorptive capacity, (b)
catching up companies: those above a minimum threshold of absorptive capacity without
knowledge duplicity problems, and (c) prefrontier companies: those above a minimum threshold
of absorptive capacity with knowledge duplicity problems. Ubeda et al. found innovation
20

performance is not improved for precatching up companies by being on a URP because they do
not have the minimum level of internal, while prefrontier and catching up do. Prefrontier
companies do not get as much value as catching up companies because of knowledge duplicity
(Ubeda et al., 2019).
Mature companies struggle more than younger companies to fully capture value from the
exchange of knowledge in the URP (Díez-Vial & Fernández-Olmos, 2017). Díez-Vial and
Fernandez-Olmos (2017) examined 12,800 companies from the Spanish Survey of Technology
Innovation Panel. They found maturity negatively impacted firm growth and innovation because
of the competitor proximity in the park and the easy flow of ideas and experience between
companies. Considering how knowledge value enhances companies is useful to explore
intangible ways companies benefit from a CILURP. Studying how the each of the value-adds
interact together helps explore way to monitor and track progress.
Olvera et al. (2020) integrated company value-add by studying companies located in
Spanish and Mexican URPs. They mapped key company and university objectives to various
execution strategies and proposed long-term and progress key performance indicators (KPI) that
aligned. While the emphasis of the study was on the business perspective, their work provides a
roadmap to evaluate value produced and alignment of objectives (Olvera et al., 2020).
In summary, companies can get value from their URP presence (Díez-Vial & Fernández-
Olmos, 2015; Schiavone et al., 2014; Vasquez-Urriago et al., 2016). Creating a CIL in the URP
specifically enables economic value, innovation value, and knowledge value (Díez-Vial &
Fernández-Olmos, 2015; Schiavone et al., 2014; Vasquez-Urriago et al., 2016). There is a lack of
research on CILURP in United States and specifically what the CILURP leader needs to promote
the CIL to stakeholders, develop the capabilities and innovation output needed by the company,
21

and support scaling the innovation output so the company can receive economic benefits and
thrive (Henriques et al., 2018).
Senior Executive Needs
Although senior executives believe innovation is essential, they are unsure how to lead
innovation in their companies. Research identifies at least three fundamental concerns of senior
executives: (a) lack of a structured innovation process, (b) confidence in their abilities to lead
innovation initiatives, and (c) misalignment of the innovation strategy with the company strategy
(Barsh et al., 2008; CBInsights, 2018; Staack & Cole, 2017). A CILURP can help support the
concerns of senior executives leading to the innovation needs of companies (Memon & Meyer,
2017).
One concern is a lack of a structured innovation process (CBInsights, 2018). A survey of
677 corporate strategy executives noted 57% of the respondents’ firms did not follow a formal
innovation process, despite 84% saying innovation is important (CBInsights, 2018). In addition,
41% of the executives responded, saying their companies were ‘very at risk’ or ‘extremely at
risk’ of disruption by emerging technologies (CBInsights, 2018). CILURP can help support
executives and their firms with expertise in the innovation process (Memon & Meyer, 2017).
A second concern is executives’ skills to lead innovation in their company (Barsh et al.,
2008). A McKinsey study of 722 senior executives found that 65% were somewhat, a little, or
not at all confident in their abilities to stimulate innovation (Barsh et al., 2008). Barsh et al.
(2008) also found 94% of the senior executives believed people and culture were the most
critical drivers of innovation. CILURP can educate executives, so they can harness the power of
innovation in their firms (Memon & Meyer, 2017).
22

A third concern is a strategic alignment to the company strategy (Staack & Cole, 2017).
A survey of 1,222 executives in 44 countries uncovered 54% of respondents believed the most
significant strategic challenge to successful innovation is the alignment between their
companies’ business strategies and their companies’ innovation strategies (Staack & Cole, 2017).
The survey further uncovered 65% of executives believed innovative behaviors and culture were
crucial for innovation success (Staack & Cole, 2017). Staack and Cole (2017) and Barsh et al.
(2008) found common factors that executives believe are important to their companies’
realization of innovation. CILURP leaders can partner with executives to be innovation
evangelists leading to improved innovation output (Kuratko, 2017a).
In summary, the CILURP offers support to executives to address their concerns about
innovation for their company. The CILURP can provide structure for an innovation process,
education for senior executives on how to harness innovation in their organizations, and
alignment with innovation efforts to focused on the most critical areas for the company (Memon
& Meyer, 2017).
Challenges of Corporate Innovation Laboratories in University Research Parks
Innovation challenges refer to the obstacles, difficulties, or bottlenecks associated with
innovating (Hölzl & Janger, 2012). Innovation challenges negatively impact companies’
innovation activities (Pellegrino, 2018). Therefore, it is important to understand those challenges
encountered by corporations, specifically for CILURP, so that solutions will target overcoming
them (Kuratko et al., 2014).
Little research exists that explicitly examines the challenges of CILURP. Therefore,
investigating the challenges of each key component will provide a perspective on the challenges
of CILURP. Together, synthesizing the challenges of corporate innovation, innovation
23

laboratories, URPs, and innovation outpost offer a perspective on what possible challenges exist
in CILURP.
Corporate Innovation Challenges
There are many challenges associated with corporate innovation. Building on earlier
work from Van de Ven (1986), Van de Ven and Engleman (2004) posited problems in corporate
innovation can be divided into four parts: people, process, industry, and leadership. Van de Ven
and Engleman highlighted the use of mental models to cope with decision-making in complex
situations as the heart of the people problem. Van de Ven and Engleman described the process
problem as the difficulty of gathering support for an idea and taking it through implementation.
The industry problem emphasizes the struggle of managing external networks and developing
industry infrastructure. The researchers suggested the leadership problem as the strain of
managing the exchanges and context between the existing and the emerging organization and
industry. The four parts identified by Van de Ven and Engleman provide a framework for
investigating corporate innovation challenges. Examining implementation challenges in
corporate innovation can provide deeper insights
Implementation presents challenges in corporate innovation (Kuratko et al., 2014).
Kuratko et al. (2014) highlighted the key innovation implementation issues are understanding the
type of innovation being sought, coordinating managerial roles, effectively using operating
controls, and properly training and preparing individuals. Lack of clarity on where to innovate in
the form of a product, service, or process, and the intensity of the innovation, which could be
incremental, radical, or disruptive, creates confusion and misalignment across stakeholders
(Kuratko et al., 2014). Senior, middle, and first levels of managers play roles in the development
and supervision of corporate innovation work (Kuratko, 2017a). Misalignment of those
24

managerial roles prevents subordinates from successfully executing their innovation efforts
(Kuratko, 2017a). The absence of operating controls reduces the effectiveness and efficiency of
corporate innovation initiatives (Kuratko et al., 2014). Operating controls enable the alignment
of opportunities and the process to develop each opportunity. Inconsistent innovation behaviors
by workers jeopardize corporate innovation projects. Training and education support consistent
innovation behavior by workers through awareness, encouragement, and nurturing (Kuratko et
al., 2014). Awareness of implementation issues helps with understanding the challenges.
Investigating the contribution of organizational structure, systems, and culture to the challenges
of corporate innovation supports deeper exploration.
Poor organizational structure, systems, and culture obstruct corporate innovation (Bennett
& Parks, 2015). Bennett and Park (2015) uncovered that the lack of supportive structures to
identify innovative opportunities, refine opportunities into marketable forms, and launch
opportunities strategically in the market to capture value hinder innovation activity. Further,
Bennett and Park found the two most critical systems were funding and evaluation of innovation
opportunities emphasizing the alignment of the two is as important as the existence to promote
innovation activity. Additionally, Bennett and Park (2015) discovered two cultural characteristics
that when missing hamper corporate innovation: (a) knowing the difference between and how to
handle mistakes and failures and (b) the discipline and speed to halt bad projects such “that good
money doesn’t chase bad” (p. 568). Finally, Kuratko et al. (2014) and Bennett and Park (2015)
both found common factors in organizational controls that, when lacking, inhibitor corporate
innovation. In summary, leadership actions, innovation processes, innovation implementation
management, and operational controls are all challenges faced in corporate innovation activities.
25

Innovation Laboratory Challenges
Innovation laboratories face challenges by the very need for their existence (Santarsiero
et al., 2020). While these labs are designed to be away from the operational part organization to
be and function differently, they need the support of other operational stakeholders to deliver on
the value to the customer rather than just be for show (Tucker, 2017). A term coined to describe
the challenges is innovation theatre, meaning companies use the CIL as a marketing tool to show
they are “doing innovation,” rather than delivering an innovative product to a customer (Blank,
2019). The strategies used, the metrics tracked, and the team makeup are all challenges that CILs
must conquer (Ahuja, 2019; Blank, 2019; Viki, 2018)
Misaligned strategies, absence of metrics, and poor team balance challenge CILs success
(Ahuja, 2019). Ahuja (2019) studied large corporations with CILs in various sectors and found
aligning business strategy with innovation strategy, tracking success with the appropriate
metrics, and diversifying the team were challenges CILs encountered and needed to overcome
for success. The researcher noted one issue that manifests with a lack of strategy alignment: what
the CIL works on for the company. For example, there are operational tradeoffs to consider when
deciding between supporting the core business or disrupting it. Further, Ahuja described the
trouble CILs face without the right metrics to demonstrate the CIL’s progress. Regardless of who
the CIL supports, the work is iterative in nature necessitating tangible and intangible metrics to
monitor and show progress. Ahuja also asserted CIL team mix is a challenge. The most effective
CILs have a team with a mix of cognitive styles, functional experiences, and length of tenure at
the company. In summary, how the CILs align to the company strategy, track metrics, and build
the CIL team pose the greatest challenges for success.
26

Corporate innovation labs are challenged by the leaders who champion the creation of
CILs yet do not understand the implication of opening the CIL (Viki, 2020). Viki’s (2020)
research of innovation in corporations using CILs uncovered that there are two challenges CILs
face: (a) a clear innovation strategy and (b) a clear framework for managing innovation. The
absence of an innovation strategy makes it difficult for leaders to decern the usefulness of new
products for the company. Viki noted when the products threaten to cannibalize current company
products’ revenues, leaders react by protecting that revenue, rather than developing new revenue
streams from the new products. Viki also found managing innovation is a challenge. When a
company is challenged with managing innovation, they cannot track and measure innovation
success and be able to take the products from the CIL back to the main company to scale. In
summary, Viki and Ahuja highlighted the challenges of having an aligned innovation strategy
and innovation management framework to guide the iteration of the work to scale to customers
to support the company getting value from the innovation.
Team dynamics and diversity present challenges to operating an innovation laboratory
(Fecher et al., 2020). Fecher et al. (2020), in studying of an innovation laboratory in the financial
industry, found managing participants can be a challenge to innovation laboratory success. First,
they uncovered unmet expectations negatively influence participants’ behavior. The participants
from operational units expected more training and support as they struggled with vague tasks
despite their excitement to learn. Second, Fecher et al. found a deficiency in team development
slowed innovation work. The researchers note the importance of a strong facilitator to guide the
participants in team building and tackling project challenges. Third, reintegration of the
innovation laboratory participants back into other parts of the business was difficult. The
researchers found participants experienced resistance from peers as they attempted to implement
27

the mindsets and skills the participants learned in the innovation laboratory. Finally, the transfer
of innovation back into the organization was slow. The researchers noted only 33% of the
projects were realized in other parts of the business, after the participants developed the
innovation. In summary, participants in the innovation lab face challenges before, during, and
after their involvement.
University Research Park Challenges
Companies located in a URP create value for their firms (Castonguay et al., 2018).
University research parks support the knowledge and technology transfer between the businesses
located in the URP and the anchoring university (Olvera et al., 2020); however, challenges exist
aligning university goals, and URP attributes with the benefits the companies seek (Ng et al.,
2021; Olvera et al., 2020).
Key performance indicators are useful to manage a university–business collaboration in a
URP, yet are hard to develop because of culture, mission, and organizational practices (Olvera et
al., 2020). Olvera et al. (2020) studied companies colocated at URP in Spain and Mexico. Olvera
et al. proposed frameworks of KPIs that map objectives, strategies, main long-term KPIs, and
progress KPIs for a company and the corresponding university. The map helps both stakeholders
see how their respective objectives align. Also, Olvera et al. noted three key differences in how
universities and companies operate: (a) diverse timespan where companies have short windows
to market versus the long windows desired for university research; (b) process expertise varies
where companies can commercialize a product and universities invent a product; and (c)
differences in interest where companies have limited interest in university research. Combining
the KPIs with the understanding of the differencing between companies and universities may
help overcome the challenges of working together in a URP (Olvera et al., 2020).
28

Knowing when and how to use the URP attributes for company needs can be a challenge
(Ng et al., 2021). URPs offer three attributes: (a) proximity, (b) real estate, and (c) management
(Ng et al., 2021). Proximity attributes describe the geographic proximity to a university, similar
firms, competitors, existing customers, or new customers. Real estate attributes designate the
supporting and R&D facilities, the pricing and expansion possibilities, and the image garner by
using the real estate. Managerial attributes depict the on-site management support that helps
companies network, navigate the university, and manage the development of the URP.
Ng et al. (2021) studied 51 companies of URPs in the Netherlands. Their research
demonstrated how companies perceive the value of the URP attributes. The strongest proximity
attribute was attracting human talent due to the proximity to the university; the strongest real
estate attribute was cost savings through R&D equipment and facilities; the strongest managerial
attribute was developing ties with other firms. In summary, the key challenge of URPs is
understanding how different attributes of the URP and the goals of the university impact
companies’ ability to extract value from their presence in the park.
Innovation Outpost Challenges
Much relevant research of U.S. CILURP revolves around studying innovation outposts in
Silicon Valley, CA (Decreton et al., 2021; Elfsberg et al., 2020). A key challenge discussed in
the literature centers on how the innovation outpost acts as a broker between the company and
the ecosystem in which the innovation outpost resides (Decreton et al., 2021). Decreton et al.
(2021) studied 18 companies and revealed three ways innovation outposts failed as brokers.
First, when the innovation outpost has weak ties to both the ecosystem and the main office, the
innovation outpost struggles with information collection and transfer overload. Second, when the
innovation outpost possesses strong ties to the ecosystem and weak ties to the main office, the
29

innovation outpost struggles with connections in the main office and not-invented-here
syndrome. Third, when the innovation outpost possesses weak ties to the ecosystem and strong
ties to the main office, the innovation outpost struggles with ineffective organizational policies
and processes. In summary, the innovation outpost faces the challenge of brokering relationships
with the main office and the local ecosystem to thrive.
While no specific literature on CILURP exists, exploring the challenges in corporate
innovation, innovation laboratories, URPs, and innovation outpost provides a perspective on
what CILURP might face. Leadership actions, innovation processes, innovation implementation
management, and operational controls hinder corporate innovation activities. Participants in the
innovation lab face challenges before, during, and after their involvement. Understanding the
different attributes of the URP and the university's goals may be difficult to gather. And as an
innovation outpost, a CILURP may face challenges of brokering relationships with the main
office and the local ecosystem.
Solutions for Corporate Innovation Laboratories in University Research Parks
Minimal research exists that explicitly discusses the solution strategies of CILURP.
Therefore, examining solutions of the most closely related models will help inform the
discussion. Together, synthesizing the solutions of innovation laboratories and innovation
outpost offer a perspective on what possible solutions exist for CILURP.
Innovation Outpost as a Broker
Decreton et al. (2021) proposed thinking about innovation outposts as brokers. Brokers
connect the main office of a company and the local innovation ecosystem. Decreton et al.
suggested four actions that successful brokers implement. First, define the purpose of the
innovation outpost. A clear definition helps the main office understand how to use the innovation
30

outpost and what to expect from the innovation outpost. Further, the definition provides
transparency for the local innovation ecosystem about how they could engage with the
innovation outpost of the company. Second, set up the necessary organizational structure and
incentives. Structurally, Decreton et al. found successful innovation outposts had a support team
at or near the main office. The support team helped the innovation outpost transfer knowledge
back to the main office and have that knowledge more easily understood by the business units in
the main office. To help the support team, Decreton et al. learned the innovation outpost team
should possess diversity, including mixed technical expertise, various business function
knowledge, and integrated local innovation ecosystem familiarity. Regarding incentives,
innovation outposts used a mix of incentives and KPIs to support the management of the
expectations. Decreton et al. noted incentives and KPIs should fit the purpose of the innovation
outpost and that they can change over time, as the innovation outpost evolves. Decreton et al.
(2021) learned that “in the early days of an outpost, softer measures might be appropriate, but
after a while, measures that are more tangible have to be set up” (p. 108). Third, identify and
establish relevant organizational processes. Organizational processes focused on supporting
collaboration between business units at the main office and local ecosystem entities. Decreton et
al. identified three key organizational processes: (a) transferring external ideas in a way that is
understood by the main office’s business units, (b) identifying problems in the main office’s
business units and searching for solutions externally, and (c) getting organizational commitment
both from key individuals and business unit champions. Fourth, instill a culture of collaboration
and humility. Decreton et al. (2021) called attention to that “companies that are too protective of
their knowledge do not benefit from open innovation” (p. 111). One participant in the study
noted acting “like bees pollinating the field with random acts of unselfishness for the benefit of
31

the community” (Decreton et al., 2021, p. 111). Companies should operate in a trusting way to
get the trust of the ecosystem community. Further, Decreton et al. noted the importance for
companies to understand that ecosystem entities have options; entities have many choices with
whom to partner on projects. Therefore, having the attitude of “you should be glad to work with
such a strong brand as ours” (Decreton et al., 2021, p. 112) will not be successful. In summary,
successful strategies of running an innovation outpost include a clear definition of purpose,
necessary organizational structure, process, and incentives, and a collaborative and humble
mindset.
Clear Functional Roles Enables Organizational Value
Clarity on what assistance the innovation laboratory offers to business units of an
organization and the functions of an innovation laboratory helps companies garner organizational
value (Memon & Meyer, 2017). Memon and Meyer (2017) studied 190 innovation laboratories
globally, uncovering eight functions they perform: (a) creativity stimulation, (b) knowledge
dissemination, (c) business incubation, (d) network formation, (e) resource provision, (f) process
intermediation, (g) R&D, and (h) market research. Each role directly or indirectly influences
phases in the innovation process. Memon and Meyer defined the innovation process as three
phases: (a) conceptualization, (b) actualization, and (c) commercialization. Memon and Meyer
found the conceptualization phase directly impacts the creativity stimulation, business
incubation, process intermediation, and market research functions; the actualization phase
directly impacts business incubation, resource provision, and process intermediation functions;
the commercialization phase directly impacts market research function. If not directly called out,
the other functions indirectly impact each innovation phase.
32

Memon and Meyer (2017) found an alignment of achieved business value-adds to each
functional role. Creativity stimulation increases creative thinking and the degree of novelty of
ideas. Memon and Meyer (2017) noted creativity stimulation “is facilitated either as an add-on or
as the main functionality” (p. 39). Knowledge dissemination improves knowledge transfer,
human capacities and skills, and reduces management barriers. Memon and Meyer (2017)
learned “almost every lab facilitates knowledge dissemination in one or other way” (p. 40).
Business incubation lowers the initial setup costs of a new business, offers more vital business
ideas, and reduces the risk of new ventures. Startups receive coaching and mentoring, operational
resources, seed money, and networking. Network formation shares costs of innovation projects,
supports the exchange of competencies and assets, and creates new knowledge and resources.
Memon and Meyer found network formation focuses on specific business segments, for example,
3D technology companies. Resources provision integrates technology and reduces the cost of
innovation. Memon and Meyer uncovered resources provision enable companies to accelerate
the growth of technical expertise to translate them into innovation projects. Process
intermediation reduces the risk associated with the innovation process and lowers the time to
market. Memon and Meyer gathered that information and technical skills empower business
units with the right methodology and innovation process to identify and reduce errors. Research
and development provide knowhow on the innovation process and innovation management.
Memon and Meyer (2017) surfaced R&D involve projects that support “market analysis,
development and testing of new methodologies, technological advancements and opportunities,
and the establishment of best practices and guidelines for innovation management” (p. 44).
Market research offers awareness of the market needs, demands, and perceptions, while
collecting feedback from customers. In summary, a clear definition of the functions and the
33

value-adds of the innovation laboratories help business units use the capabilities of the lab more
efficiently and effectively. A review of solutions in the literature helps explore the elements of
successful operation strategies for CILURPs. The next section discusses the study’s conceptual
framework based on Clark and Estes’s KMO gap analysis framework.
Conceptual Framework
The theory used to explore this problem of practice is Clark and Estes’s (2008) KMO gap
analysis model. Clark and Estes developed a model to diagnose performance gap causes and
develop possible solutions that align with organizational goals. There are three parts to the
model: (a) knowledge and skills, (b) motivation, and (c) organizational influences (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Knowledge and skills indicate the information, job aids, training, and education
needed for performance. Motivation denotes the active choice, persistence, and mental effort that
impact performance. Organizational influences refer to work processing, material resources, and
culture that affect performance.
Using Clark and Estes’s (2008) KMO gap analysis model to examine the problem
provides a perspective to examine expertise, belief, and alignment challenges of using a CILURP
to develop innovation in a company. Each part provides a lens to understanding the influences on
performance by the CILURP leader: optimal expertise, internal beliefs, and organizational
influences. Furthermore, Clark and Estes’ model may call attention to patterns of gaps that are
not straightforward or interconnected between the three parts.
Clark and Estes’s (2008) model influenced the conceptual framework. Companies desire
a competitive advantage to extend their longevity through innovation (Provasnek et al., 2017).
The placement of a CIL in a URP improves a company’s ability to innovate (Díez-Vial &
Montoro-Sánchez, 2016). University research park management and services, URP tenant, and
34

the university, including the administration, students, and faculty, contribute to the URP
ecosystem (Ng et al., 2021). For the CILURP leader to deliver on the objective of developing
innovation in their company, they need the appropriate knowledge and motivation to be
successful. The procedural knowledge CILURP leaders need is organizational structure (i.e.,
how the firm is organized), organizational economics (i.e., how the firm makes money), and
URP ecosystem (i.e., tenants, services offered by URP, and the university structure; Decreton et
al., 2021; Ng et al., 2021). This knowledge helps the leader understand stakeholders’
perspectives. Additional procedural knowledge includes managing change, persuading
stakeholders, and facilitating innovation (Kuratko, 2017a). This knowledge helps the CILURP
support the innovation process and management needs of the company. The metacognitive
knowledge CILURP leaders need is strategizing with filtering and assessing external information
and knowledge (Van de Ven & Engleman, 2004). This knowledge helps the leader be a broker
by transferring and translating knowledge into the company (Decreton et al., 2021).
CILURP leaders’ motivation compliments CILURP knowledge and organizational
influences (Clark & Estes, 2008). The CILURP leaders need to believe in their capacities to
improve the company’s innovative culture and believe their efforts will result in enhancing the
company’s competitive advantage (Decreton et al., 2021; Kuratko, 2017b). Accelerating or
decelerating CILURP leaders’ efforts are the organizational influences: organizational
ambidexterity orientation, risk orientation and uncertainty comfort, availability of resources,
reporting structure, and processes to scale innovation (Decreton et al., 2021; Kuratko et al.,
2014). Understanding the CILURP leaders’ knowledge influences, motivation influences, and
organizational influence leads to effective use of CILURP to develop innovation for companies.

35

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

Summary
The importance of CILs in URPs is clear. CILURP provides an answer to shrinking life
spans of companies, faster-evolving technology, rapid consumer adoption of technology, and
executives not knowing what to do about the organization’s innovation process and strategy. The
challenges to CILURP highlight issues in corporate innovation, innovation laboratories, URPs,
and innovation outposts. Leadership actions, innovation processes, innovation implementation
management, and operational controls can hinder corporate innovation activities. Further,
participants of innovation lab face challenges before, during, and after their engagement. In
addition, understanding the different attributes of the URP and the university's goals may be
difficult to gather, along with challenges of brokering relationships with the main office and the
local ecosystem. Solutions to CILURP include a clear definition of the functions and value-adds
to help business units use the capabilities training, appropriate organizational structure, process,
36

incentives for efficiency and effectiveness, and a collaborative and humble mindset to support all
entities working together smoothly and seamlessly.
37

Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter aims to provide the reader with a discussion on the methodology of the
CILURP study. The first part of this chapter gives an overview of the design and the research
setting of the study. The next part provides insight into the positionality of the researcher and the
potential impact on the study. The discussion continues with the data sources and the strategies
used to ensure the validity and credibility of the data collection and analysis. Finally, this chapter
concludes with the ethical considerations to the participants and the study’s conceptual
framework based on Clark and Estes’s KMO gap analysis framework.
Research Questions
The research questions that guide this study are the following:
1. What are the CILURP leaders’ knowledge and motivation related to using the
CILURP to develop innovation in their organization?
2. How do a firm’s culture, structure, and processes impact a CILURP leaders’ ability to
use the CILURP to develop innovation in their organization?
Overview of Design
Qualitative research provides an effective approach when seeking to understand
sensemaking, meaning-making, process delineation, or experience interpretation of people
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The study was qualitative using semistructured interviews to conduct
phenomenological research. A phenomenological research study as a design is useful when
seeking to “describe the lived experiences about a phenomenon as described by participants”
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 13). The approach and design are well suited to explore and
understand the CILURP leaders’ practices using the CILURP to develop innovation in their
organization.
38

Research Setting
The CILURP office affords an appropriate setting to address the research questions
because its use is the focus of the study. Using the CILURP office will make it easier for the
participants to recall and retrieve experiences, stories, and examples in response to the interview
questions.
I targeted one URP that has been recognized as having strong corporate presences, close
proximity to the university, and recognition from industry associations, for example, being
awarded Outstanding Research Park by the AURP. The focus was a result of responses from
leaders in each URP and the companies located there.
The Researcher
I have been a leader and a team member in both the corporate office and a CILURP. I led
an analytics team in human resources (HR) in the corporate office and served as a program
manager, with no direct reports but enterprise responsibility for analytics initiatives. In the
CILURP, I led a small team of data scientists and students. I also worked on relationship-
building initiatives with the university and the community. I have experienced the challenges
first-hand resulting from leaders in the corporate office not understanding or seeing the need to
support the CILURP efforts appropriately. Further, I understand and have contributed to the
value a CILURP can bring to an organization.
My positioning helped me understand the problem through personal work experiences. I
experienced the challenges as an individual contributor and as a leader working in or supporting
the CILURP. My experiences and knowledge of a CILURP are part of the reason why I was
interested in exploring this problem. A possible blind spot for me was being too close to the
problem. The highs and lows I experienced in my work may cloud my ability to draw
39

conclusions from the data, misinterpret output from qualitative interviews, or be overcome by the
desire to want to be right to justify my feelings. I also may not be able to see or hear my
contribution to the problem. I mitigated the potential bias by actively checking for alternate
explanations of the results (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I also
reviewed my early findings with interview participants to ensure my “interpretation rings true”
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 246).
Data Sources
I collected data through interviews. I performed initial outreach to URP leadership,
industry organizations, and direct requests via email and social platforms. Once I had agreement
from the potential participant, I sent the information sheet to confirm participants understood the
agreement and were volunteering. Interviews were scheduled after acknowledgement. I spoke to
three participants via phone to answer additional questions about the study.
Interview
I used semistructured interviews to collect data. Interviews enabled me to probe into the
experiences of the CILURP leaders. It also enabled me to capture stories from those experiences.
Participants
Several criteria were used to select participants and the CILURP they led. I focused on
current and past leaders in the URP in the United States. The participants led a CILURP that is
not the primary office of the company. The organizations were large companies with greater than
10,000 people total, regardless of how many people work in the CILURP. The focus of this study
explored how the leader developed innovation in their company, specifically as a CIL not located
near the main office. The CILURP needed to have part-time students and full-time staff, and one
innovation areas for the CILURP was analytics (i.e., data science, big data, machine learning, or
40

artificial intelligence). CILURP leaders were appropriate for my study because I am specifically
investigating the practices of this population in an organization. I did not offer incentives to my
participants.
Instrumentation
The interviews were conducted through Zoom. The interviews were no longer than 90
minutes. There were 20 questions. The first 10 questions were designed to collect demographic
information about the company and the CILURP. For example, annual revenue and the number
of full-time staff and students in the CILURP were helpful to know in the analysis of the
responses. I also used a modified list of CILURP value-adds and functions developed by Memon
and Meyer (2017) to categorize the CILURP. The second 10 questions focused on answering the
two research questions of the study.
Data Collection Procedures
I used several strategies to reach participants. First, I contacted industry organizations in
the hope that they could help share the research request with their constituents: the AURP and
Strengthening University-Industry Partnerships (UIDP). Second, I sent direct invitations via
email to the URP executive director of my target population, requesting their help to share the
request with their tenants in the URP. I gathered their contact information from the URP website.
Upon contact, I worked with the executive director to determine the best method for outreach to
the CILURP leaders in their URP. For example, some URPs have monthly CILURP leader
meetings where I hoped to share my research and make the request for participation in my study.
Third, I made LinkedIn requests via posts and individual InMail messages to target participants
from the target URPs. I gathered the CILURP leaders’ contact information from Linkedin, their
company website, and the URP website. Each email request included a cover letter explaining
41

the purpose of the study with an invitation to consider participation in the interview and the next
steps. Nonemail requests had a link to the study information. Upon reply, the potential interview
participant received a more detailed explanation of expectations, including how I protected their
confidentiality and interview data, and the steps and how long the whole process took.
Purposeful and snowball sampling was used to identify leaders that enabled me to focus on
learning about central issues related to the purpose of this research inquiry (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). I also asked participants upon completion of the interview if there was anyone else they
can think of that meets the criteria and that should be contacted. Participant did not receive
incentives as part of their involvement in the study.
A 60-minute interview was scheduled with the participant. The location was on Zoom.
Data was collected through field notes during the interview, and if allowed, a recording was
transcribed.
Data Analysis
For interviews, data analysis began during data collection. Analytic memos were written
after each interview. I documented thoughts, concerns, and initial conclusions about the data in
relation to the conceptual framework and research questions. Once I left the field, interviews
were transcribed and coded. In the first phase of analysis, open coding was used, looking for
empirical codes and applying a priori codes from the conceptual framework. The second phase
of analysis was conducted where empirical and a priori codes were aggregated into analytic/axial
codes. The third phase of data analysis included identification of pattern codes and themes that
emerge in relation to the conceptual framework and study questions.
42

Validity and Reliability
I took several steps to maximize the validity and reliability of my research approach.
First, I reviewed early findings with interview participants to ensure my understanding aligns
with what they meant (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Second, I used multiple people to code the
data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Third, I checked for alternate
explanations (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Further, I worked with
participants throughout the research process to ensure the truth value of the data.
I followed the University of Southern California Institution Review Board (IRB)
procedures. I complied with IRB and not begin my data collection prior to approval. I conducted
myself as a researcher and student under the Integrity and Accountability Code put forth by the
University of Southern California (2021).
Rationale for IRB
Information shared during data collection depends on the rapport established between the
researcher and the participant. During the data collection, the participant shared confidential
information. Anonymization methods protected the identity of the participants, the companies
they work for, and the confidential information shared. I followed Creswell and Creswell’s
(2018) best practices: (a) I asked participants to complete an information sheet before they
provide data; (b) I reminded participants that they can stop the interview at any time and ask
questions; (c) I did not disclose any harmful information about the participants; and (d) I was
mindful of possible power imbalances, due to my familiarity with the research setting.
Underlying Ethics
The goal of this study was to improve the effectiveness of CILURP. The study focused
on the leaders of the CILURP. Therefore, those leaders benefited directly, particularly those
43

newer in their roles or launching new CILURPs. Firms with CILURP benefit, as findings can be
used to select CILURP leaders and operationalize the CILURP; in particular, the business leaders
responsible for the CILURP, along with the team at the CILURP, receive value, and the
stakeholders that the team works with during projects. Conversely, if those leaders and
stakeholders did not like what they heard, harm could come to the participants. For example, one
person may perceive innovation as exciting and new. In contrast, another person may perceive
the same innovation work as a threat.

44

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of Chapter 4 is to address the research questions with a presentation of the
findings. The chapter begins with a reintroduction of the study’s problem of practice, purpose,
aims, and research questions, and proceeds with a description of the participants. The chapter
then provides an in-depth analysis of the findings organized by research question and concludes
with a summary of the findings.
The problem of practice addresses organizations struggling to yield direct revenue impact
from innovation in their CILs in URPs. The purpose of this study was to research leaders of
CILURP in the United States. The study sought to explore how KMO systems affect leaders’
abilities to develop innovation in their organizations. The research questions that guided this
study are
1. What are the CILURP leaders’ knowledge and motivation related to using the
CILURP to develop innovation in their organization?
2. How do a firm’s culture, structure, and processes impact a CILURP leaders’ ability to
use the CILURP to develop innovation in their organization?
The study used a qualitative research design, an investigative approach in which words
have been used as data to discern how people understand, make meaning of their experiences,
and reveals themes in participant experiences, stories, and perspectives (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The study was conducted between March 2022 and June 2022. The data collection
process used a semistructured interview protocol designed to ascertain participant beliefs,
feelings, and perceptions about the two research questions. Each interview took between 60 and
90 minutes.
45

Participants
I collected interview data from 12 CILURP leaders from 10 organizations with over one
billion dollars in revenue. The leaders were a mix of current and past leaders of CILURPs in the
10 different organizations’ CILURP. The CILs were located in a URP in the Midwest region of
the United States. The sampling approach was nonrandom and used purposeful nonprobability
and snowballing methods (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The data analysis process revealed themes
addressing the study’s research questions, which are described in this chapter with direct quotes
using anonymized participant pseudonyms. Participants were anonymized using a naming
convention beginning with “L” for CILURP leader and a corresponding number.
Table 1 provides the participant’s average time in their role as a leader of the CIL at the
time of the interview. Table 2 provides the highest educational degree attained by the
participants. Table 3 provides the total work experience before the participant started their CIL
leadership role. Table 4 provides the alumni status of the participants based on data gathered
from their LinkedIn profile. Alumni status designates if participants are an alumnus of the
university affiliated with the URP where they work. Table 5 provides the number of staff in the
CIL, based on interview responses. The number of staff include student interns, full-time
employees, and contractors. Table 6 provides the main industries of the CIL based on their
interview responses. Table 7 provides the function of the CIL based on their interview responses.
Most CIL leaders noted the importance of creativity stimulation, and R&D for their organization.
Six specifically mentioned how their CILs are used as a way to recruit talent and engagement in
the community. Table 8 provides the value-add of the CIL based on their interview responses.
Most CIL leaders noted the value of building human capacities and acquiring knowledge and
technical expertise for their organization.
46

Table 1
Participant Information: CIL Leader Experience
Average Time in Role n Percent of Sample
Less than 3 years 6 50%
Greater than 3 years 6 50%

Table 2
Participant Information: Highest Degree Attained
Degree n Percent of Sample
Bachelor’s 3 25%
Master’s 7 58%
Doctorate 2 17%

Table 3
Participant Information: Work Experience
Years of Work Experience n Percent of Sample
Less than 11 5 42%
Between 11 and 17 3 25%
Greater than 17 4 33%

Table 4
Participant Information: Alumni
Alumni n Percent of Sample
Yes 7 58%
No 5 42%

47

Table 5
Corporate Innovation Lab Information: Staff
Number of Staff n Percent of Sample
Less than 25 5 42%
Between 25 and 45 4 33%
Greater than 45 3 25%

Table 6
Corporate Innovation Lab Information: Industry
Industry n Percent of Sample
Health/nutrition sciences 4 33%
Financial services 3 25%
Manufacturing 3 25%
Consumer products 1 8%

When I asked the participants to talk about their CILURP roles, six themes emerged: (a)
facilitating the talent pipeline; (b) conducting innovation projects; (c) running the lab; (d) leading
other business efforts; (e) being the university liaison; and (f) enabling organizational education.
Facilitating the talent pipeline referred to the recruiting and hiring of student interns and full-time
employees. Conducting projects referred to the process of identifying the projects with business
partners across the organization, building the project team with the student interns and full-time
employees, executing the project to completion, and transferring that knowledge back into the
organization. Running the lab referred to all aspects of facility management and strategy for the
CILURP’s use itself. Leading other business efforts referred to having additional business
48

responsibilities besides operating the CILURP. Being the university liaison referred to being the
point person for the organization in supporting university interactions, for example, partnerships
with professors. Enabling organizational education referred to acting as a key person to help
educate the organization with technology or the implication of technology in their industry.
While there are six distinct themes, they are interrelated, as shown in Figure 2. For example, part
of running the CILURP is facilitating the talent pipeline by conducting innovation projects with
the student interns they hire which helps inform the education in the organization.

Table 7
Corporate Innovation Lab Information: Function
Function n Percent of Sample
Creativity stimulation 11 92%
Research and development 10 83%
Knowledge dissemination 8 67%
Network formation 7 58%
Process intermediation 7 58%
Market research 6 50%
Talent pipeline & community engagement 6 50%
Resource provision 4 33%
Business incubation 3 25%

49

Table 8
Corporate Innovation Lab Information: Value-Add
Value-Add n Percent of
Sample
Acquiring knowledge and technical expertise 11 92%
Building human capacities 10 83%
Reducing risks associated with the innovation 9 75%
Learning emerging trends, innovation-related problems, and their solutions 9 75%
Increasing the novelty of ideas 8 67%
Reducing initial costs of new businesses 6 50%
Integrating technology 6 50%
Collecting the feedback 6 50%
Dissolving management barriers for innovation 5 42%
Sharing costs for the innovation projects 5 42%
Lowering time to market 5 42%
Applying the systematic innovation methodologies 5 42%
Financing the innovation projects 5 42%
Alleviating dearth of resources 4 33%
Accessing the complimentary assets 3 25%

Research Question 1
The first research question for this problem of practice is What are the CILURP leaders’
knowledge and motivation related to using the CILURP to develop innovation in their
organization? Four questions elicited feedback specific to the knowledge and one question
50

elicited feedback specific to the motivation (see Appendix). Additionally, participant responses
to questions not necessarily designed to focus on knowledge and motivation also supplied data
about the CILURP’s use in the organization.

Figure 2
Corporate Innovation Lab University Research Park Roles

Knowledge Findings
Four overarching themes emerged for the knowledge section of the first research
question: university ecosystem knowledge, parent company knowledge, technology application
knowledge, and workplace administration knowledge. Each theme was derived from the
participants interviews. The themes are shown in Figure 3 and described in more detail in the
following.

CILURP
Roles

Facilitating
the Talent
Pipeline

Conducting
Innovation
Projects
Running the
CIL

Leading other
Business
Efforts

Being the
University
Liasion

Enabling
Organization
Education
51

Figure 3
Knowledge Themes

University Ecosystem Knowledge
Analysis of the interviews describe the university ecosystem as the interconnectedness of
the students that attend the university, the faculty, staff, and administrators that work at the
university, the schools and colleges that make up the university, and the companies that reside in
the URP. The understanding how to partner with the university, and partner in the research park
were key knowledge areas for the CILURP leader. The leader acquired this knowledge from
prior experiences, feedback from other leaders, and directly from their work. The leaders used
this knowledge to operate their CILs.
Navigating the University
Participants described navigating the university as how the they interacted with the
university faculty, administrators, or staff to use their CILURP to develop innovation. In some
instances, it was identifying the right faculty, administrators, and staff to receive guidance on

Knowledge
Themes

University
Ecosystem

Parent
Company

Technology
Application

Workplace
Administration
52

attracted student interns with specific skills to work in their CILs; some examples include being
a guest speaker in classes, engaging with student groups on campus, or participating at university
events. In other instances, it was partnering directly with a faculty member or a school for a
specific project including research or organizational education.
Access to the appropriate faculty, administrators, staff, and students involves navigating
the university. The knowledge of the university’s culture, processes, and key stakeholders are
helpful to CILURP leaders to develop innovation. L6 reported how essential the knowledge was
for L6 to develop innovation projects. L6 said a “strong understanding of the university, in which
I sit, of its culture and its processes [is essential]. I [also] need a rich stakeholder network in
[this] environment.” Awareness of and understanding the value from the university is useful for
CILURP leaders to seek innovation projects with university partners. L10 shared the extra effort
spent in navigating and networking in this area to meet organizational needs:
Over the last couple years, we've been working very hard, so I can spend more of my
time networking, identifying new partnerships, and going outside of the organization to
advertise our office. [I am networking with] mostly university professors, research park
leadership, and university facilities … [to figure out] how do we partner and what can be
mutually beneficial.
Seven of 12 participants were alumni of the university (see Table 4). Studying and
working at the university helped CILURP leaders learn to operate in the university. The
knowledge gained from attending the university helped participants determine where to target
and for what purpose in their quest for developing innovation projects in their CIULURP. L9
said, “I think having been a graduate student at the university and having come from the
university was very valuable. It allowed me to understand how things are being navigated.” L4
53

commented, “I think being an alum of the university, though maybe not required, certainly helps
in terms of just conversation with faculty members.”
Once a CILURP leader successfully navigates the university, they can participate in
focused activities that help them attract students and increase awareness of the CILURP at the
university. The CILURP leader has limited time—one third of the participants are the only full-
time person in their CILURP; therefore, careful use of their time in marketing the CILURP to
students with the skills they need is important to ensuring an appropriate amount of time is spent
on the innovation projects. L2 remarked,
When I think about selling the lab, I definitely get involved with as many types of events
whether that is giving a talk at the university, in a classroom, at a student organization
meeting, or even a company sponsored event that's happening at the university.
The evidence suggests that navigating the university is an important skill. The ability to attract
students and increase awareness helps the CILURP leader hire student interns or partner with
university professors to work on the projects run out of the CILURP that develop innovation.
Collaborating in the University Research Park
Participants referenced collaborating in the URP as how the CILURP leader identifies
and uses opportunities in the URP to extract value for the CILURP. CILURP leaders work with
the research park management, use the research park facilities, or interact with other companies
in the research park to work toward using the CILURP to develop innovation in their
organization. Some examples include research park leadership making introductions with
community leaders, holding career fairs for students, or conducting joint training event with
other companies.
54

Participants use the research park to support their innovation projects. L6 shared an
example of a recent project need and thinking about who in the research park could help. For
confidentiality reasons, the specific needs have been anonymized to “resources.” L6 commented,
“You got to have the ability to go get what you need. I got a project coming up right now and
we're in need of [some resources]. I don't have [those resources]. So, who in the research park
can help me get [those resources]?” L7 commented on how easy it is to collaborate with other
CILURP leaders: “One of the things I love about the research park is I don’t have any
competitors here. So, we are very collaborative from the site director [CILURP Leader]
perspective.” Conversely, L3 explained how much of a missed opportunity it was not using the
research park more fully for innovation: “I think we’re highly underutilized because this lab
[CILURP] sits in the backyard of the university. We have access to a lot of resources that we
don't even tap into, like, other companies that are out here [URP].” The evidence suggests
CILURP leaders get value from the knowledge of how to identify and use opportunities in the
URP to develop innovation in their organization.
Parent Company Knowledge
Participants represented parent company knowledge as all the knowledge about the
organization. The knowledge includes information about the products the organization sells, the
industry the organization operates in, how the organization is structured, and the financial
performance of the organization. The CILURP leaders’ knowledge of the parent company is
helpful to educate others about the organization including student interns, full-time employees,
university employees, and research park members. The knowledge in turn supports using the
CILURP to develop innovation in their organization by focusing on innovation projects most
relevant to the organization.
55

The participants in the study are located away from the home offices of their
organizations—an average of 281 miles, based on the listed addresses on their organizations’
websites. According to LinkedIn, five participants were hired from the local community and
were not already employees of their organization suggesting that those participants had limited to
no background about their organization before starting their CILURP leadership role. Therefore,
they needed to learn about their organization.
Understanding the organization, the CILURP leader work for was a key knowledge area
for the them to develop innovation for their organization. Knowledge of the product offerings
helps the CILURP leader shape the CILURP innovation work. L11 said, “It’s my product
knowledge that helps promote the site. Tying in my understanding of my product knowledge and
what these analysis guys are doing. I can marry them with groups to at least get the conversation
started.” Similarly, L2 noted, “Integrating student work with the company [helps] your team
feels like they're part of the company. … I have to spend quite a bit of extra time making sure
that the students are getting as much knowledge [about the company] as I have.” The ability to
connect together the organization’s products, business decisions, and financials is also helpful for
the CILURP leader because they can then share the information to help inform their innovation
project teams. L6 highlighted,
[Being] conversant in all the company's products, understanding who actually makes
decisions and how they're actually made inside of the company [are] important. [Also]
being really comfortable and very sure footed in kinds of the financials of a company and
being able to interpret how the company's doing to translate that for the team.
L12 shared how comfort with understanding the different business and operational functions in
the organization are useful for CILURP to perform innovation projects. L12 explained, “Another
56

set of skills is understanding how different overlapping functions or functions that cross different
domains and knowing how and what those relationships are, and how they fit together, is
important.” The CILURP leader having company knowledge helps them interpret what
innovation is appropriate for the company and in the industry. L3 commented, “I think that some
of the skills that you know are understanding what does the definition of innovation mean in the
industry that you're working in, or for the company that you're working, working in.” The
evidence suggests understanding the organizations’ products, the industry, the trends impacting
the industry, and the future capabilities needed together helped participants use the CILURP to
develop innovation in the most impactful way for their organization.
Technology Application Knowledge
Participants described technology application knowledge as the understanding of various
technical skills and emerging technology trend used in the CILURP. The participants’ formal
education was the primary way technical skills were acquired. The highest degree of nine
participants was a technical degree. Six participants, L3, L5, L6, L7, L8, and L12, commented on
the need for continuous learning to refresh technical skills or stay abreast of emerging
technology trends to apply it to the projects in the CILURP that develop innovation.
Technical Skills
Technical skills represent the expertise in science, technology, engineering, or
mathematics. Possessing technical skills was useful to participants. Technical skills support the
CILURP leader to guide students’ project work to develop innovation. L7 shared, “My
background is in computer science and since we are primarily hiring software engineers here
that's been very helpful in terms of being able to mentor students from a technical perspective.”
L3 noted, “I think it was really important that I'd have technical skills, both in the data space and
57

in the software development space. It makes it easier because I understand how the components
work and the projects are more successful.” Technical skills can help develop ideas during the
project leading to more impactful outcomes than the business partners could imagine. L12
commented,
In an ideal setting, we would have teams incubating [a] particular idea and a full-time
person would be able to guide the conversation on the technical side. … I think it would
be nice and beneficial for the students to have someone who was separate from the
business to explore some of those ideas that might feel out of the box.
Understanding the technical meaning of a minimum viable product (MVP) is useful to CILURP
leaders. MVP is a term used in product development management to denote having just enough
features that validated by early potential customers (Lenarduzzi & Taibi, 2016). The MVP
approach is helpful in the exploratory nature of innovation projects. L8 noted, “Understanding
what your minimum product is can be really important because you don't want to create
something that's not what you ultimately need.” The CILURP leader found it useful in applying
technical skills. Technical skills support the leader to ‘sanity check’ the work being done. L5
said,
I think my role is a bit of a backstop to make sure that there's some level of validity that
that the work being done is legit. Knowing when the process needs to be cleaned up or
when something feels like it's missing: engineering, depth, or fundamentals.
The evidence suggests technical skills help the participants use the CILURP to develop
innovation in their organization.
58

Emerging Technology Trends
Emerging technology trends are the current status, estimates, and predictions on the
development of new technology. Another area of knowledge highlighted by participants was
understanding emerging technology trends. Knowledge of these trends help the CILURP leader
stay aware of the next wave of technology to develop innovation that could be useful to the
organization. L3 shared,
I think you need to continually stay on top of the technology. … The more you can stay
on top of those things and the emerging technology space is good. … When I’m thinking
of projects that we’re going to do or involved in conversations with the home office, I can
bring value to the conversation.
L6 noted the importance of how you learn and what you learn, not just what you can learn about
emerging technology. L6 commented, “Agile learning is important [to] have a strong
understanding of emerging technology trends, general purpose technologies, what the source of
disruption is, not just at a technical level but what it means to the company.” L7 explained how
project selection is a form of learning as it related to innovation. L7 noted, “I take projects to
understand exactly what the corporation needs from the students and make sure that the projects
we take reflect the ability to learn that. I pick my projects to match the skillsets that people want
[so] students [are] valued.” The evidence suggests that technical skills and knowledge of
emerging technology trends assisted the participants to use their CILURP to advance the
development of innovation in their organization.
Workplace Administration Knowledge
Participants referred to workplace administration as their abilities to work with students,
engage with stakeholders, supervise people, run the office, and execute innovation projects.
59

Participants mentioned all five abilities as helpful in successfully using their CILRUP to develop
innovation in their organization. They also noted the interrelated nature of each ability despite
the discreteness of the skills. For example, communication was valuable when supervising
people and executing projects.
Working with Students
Student interns from the university were most workers in the CILURPs. Four participants
were the only full-time people who worked in their CILURPs. Therefore, knowledge of working
with student interns was important.
Eight participants, L1, L2, L4, L5, L7, L8, L9, and L12, noted their prior work
experiences helped them develop the procedural knowledge to be effective with students. They
highlighted their experience as a student intern and working with student interns as a full-time
employee enabled them as a leader to interact and create engagement that would resonate with
students. L2 recalled the different experiences that helped:
Skills around working with students is something that’s critical since—Being able to
have experience both as a student working in one of the centers [CILURP], going into
full-time, and then helping to lead a team of students, I think all just kind of prepared me
to be able to essentially lead a few teams of students on my own and just understanding
their dynamic.
L4 recalled experiences as a student and observations of other successful CILURPs:
I’ve been an intern in research park. One of the things that I’ve noticed of companies that
have been more successful with their operations has been when the site lead [CILURP
Leader] is able to relate better [to the student].
60

L1 recounted how the internship experience helped L1 set higher expectation for what student
interns could produce. L1 remembered, “I used to be an intern in a research park. I have an idea
of what folks [student interns] are capable of and how we could have pushed the boundary with
what got assigned to interns and part time workers.”
While having the experience of being an intern was not necessary, four participants
emphasized the importance of understanding student interns to be effective in the CILURP and
execute innovation projects. One aspect is knowing how to use the student interns’ inexperience
as a strength for the organization to work on challenging innovation projects. L5 commented
patience was skill that enabled L5 to best use the students. L5 shared,
There’s a naivety and maturity level that exists, but on the flip side that naivety is also
very powerful and potent when you point it in the right direction. So, understanding how
to leverage what many might consider to be a weakness and turn it into a strength of the
organization.
Similarly, L8 recalled one challenge to innovation projects is everyone’s inexperience, therefore,
everyone all workers, including the students should feel free to explore. L8 said,
I just talked with the students last week. One of them said to me, ‘they're not the expert in
this’. And I said, “Yeah, nobody is—Lots of things you're going to be creating, right or
wrong answers haven't been determined yet.” … They need to be able to explore and feel
comfortable in the uncomfortable and then use their knowledge and expertise to go forth
and create.
A second aspect is knowing how to counsel the student interns. Some student interns require
support as they move away from home and start in the workforce. L3 noted,
61

They’re freshmen, they're fresh out of leaving their house, to come to a university by
themselves. … There's a mentoring that’s not only technical that happens. How do you
work in your first job? How do you enter your time and payroll? How do you juggle
having a job and classes?
Additionally, L9 shared,
You become a parent to the students that come in: who have problems, who have recently
left their home because undergraduate students are still young. So, being able to walk
them through what it is like to work in the corporate environment and how do you juggle
academia and a job at the same time?
The evidence suggests knowing how to work with students and meet their various needs is
important for CILURP leaders to develop innovation in their CILs.
Engaging With Stakeholders
Participants noted a variety of communication skills that help them be effective when
engaging with stakeholders of the CILURP to develop innovation. Five skills were identified: (a)
public speaking, (b) relating to people, (c) tailoring your communication, (d) demonstrating
excitement, and I storytelling. The communications skills help participants work with
stakeholders by selling ideas that would lead to support for CILURP projects. L3 explained how
public speaking was beneficial because it helps share innovation ideas. L3 said, “I’m not afraid
to speak in front of people. I take a lot of opportunities to do things like that. And I think that
really set me up for success.” L3 noted, “I am the face of the lab [CILURP], so it’s really up to
me to get the ideas across to showcase the things were doing to move the organization forward.”
The ability to relate to people and interact with different types of people was deemed valuable.
One participant, L10, emphasized how it helped with working with the university to find
62

research innovation opportunities. L10 commented, “I think something that was I was less aware
of, but has become very important, is my ability to talk to and engage with colleagues at the
university for us to identify new research opportunities.” Similarly, L4 noted, “I got be [a] great
communicator to being able to connect with people.” Participants identified tailoring your
communication for your audience as advantageous. Participants worked with so many different
people in and outside their organization on innovation projects, they found tailoring the message
impactful. For example, business function leaders in their organization may care about ROI
while university professors may care about advancing the body of knowledge in a field. L8
noted, “I will often tailor my presentations or asks to different audiences. I’ll switch up the entire
way that I approached the situation even if it’s the same problem that I’m trying to solve.” The
ability to convey excitement served the participants well with stakeholders. L6 commented on
the need to excite two very different stakeholder groups. L6 noted needing the ability to “get a
student super excited and to get an executive vice president super excited.” Similarly, L9 further
explained,
The skills that you need to be able to have as to have great communication, excitement,
passion, and eagerness. I think that it is very difficult to follow someone who doesn’t
exhibit excitement for what they’re talking about. If you’re not able to sell what you’re
doing, and make others excited around you, it’s going to be very hard.
Participants highlighted the ability to tell a story as impactful for their innovation journey. L3
noted, “I am the face of the lab so it’s really up to me to get the ideas across to showcase the
things that we’re doing to really, to help move the organization forward.” Storytelling also
includes the data visualization to support your story. L4 emphasized “the importance of data.
Understanding how to visualize data and share that data to complement your stories is extremely
63

important.” A final skill was knowing when and what not to communicate. The distinction could
be the difference between success and failure of the innovation project. L5 noted,
If you go too early with some of these things, you can kind of lose people. I think a piece
of it is you have to be careful that you don’t come in too hot and make it look like what
they’re doing is wrong and you don’t bruise any egos.
In addition to general communication skills as part of stakeholder engagement,
participants noted the importance of relationship building and persuading stakeholders. A
CILURP leader’s tenure at the company helps support their network and the innovation work
they do in the CILURP. L7 noted, “One of the advantages I have being a long tenured employee
is that I’m very well connected in the company. … That has really been able to open doors, to be
able to promote what we do here.” Similarly, L11 shared, “Because of my previous roles, I have
a lot of connections across the organization. … The relationships I’ve built … goes into being
able to talk about the value [of the CILURP] … with other leaders across the corporation.” A
mixture of career experiences helped CILURP leaders relate to their stakeholders and understand
their needs. L3 explained,
What has really been valuable [in] my entire career is the first half I was on the
administrative side and then midway went to the technical side. It put me in a really good
spot to understand both sides so that when I’m now working here in the lab, I can
understand what the business is wanting and understand how to talk to the business but at
the same time, I know how to do the technical things.
If the CILURP leader was not a long tenured employee, they needed to invest in networking and
building relationships across the organization. The networking and building relationships helped
the CILURP leader showcase the capabilities of the CILURP and help stakeholders envision
64

what innovation projects might look like to advance the organization. L2 recalled the importance
of “the experience of just being able [to] understand different parts about the business and the
networking aspect to be able to meet with other people throughout the business and understand
how they work to showcase my work at the center [CILURP].” Whether long tenured or not, the
key thing was that the CILURP leader needs to understand their stakeholders’ needs. L10
explained, “You have to be able to either understand what they’re looking for or feel comfortable
asking the question about what’s important to them, so that you can then make sure that when
you’re discussing it with them.” Regardless of the participants’ tenures or experience, the
evidence suggests relationship building and persuading stakeholders were key for a CILURP
leader to engaging stakeholders to develop innovation using the CILURP.
Supervising People
Participants commented supervising people involved leading the team of student interns,
contractors, and sometimes full-time staff in the participants’ respective offices. The tasks
included selecting who to hire, onboarding those hired, and ensuring everyone works toward the
goals of the CILURP. Together, the tasks ensure that each person is setup to perform optimally
on innovation projects.
Participants all supported the need for knowing how to supervise people. Knowing how
to get people up to speed was valuable particularly for student interns because that accelerated
the time to value on an innovation project. L1 shared,
The ability to manage folks that might only be there 3 or 4 months, and how do you get
them quickly up to speed, how to get them running quickly. Fast is an important skill.
And then building the right type of environment, culture, rewards, processes that that
support trying to retain as many as you can [is also] important.
65

Selecting the people that work in the lab, hiring, is a leadership skill that CILURP leaders found
useful. The hiring enables the CILURP leader to have the most control over who they have
working in for them meeting the innovation needs they have in the CILURP. All CILURP
leaders do some form of hiring. L7 shared, “As the research director, I run every aspect of the
lab. I do the full-time hiring and the part time hiring.” In addition to hiring, building culture and
coaching students and employees to work with students is important. L4 remarked on the
existence of a learning opportunity for full-time employee to work with student interns at the
CILURP:
What has helped us be successful, is how well can you coach others that are involved.
Yes, we’re developing our student intern and that’s what our core is, but we also have a
huge tremendous opportunity with centers for our full-timers who are involved in their
development.
CILURP leaders running innovation can involve workers from various generations due to the
mix of full-time and student interns. L3 called out the need to be able to lead people of different
generations. L3 said, “Leadership skills are super important. Different generations do things
differently, so I think there’s a lot of skills in that kind of leadership area that you need to
continually stay on top of.” There is a difference between people leadership and technical
leadership. L2 observed the importance of making the distinction and the impact to the
CILURP’s ability to develop innovation. L2 noted the tradeoff:
A skill I’ve seen that doesn’t directly translate into success would be like having people
who are really strong technically [not] translate into having to be able to operate these
offices really effectively, people who know the least about the details of the tech often
have an abundance of people skills that actually makes them turn out to be a better leader.
66

The evidence suggests the skill of supervising of people aided participants’ innovation
development performance of CILURP in their organization.
Managing the Office
Office management denotes all tasks related to managing the CILURP facility.
Participants surfaced the need for operational management skills to run the office. Successfully
managing the office created a place that people wanted to work.
Participants shared challenges of office management, especially when they were the only
full-time employee in the office; four participants fell in this category. One participant reflected
on how difficult it was to do everything alone: hire staff, manage innovation projects, and
operate the CILURP. L9 noted, “I had to have operation skills in order to operate a site because I
was by myself, having to do hiring and management and operations of the site.” Participants
shared budget management knowledge was important when managing the office. Budget
management is needed to operate the CILURP office and the innovation projects themselves. L7
pointed out that, “I think it’s really important to have to have a lot of those soft skills and a lot of
management capabilities, in terms of budgeting and managing your budget, and all of that are
very important.” Similarly, L5 shared, “I think you have to get comfortable with spending money
and managing a larger budget. I think that was an area that needed some development when I
first came into this role.” The evidence suggests the skill of managing of the office is helpful for
participants to use the CILURP to develop innovation in their organization.
Running the Projects
The running of projects refers to the project management of projects versus the more
technical aspects of the project which were addressed earlier in the findings. Participants noted
67

the importance of project selection, documentation, and transfer. Project selection is finding
innovation projects good for the organization and good for the student interns. L5 shared,
We have to be really cautious that we don’t do things that are below the cut line for the
organization and that we make sure that we’re actually providing value. I think an area
where I’ve been successful is making sure that we find projects that are valuable to the
students, that they’re feeling like they’re learning things, and that they’re providing
things that make an impact to the company’s bottom line.
Project documentation is knowing the most effective way to document and transfer the output to
stakeholders. Project documentation supports innovation by helping the innovation work expand
beyond the initial project team to the rest of the organization. L10 noted,
From the perspective of the engineers and interns that are doing the work, they have to be
very diligent about documenting their work, communicating their results, and
understanding what their stakeholders need, so that they can provide the results that are
useful to their stakeholders. We have standard templates and processes, for making sure
the work done in our office can [be] packaged up and send it to the next step.
Project transfer is the speed at which the CILURP leaders need to work to get buy-in for an idea
at the successful completion of an innovation project and proliferation in the organization. L6
explained,
When I describe a thing that doesn’t exist yet to them, they can’t get there. So, making
the thing exist, even an imperfect version of it and then getting people excited about it, to
me that’s the selling cycle. … The barrier to adoption isn’t technological maturity, but the
organization’s willingness to accept it.
68

The evidence suggests that ensuring the smooth operation of the innovation projects helps the
CILURP leader to develop innovation in their organization.
Workforce administration knowledge enhanced effectiveness of the participants. The
ability to publicly speak, relate to people, tailor your communication, demonstrate excitement,
story tell, network, and persuade help participants engage with stakeholders. The tasks to select,
onboard, and integrate hires on the team were noted as part of supervising people. The skills to
operate the facility were essential to managing the office. The proficiency in project selection,
documentation, and transfer were called out in running projects by participants. Together, the
workforce administration served the participants to use their CILURP to advance innovation in
their organization.
Motivation Findings
Four overarching themes emerged for the motivation section of the first research
question: (a) belief that the CILURP work is valuable, and (b) confidence in the CILURP
leaders’ ability to do the job (c) interest in working with students, (d) interest in CILURP work,.
Three themes relate to task value, and one relates to self-efficacy. The ratio suggests that task
value was the primary motivator for CILURP leaders to use the CILURP to develop innovation
in their organization. The themes are shown in Figure 4 and described in more detail in the
following subsections.

69

Figure 4
Motivation Themes

Belief That the CILURP Work Is Valuable
Ten participants were motivated by their belief that the CILURP work is valuable.
Participants described their motivation through positive feedback, actualized return on
investment (ROI) of CILURP projects, and trust in contributing to the organization’s mission.
The positive feedback to participants impacted their motivation on attainment and cost values.
Positive feedback was important to participant motivation. One participant found value
in the award one project received. Recognition of the project was a public acknowledgement by
senior leaders that the innovation project deliver value to the organization reinforcing the
participant’s belief in the cost value of the task. L1 shared, “I felt great about our work because it
was super valuable. We were working on mission critical projects. [For one project] we were
given the [senior officer] award of the year reaffirming the value that we’re providing to the
organization.” Similarly, another participant shared that word-of-mouth feedback was also
motivating. Word-of-mouth feedback is another public acknowledgment of the importance of the
task of developing CILURP innovation projects. L12 noted, “I think there is a lot of value in the
lab brings. We hear over and over again that the type of work and the types of projects are
always very impressive.”

Task Value

Belief that the CILURP work is valuable
Interest in working with students
Interest in CILURP Work

Self-Efficacy

Confidence in my ability to do the job
70

Participants’ beliefs that CILURP work was valuable was demonstrated from the ROI.
The ROI was proof that the investment made in the innovation project supplied value to the
organization. Two participants’ belief in value was supported by the direct financial ROI. L3
shared, “I think that it [CILURP] does provide value. We’ve had a very high-cost avoidance that
we’ve shown. The work shows up in production and I see the projects that we did save the
company money.” Similarly, L2 spoke of the importance of contributing to the ROI for the
organization. L2 remarked, “I think it’s a feel good moment seeing the work create value. I like
being able to contribute to something like that directly.” Conversely, one participant noted
nonfinancial ROI. The intrinsic value the students got from working on something that is
important was also motivating to the participant. L7 said, “It’s not dollar ROI. It’s an ROI of
making students identify with your company and feel that they are working on something that
makes a difference.”
Participants also noted how they are motivated by contributing to the advancement of the
mission of their organization. L6 recalled, “I like creating new knowledge, that reshapes the
frontier of competition for a company. I see that as noble work in a big old organization like
mine. I believe in an organization that contributes to human flourishing.” Participants felt their
work was valuable by pushing the organization forward by pushing teams to think in ways they
never had to think before to create markets that never existed. L8 noted,
I think we really push the organization forward. We often are pushing teams to think in
ways they’ve never had to think before were we’re often saving the company [money] by
the things we create or creating markets where one doesn’t exist. I feel like we’re creating
a lot of value back to the company.
71

Belief in the work of the CILURP was motivating to participants. Participants were
motivated by getting feedback, seeing direct and indirect ROI, and their trust in the advancement
of the mission of their organization. These findings suggest that participants were motivated by
their belief that CILURP work was valuable.
Confidence in Ability to Do the Job
Seven participants were motivated by the confidence to use their CILURP to develop
innovation in their organization. Participants were confident in their ability to do their job despite
four experiencing some imposter syndrome. Three participants referenced a prior experience that
they relied on to overcome doubts about their abilities to solve problems.
Participants’ confidence in their abilities to use the CILURP to develop innovation for
their organization was important. Three participants shared their beliefs in their abilities. When
asked about how efficacious L8 felt about using the CILURP for innovation, L8 shared, “I feel
pretty confident that I know what I’m doing. My motivation, understanding, and style give me
the ability to do those things so the whole I [feel] good.” Similarly, L12 shared, “I like to believe
I have the skills and the knowledge to execute and deliver on what we’ve been asked to do and
what the team is being asked to do.” One participant noted how they saw errors by their
predecessors and that gave them the confidence to do the job. The recognition of the errors
proved to I that they were capability of leading the CILURP better. L11 said,
I strongly believe I can do the rol’ that I've taken on. Part of it is when my predecessor
was doing things, I said [to myself]’ that's the wrong way to do this. We can’t do it like
this. It’s the wrong thing for our organization and have some things in mind to move us
forward.
72

All participants expressed some level of confidence use the CILURP to develop innovation;
however, some also commented on experiencing imposter syndrome.
Imposter syndrome is psychological experience of doubting one’s ability and feeling like
a fraud (Breeze, 2018). Four participants experienced imposter syndrome in several ways. One
participant feared not belonging. The effort put forth by the team and knowledge in the team was
intimidating to the participant. L5 commented,
I’m surrounded by people that are incredibly brilliant. There definitely is a little bit of
impostor syndrome. I feel that at times everybody in the room so intelligent and works
hard I feel like I have to scrap to keep up. I think that that can be a little bit overwhelming
at times.
Similarly, the nature of the work was frightening to another participant due to the uncertainty of
expectations and newness of innovation projects. L8 commented, “I suffer from impostor
syndrome. That’s probably true for a lot of people who do these things where you operate in
ambiguity because inherently you have to be the expert in something that nobody is the expert in
yet.” Despite experiencing some imposter syndrome, one participant grew in their confidence
while performing on the job. L10 commented, “I think I sometimes struggle with imposter
syndrome. But, as I continue to do the work, do it well, and get the feedbac’ that I'm doing a
good job that diminishes.” The evidence suggests confidence in using the CILURP to develop
innovation is motivating.
Interest in Working With Students
Five participants were motivated through interactions with students to use their CILURP
to develop innovation in their organization. Participants showed interest in working with students
(e.g., coaching, teaching, and being a supportive resource) when ’tudents' encounter life
73

challenges. Most CIL workers were student interns; therefore, those are the people the
participants worked with most to operate the CIL.
Participants expressed their motivation to work with students in several ways. One
participant, L7, was excited to work with students because students were not set in their ways
and were always willing to try new things. The participants commented on how students differed
from some seasoned colleagues and how it impacted them. L7 noted, “I find students are very
optimistic and collaborative. They’re open to new ideas, new things, and new challenges. Some
of your older engineers will be really set in their ways and not really interested in trying new
things.” L11 enjoyed engaging with students and helping them develop career interests and
formulating goals. The participant reflected on their own career and recalled how they had not
known what they wanted for their career either. L11 expressed, “I enjoy engaging with the
students and helping them understand what their interests and career goals are. A lot of them
have no idea. … When I started when I was their age, I didn’t either.” A third participant, L12,
was motivated by the accomplishments of the students and the early impact they could have in
the organization. The participant reflected on observing the journey of the students’ work
watching it come to fruition. L12 shared,
It’s very motivating to see how the students notice that their work is actually being
valued and actually being implemented. For me to see a student in their young early years
in their career, having that kind of influence on something that could create a new
product is very impressive.
A fourth participant, L9, noted how exciting it was that the students enjoyed working at their
CIL, so much that they recruited their friends to replace them. L9 commented, “I had created
74

such an environment that people [students] were bringing in people to replace them and also
bringing in new blood for every job we had available.”
Participants expressed motivation through excitement to work with students, enjoyment
in helping students develop their careers, and exhilaration when observing student
accomplishments. These findings suggest that participants were motivated by their interest in
working students. Not surprisingly, most workers in the CIL are students, and CILURP leaders
are motivated by working with them.
Interest in CILURP Innovation Work
Four participants were motivated by their interest in the work of leading a CILURP to
develop innovation in their organization. The interests varied by the type of technology used and
the nature of the work itself; however, the topics centered on the forward-thinking nature of
moving people and organizations forward to have innovative organizational impact.
Participants expressed their interest to work on the technology of the CILURP in several
ways. L6 enjoyed understanding the technologies and how they could influence the economy. L6
liked how the job provided an opportunity to do that type of work:
While I like being perceived as an expert and smart, there’s a source of personal
satisfaction I get in getting to do this kind of work and I am genuinely fascinated with
general purpose technologies and their ability to rewire the economy. My job gives me a
front row seat to do that.
A second participant, L8, also referenced an interest in technology; however, they emphasized
the motivation of strategic problem solving. Specifically, the problem-solving nature of the work
was motivating because they were asked to figure out how to apply the technology. L8
explained, “I think what motivates me is solving strategic problems. I love new technology but
75

what I really love about it is not just the build but figuring out how is that new technology going
to impact other things.” A third participant, L7, enjoyed staying current on technology to help
support the CIL. They were interested in the process of becoming aware of new technology,
determining the relevance of the new technology, and then figuring out how to apply the new
technology in a CIL project. L7 commented,
What’s motivating to me from an external perspective is always being aware of what's
happening so something doesn't just pass you by. Then once you find those that are
especially interesting or relevant you can do a deeper dive to figure out what could we do
with this, how can we bring this into the lab, and is there a project that we could do
around this.
In addition to a focus on technology of the work, participants were also interested in the
nature of the work. Two participants were motivated by the variety of the work, doing new
things, and trying new things. Specifically, they highlighted the enjoyment of the unknown of
innovation. L12 commented, “I think doing the same thing all the time is boring. The motivation
to foster innovation is you never know what you will encounter. We’re constantly learning and
being challenged with new requests.” Similarly, L7 shared, “I’m always looking to try something
new and different, so I really get motivated by trying something new and different. I’m also
really motivated by new approaches to problems that have been around for a while.”
L8 noted their facilitation toward technology breakthroughs was motivating. The process
guided workers on a journey to uncover an unknown or blocker to the breakthrough they sought.
L8 commented,
I love the facilitation and getting people out of their own way. In my experience a lot of
people will focus on why something is blocking them, and they’ll say it can’t be done.
76

The real answer is nothing can be done until somebody does it. For me, getting to see
people make those breakthrough moments, I don't think anything gets me more excited
than that.
Participants were motivated by their interests in problem-solving, understanding technology,
staying current on the new technology, and the variety of work to trying new things, and
facilitating workers. These findings suggest participants were motivated by their interest in
CILURP innovation work to use their CILURP to develop innovation in their organization.
Summary of Research Question 1
Eight themes emerged in response to the first research question: four related to
knowledge and four related to motivation. Participants’ responses suggested four main themes
about their knowledge to use their CILURP to develop innovation in their organization. First,
participants believed university ecosystem knowledge was useful in how they partnered with the
university faculty, administrators, and staff, and partnered with the research park leadership, used
the research park facilities, or interacted with other companies in the research park to develop
innovation. Second, they highlighted parent company knowledge and the value of knowing facts
about the organization, including information about the products the organization sells, the
industry the organization operates in, how the organization is structured, and the financial
performance of the organization. Third, participant commented on technology application
knowledge and usefulness of the understanding of various technical skills and emerging
technology trend used in the CILURP. Fourth, they valued workplace administration knowledge
as it helped them work with students, engage with stakeholders, supervise people, run the office,
and execute projects. Together, these themes suggest needing broad knowledge and skills to use
their CILURP to develop innovation in their organization.
77

Participants’ responses suggested four main themes about their motivation to use their
CILURP to develop innovation in their organization. First, participants believed that the work
they did was valuable demonstrated by received feedback, actualized ROI of CILURP projects,
and trust in the contribution to the mission of the organization. Second, they had confidence in
their ability to use their CILURP to develop innovation in their organization despite lingering
imposter syndrome early in their tenure. Third, they were interested in working with students, as
reflected by participants’ concern for coaching students, teaching students, learning from
students, and being a resource students can turn to away from home as they encounter life
challenges. Fourth, participants expressed interest in CILURP work as reflected by participants’
enjoyment in learning new technology, applying the technology to forward-thinking problems,
and facilitating the process of people along the innovation process so the projects in the CILURP
have an impact to the organization. Three themes relate to task value; two related to intrinsic
motivation; and one related to extrinsic motivation. One theme relates to self-efficacy,
specifically confidence. Together, these themes suggest the importance of task value and self-
efficacy to motivation and that the CILURPs leaders are intrinsically motivated to use their
CILURP to develop innovation in their organization.
Research Question 2
The second research question for this problem of practice is How do a firm’s culture,
structure, and processes impact a CILURP leaders’ ability to use the CILURP to develop
innovation in their organization? Three questions elicited feedback specific to the organizational
culture, organizational structure, and organizational processes (see Appendix). Additionally,
participants’ responses to questions not necessarily designed to focus on the organization, also
supplied data about the CILURPs use in the organization.
78

Organization Findings
Three overarching themes emerged for the organization section: support for the CILURP,
productivity of the CILURP, and behavior with the CILURP. The findings suggest the following:
Organizational structure impacts the support of the CILURP through the access to needs and
expectations of output; organizational processes impact the productivity of the CILURP,
particularly HR, IT, and procurement processes; organizational culture impacts the behavior with
the CILURP through the propensity to cooperate and the propensity to experiment. The themes
are shown in Figure 5 and described in more detail in the following.

Figure 5
Organization Themes

Organizational Structure Impacts Support
All participants, except L1, mentioned how organizational structure impacts their support
of the CILURP through access and expectation. Seven participants shared how access to business
units for projects, access to executives for visibility and backing, and access to resources to
conduct projects influence their ability to develop innovation in their organization. In addition,
nine participants commented on expectations of the CILURP output: the kind of output and
process to create the output. The results suggest that access and expectations of the CILURP are
affected by organization structure.

Org Structure impacts Support

Access for the CILURP
Expectations for the CILURP

Org Process impacts Productivity

HR Process
IT Process
Procurement Process
Other Business Process

Org Culture impacts Behavior

Propensity to experiment
Propensity to cooperate
79

Access for the CILURP
Five participants, L3, L5, L6, L7, and L8, reported how organizational structure affected
access for the CILURP through executive visibility and support for the CILURP. Four
participants mentioned that who the CILURP works with on innovation projects can be shaped
by executive engagement. When asked about how organizational structure impacts the
CILURP’s work, L7 pointed out that access to executives makes it easier to garner support for
CILURP innovation projects. L7 said, “I have access to the executive team. I definitely think
active executive support makes it [who the CIL works with] easier. Yeah, as opposed to maybe if
the executive’s ambivalent, and so there's no doubt about that.” Likewise, L8 reflected on how
the senior leadership aided in the exchange of information and innovative ideas that flowed to
the CILURP. L8 commented, “This has been one of the best reporting structures I’ve had. I have
a very supportive C suite that I report up to. They open a lot of doors for us to share information
and ideas.” Conversely, not having executive access can have negative consequences for the
CILURP to ensure the right message for the support need. L3 postulated how changing the
organizational structure could help L3’s CILURP to improve support. L3 reflected,
I’ve suggested a couple of times we report directly through the CIO [chief information
officer] or the CEO [chief executive officer] instead of going through like one or two
middle managers. Because what happens is that it’s a “he said she said,” and by the time
it gets to where it needs to go to make a decision, I don’t really know what the story is of
what’s being told.
L6, revealed their level in the organization helped them with executive access and
support. L6 noticed how a change in organizational level improved executive interaction. L6
commented, “My boss is one of the direct reports to the CTO [chief technology officer]. I’ve
80

interacted more with the CEO in the last year than in the 5 years before that very easily.” The
evidence suggests organizational structure influences executive visibility and support through the
support the executive could provide and the level in the organization of the participant to access
the executive for the support.
Three participants mentioned how organizational structure affected project access for the
CILURP. The reporting structure of the CILURP influenced the projects they worked on for the
organization. L3 noted closer proximity to client access by being a part of a business unit. Client
access means having direct access to the user of the innovation the CILURP developed. L3 said,
“There’s a value of being on the business side because you’d have access to more projects,
because you’re dealing directly with the clients.” One participant, L6, commented on how access
to or being a part of the business unit helps the CILURP get access to projects deemed of value
to the organization. L6 said,
Before we’re part of a corporate structure, working on business units that weren’t as
critical. Now, we’re a part of the largest, most profitable division of the company. …
That shouldn’t have made the difference that it did, but it made a huge difference. So
enabled me to get to the projects that matter.
L6 commented on how other organizational changes to business units helped L6’s access to
projects through decision-making by the business units. The reduction of the number of decision
makers involved to decided on an innovation project for the CILURP accelerates the time,
energy, and speed at which the innovation project can be completed. L6 noted,
We’ve reorganized the business units much more focused on customer outcomes. You
don’t need 50 people to get a decision made anymore. You can really get an
understanding of what matters to customers and get a commitment to pursue it.
81

Similarly, L8 recalled the ease at which innovation ideas and projects were funneled to the
CILURP once senior leaders encouraged their teams to do so. L8 shared, “The C suite directs
[direct reports] they empower their teams to push new ideas and projects through our center.
When we send out our call for assignments, we get a strong response from teams.” The evidence
suggests that organizational structure influences access to projects in business units and the
potential value.
Two participants reported organizational structure influenced access to resources for the
CILURP. One participant, L1, commented on the seamless nature of getting resources for the
CILURP when leadership is aligned. A second participant, L8, highlighted how being in a
matrixed organization structure provided access to technical experts useful to the CILURP. L8
noted,
We’re a highly matrix organization, so we report into people who can knowledge share
expertise with us. My team, as an example, is not reporting into the person that leads that
team. That means that we get divergent thinking that fosters innovation.
The evidence suggests organizational structure can influence access to resources for the
CILURP.
Expectations for the CILURP Output
Five participants, L5, L7, L10, L11, and L12, reported how organizational structure
affected the expectations of the kinds of outputs from the CILURP. When working with students,
sometimes the output is not what the stakeholder expected due to student issues. Organizational
structure helps provide the support to overcome the missed expectation of output. L7 recalled,
“I’ll have one or two students that just kind of flake out, and the project just doesn’t get done.
The team that actually sponsored is unhappy because if you have strong organized organizational
82

support, you know, you can overcome those.” Expectations on the precision of the CILURP
output can vary based on the placement of the CILURP in the organization. L10 commented on
the missed expectations: “Because we’re in research, we’re given very squishy information, but
then our results are treated as hard, and that’s a challenge.” In addition, the organizational
structure can hinder the kinds of output by limiting the ability to experiment due to pressure for
results. L10 commented, “We at research [the CILURP], we have to be able to constantly show
our value to the people that are paying. If we can't do that, we do that, we won’t get more work.”
The organization structure can inherently provide the CILURP with political support for the
experimental nature of the output. L12 recalled how the political support from L12’s leadership
enabled the experimental expectation for the CILURP:
I think in any organization there's kind of this political dynamics that take place and so
when other groups kind of push back or question or challenge that our leadership has our
back in terms of, “Hey, they’re doing this, and we support that they do this,” you know?
So, that gives us more of a willingness to have that experimentation and that playfulness.
You need to try different things.
While the CILURP may get the outside political support, internal support for the output can be
confusing. L5 observed conflicting messages from L5’s own leadership to perform innovation
work and support operational work. The confusion can be exasperated by being part of a matrix
organizations. L11 commented how “one of the challenges within the corporation or matrix
organization, it’s very hard for people outside to understand the site manager role adds a lot of
extra complication to [my manager’s] organization.” The evidence suggests organizational
structure can influence the kinds of output produced by the CILURP.
83

Six participants, L2, L3, L4, L7, L9, and L10, reported how organizational structure
affected the expectations of the process to create the outputs of the CILURP. One benefit of the
CILURP being a part of a R&D function is the freedom of the process to create the output. L10
explained how being a part of R&D gives the CILURP the independence and support to explore
fresh ideas. L10 shared, “As a research organization, we get to look at new and cool things all
the time. We have a little more flexibility and autonomy. And we’re not pigeon-holed into, well,
this is what we’ve always done, right?” L10 offered an analogy to highlight the importance of
the process and where it fits to create output:
You can think about, it like, if you’re going to build a house, right? When you are at the
designing and building stage, if you start changing things, it’s going to cost you a lot
more, right? So, you don’t have a lot of flexibility in the later stages of the home
construction. In the early stages, when you’re, you know, looking online, trying to find
pictures that fit your design aesthetic or you’re, you know, driving around town and
taking pictures of homes that you know, have maybe the same curb appeal that you’re
looking for something like that, right. Nothing is set in stone.
Similarly, L4 shared, “I’m a part of an R&D arm within our organization. I think that’s helpful
mainly just from the culture when we have leaders that are encouraging innovation.” Reporting
into an R&D function seems to have inherent processes for the CILURP to develop innovation.
In large organizations with lots of processes, the process to create CILURP output
matters. One participant, L9, focused on how the organizational structure gave the CILURP
permission to act differently supporting achieving the desired output. L9 shared, “The whole
purpose of having innovation centers is to run them differently. They’re supposed to be a faster
scale up, like, a startup type of environment. When you run a center like that, you start seeing
84

very fast success.” Decentralized operations and funding help support the process of creating
innovative output. The expectation set by the organization when decentralized gives more
control to the CILURP. L7 said, “It’s not a centralized organization. Everyone’s allowed to do it
differently. The executive gives me a large allocation of funds every year for his teams to run
projects and then you just fill up the bucket.” The speed of the process to create innovative
output was noted by L3. L3 said, “The feedback I’ve gotten from the businesses [is] IT moves
too slow. … It takes us too long. … They get excited if they get a project with the lab [CILURP]
because I don't have as many constraints.” L3 discussed the later stages of the process that can be
slower. L3 explained, “What they don't realize is that in order to get into production, at some
point, you have to go through the red tape. So, I try to be very transparent about that upfront.”
Organizational structure can influence the process of who the output is for in the organization.
When a CILURP is in one business unit, it is sometimes difficult to manage innovation output
for other business units. L2 said, “We do work for other business units, but we are owned by our
home business unit, which poses a problem when you want to do other projects with other parts
of the business.” The evidence suggests organizational structure can influence the process to
create innovative output produced by the CILURP.
Organizational Processes impact Productivity
Eleven of 12 participants mentioned how organizational processes impact their
productivity of the CILURP. Participants highlight a range of organizational processes that are
designed for predictability, including the flexibility, or they created their own. Regardless, the
speed of the process was the key theme. Seven participants brought up general processes; six
participants noted HR processes; three participants noted IT processes; three participants noted
procurement processes; and two participants note other organizational processes.
85

Seven participants, L1, L3, L4, L6, L9, L11, and L12, reported how the general
organizational process affected their productivity. Three participants noted flexibility was
helpful. Four participants noted the rigidity was difficult to operate.
The organizational flexibility to use what was available and to supplement processes
needed by creating new organizational processes for the CILURP was a common theme among
participants that were please with general business processes. L1 noted having the flexibility to
use whatever business process was useful and then create whatever else was needed. L1 said,
“One of the nice things was they [the CILURP leadership] kind of just let us go by ourselves. So,
in terms of business process, you know, you can leverage whatever was internally available.” L9
could circumvent all the business processes completely so it would not impact CILURP
operations. L9 shared, “Every single business process was touched, but I don't think I cared
about them as much as I was able to bypass them all.”
Conversely, several participants noted the difficulty of operating with organizational
processes. The organizational process makes it hard because it is difficult to find the right person
or information. L12 commented, “What hinders us [is] you need to figure out who to talk to and
sometimes it’s no one, sort of, can give a clear answer and so that sometimes becomes a
hindrance and obstacle.” L4 highlighted some outsourced business processes have little
perceived accountability and clear ownership making it difficult to have the CILURP needs met.
L11 recalled the difficulty of organizational process in a large organization, compared to the
nimble nature of the CILURP. L11 commented, “It’s a big organization and you end up with a
lot of red tape you have to deal with.” L6 shared the same sentiment recalling that the general
processes were “nightmares” for the CILURP to develop innovation. L6 observed,
86

The supporting processes for the company are a nightmare for me because, you know,
they’re industrialized processes that are designed for a large—The idea that we look and
function so little, like the rest of the company means that HR, IT accounting, were a
nightmare for all those groups, and they’re a nightmare for me.
The evidence suggests that general organizational processes can influence the productivity of the
CILURP. In addition to general processes, participants noted three specific processes that impact
productivity, HR, IT, and procurement processes. HR processes are used in the interviewing,
hiring, onboarding, management, and exiting of workers. In the context of the CILURP, most
workers are students, and therefore, speed matters to get the workers working on the project
quickly. Five participants reported how the organizational HR process affected the productivity
of the CILURP. Two participants noted flexibility was helpful and three participants noted the
rigidity was difficult to operate.
Two participants shared positive experiences with HR processes. One participant, L7,
highlighted how partnering with the HR department directly and not just relying on the HR
processes has been helpful. L7’s approach to HR processes supported the CILURP’s hiring needs
for developing innovation projects by turning an adversarial relationship into a collaborative
relationship. L7 noted, “I try to make sure that I adhere to all their [HR] business processes. … I
have a weekly meeting with HR just to make sure that we’re always in sync and that they’re
aware of what I’m doing down here.” One participant, L8, had favorable interactions with HR
processes once they understood how to meet the CILURP hiring needs. Human resources could
support the flexibility and speed the CILURP required to develop innovation. L8 reflected,
We’re one of the few people in the company allowed to do evergreen job postings. So, I
can roll out my job postings and I can leave them out all the time. … Because I have
87

different places I have to recruit. I have a number of I have a number of individuals who
are able to be hired at a time.
Conversely, three participants note the difficulty of operating with HR processes. L11
remarked how frustrating the HR processes were because of how slow they were to meet the
CILURP demands. L11 said, “All those all those mandatory processes you have to do from an
HR standpoint. They get to be annoying.” L5 shared the same sentiment in speed, also noting the
flexibility required to work with student intern schedules; L5 was also hindered by the rate at
which students could be paid to work in the CILURP because it was not as competitive as it
could be for the URP. L5 commented, “I think, you know, HR could be faster, you know? We
need the flexibility to work with the student’s schedules and the rate that we hire them. Some
things I think we could do better there.” L9 noted how circumventing the HR processes
altogether improved the CILURP’s ability to hire and serve the organization. L9 said, “I
bypassed HR hiring by going directly and having all of the students be contractors, so it made it
much easier than having to go through the BS of corporate hiring.” The evidence suggests HR
organizational processes can influence the productivity of the CILURP through speed, flexibility,
and compensation by which the CILURP can hire workers for innovation projects.
Information technology processes are an important part of a CILURP’s ability to develop
innovation. Three participants reported how the organizational IT process affected the
productivity of the CILURP. One participant noted the organizational planning process was
helpful and two participants noted the rigidity was difficult to meet the operational and
experimental needs of the CILURP.
One participant, L10, spoke of how a broader project development process helped
incorporate IT processes to meet the CILURP innovation project needs. While the lead time was
88

longer than desired by L10, the development process helped with planning for the CILURP. L10
reflected,
This technology development process has really helped us streamline our work and has
helped us understand what the next 6 months of a project might look like so that we can
better plan resources, and that is very enabling for us to be able to do our jobs and do our
jobs well.
Two participants pointed out challenges IT processes and management create, when
attempting to conduct CILURP innovation project work. Both participants met resistance when
getting the IT resources the CILURP needed. L11’s CILURP was slowed down by getting a new
employee a computer to work on and received pushback, when attempting to experiment with
new innovative software. L11 commented,
Some of that IT stuff slows down things. The steps you have to go through to get a
computer for a new employee. … It’s trying at times. … So, when you download
software to do something, there’s certain software you can’t download. Say someone's
working on exploring a new technology area, and there’s a software out there that can
help us do something, those steps to go through to get that software downloaded, it’s a
challenge.
Correspondingly, L6 received push-back from IT processes because they did not understand the
fluctuation of CILURP needs that come with student schedules. Network usage varies greatly in
the middle of the term, while school is in session and student may work part-time versus over the
summer when students can work full-time. L6 stated, “The network guy is always telling me that
my network is oversized because they're taking average values, and I’m saying telling me how
my network’s running on the July day, you know, when I got all my students here.” The
89

evidence suggests that IT organizational processes can influence the productivity of the CILURP
by hiring workers for innovation projects.
Three participants reported how the organizational procurement process affected the
productivity of the CILURP. One participant noted flexibility was helpful. Two participants
noted the rigidity was difficult to operate.
One participant, L6, highlighted how slow the procurement process was for the
CILURP’s innovation needs. L6 combatted the slow procurement speed by going around the
process; the approach was supported by L6’s leadership because they also valued the speed. L6
said, “I cannot wait 2 months for an SOW [statement of work] [or] for an NDA [nondisclosure
agreement]. We write our own and I get my hand slapped and then my boss and my boss’s boss
says, ‘No, they did the right thing.’” L10 shared how inadequate the procurement process was in
L10’s organization. L10 struggled to work with vendors necessary for CILURP to develop
innovation. L11, talked about how a high level of purchase approval helps keep the decision-
making at the CILURP level allowing L11’s CILURP to operate at the speed expected by the
organization for innovation projects. L11 said, “Procurement is, for the most part, not too bad.
I’ve got the approvals that I can spend up to so much money with just my approval.” The
evidence suggests that organizational procurement processes can influence the productivity of
the CILURP through contract creation, collaboration with vendors, and asset purchases.
Two participants reported how other organizational processes affected the productivity of
the CILURP. One participant shared positive interactions with the facilities process. L6 said,
“The fact that our real estate and facilities guys could do some heavy lifting, for me, there, that’s
really nice. Those processes have been net enabler for me.” Further, L6 talked about the
relationship with the business development processes:
90

There’s a bizdev [business development] function. We’ve got a really good relationship
with them. It’s common for me to get a call to say, “Hey, what do you think about this
space? What you know about this company?” And there’s a flow to that, right? When I
know what’s on their mind and what they’re seeing, that helps.
A second participant, L5, commented on the corporate innovation process. L5 said,
When you talk about innovation, a lot of times the immediate business case isn’t that
strong. … When you talk to the division stakeholders, they get kind of stuck. They’ll
focus on what's going to make money tomorrow, not what's the right thing for the future
of this company. I would say that's probably an area that is problematic, but it’s also the
reason I have a job, right? If they were capable of doing it at the division level, then you
wouldn’t need a site like this.
The evidence suggests the organizational processes can influence the productivity of the
CILURP through facilities management, corporation innovation investment, and business
development processes.
Organizational Culture Impacts Behaviors
Eleven participants mention how organizational culture impacts behaviors of those in the
CILURP and those who interact with the CILURP through the propensity to experiment and
propensity to cooperate. Seven participants shared how the propensity to experiment through that
influences their ability to develop innovation within their organization. In addition, six
participants commented on the propensity to cooperate with the CILURP. The propensity to
experiment and the propensity to cooperate are affected by organizational culture.
91

Propensity to Experiment
Seven participants, L1, L2, L3, L6, L7, L8, and L9, reported how the propensity to
experiment affected behaviors in interactions with the CILURP. Six participants noted an
openness to failure was helpful to developing innovation. Two participants noted being risk
averse was a hinderance to developing innovation.
L9, shared that experimentation in the CILURP saves the company money by not
investing in the wrong things. L9 said, “At the Innovation Center, the beauty of failing
sometimes is that if you fail at the innovation center, then you’re saving the company a
tremendous amount of money because you’re not saving—you’re not failing on a much larger
scale.” L1, recognized the propensity to experiment influenced the creation of the CILURP itself.
L1 shared,
Somebody has to take a risk on the operation. So, it’s just, you know, having a good
champion that’s willing to invest in something to even try it out. So, you know that has to
be a company that’s willing to take a risk willing to fail if it doesn’t work, like having
that technical cultural attitude towards the operation because just the barrier to starting it
is there.
L7 noted following a mantra of “failing fast,” a euphemism for experimentation because of the
rapid speed of “failing” for the sake of learning. L7 shared, “We try to be a very quick moving
company. So, we’re always trying to you know, if we're going to fail, fail quickly, you know,
and then let’s re-engineer and just move forward.” L8 shared a different perspective on
experimentation within an organization that was more risk averse. L8 observed that although
L8’s organization was willing to experiment, the organization wanted to experiment in a safe
92

way; L8 notes the extra safety measure are overly protective. L8 said, “We are willing to fail, but
we want to fail in a way that is safe.” L8 used an analogy to explain the point:
What I mean by that is, like, I’m totally willing to go skydiving, but I’m going to bring a
parachute with me. And I’m going to pack a backup parachute as well. And I’m going to
make sure that I’m with a trained instructor when I do it. I think that’s the type of thing
that we’re thinking about as a company, and sometimes maybe, like, we’re kicking the
tires on the plane more than it’s necessary to take off to go skydiving because we’re also
afraid about the plane, and we’re afraid about the ground, and we’re afraid about those
other things, doesn't mean we’re not going to go skydiving. It means that we’re a little
shaky about it, and we’re thinking about every possible thing that can go wrong and how
can those risks even be mitigated when in reality, we probably just need to think about
the parachutes. We didn’t need to think about everything.
L6 supported the theme by shared how the focus on incremental experimentation versus radical
experimentation as an organization supports the CILURP. L6 stated, “The innovation culture
helps me the most is that innovation is about how do we make this 2% better than last year? Not
about how do we do kind of a step function kind of a change.”
Two participants discussed how a low propensity to experiment negatively impacted their
CILURP. One participant, L2, highlighted the struggle of the organizational tolerance for failure
how it impacts the CILURP. L2 observed,
If you’re doing something for the very first time, there needs to be some element of a
little bit of grace or understanding that if things don’t go right, I often feel like people try
to start the projects massive without testing out the details, and then expect nothing to go
wrong, and if something goes wrong, then everyone's unhappy.
93

A second participant, L9, commented on how the organizational function’s culture affected the
CILURP. L9 noticed,
The innovation center was sponsored by enterprise IT is a support function. So, it was not
a business function. So, it’s more about what you produce and the effect that you have
and the KPIs that you’re able to deliver. … I would sometimes be told that you're asking
for too much, we’re the nicest office for an IT organization. We’re not a business
function.
The evidence suggests organizational culture can influence the behavior of those interacting with
the CILURP through a desire to fail fast, a tolerance of failure, and pressure for early results and
ROI.
Propensity to Cooperate
Eight participants, L1, L3, L5, L6, L7, L10, L11, and L12, reported how organizational
culture affected the propensity to cooperate with the CILURP. Six participants considered
cooperation helpful to use the CILURP to develop innovation. Two participants highlight the
pitfalls that hinder the CILURP to develop innovation.
One participant, L11, shared the organizational culture emphasized helping each other;
helping each other includes helping those in the CILURP to work on the development of
innovation. L11 said, “[Our] culture has always been we help one another. We work together and
support each. That helps from an innovation standpoint because, okay, you’re willing to talk to
your peers. You’re willing to help your peers and that is encouraging.” Similarly, L12 observed a
similar support for the CILURP by helping the organization as a whole. L12 shared, “The values
the company has allows us, my center, to really cross bridges and really think about how we can
help with innovative endeavors with it the company. Then, what we do helps the company in as a
94

whole.” Further, L1 commented how a culture of “openness” was helpful to the CILURP early in
its existence. L1 observed, “Individuals who are willing to take the first phone call, if they
weren’t willing to do the first phone call, I would have never had a chance to convince them to
give us a project.” Organizational culture supports cooperating with customers. L6 noted,
A place where the culture helps [is] relentless focus on customers. That really helps
strengthen our channel. Makes it easier for even with a really low TRL [technology
readiness level] project like what we’ve got now I can get it in the hands of customers
and get real customer feedback.
A third participant, L10, spoke about the organization’s culture created a cooperative
environment for the CILURP to focus on specialized work that only the CILURP could do for
the company. L10 stated,
So, the way that I am supported in the culture that allows me to do my job and allows me
to help unlock this value for the company is that I am expected and allowed to do the
work that needs to be done. … I’m going to take up space that I think my group can do
the best at because we have, you know, these tools, these capabilities, this expertise, this
knowledge, and I’m going to make sure that I share that with my leaders and their leaders
so that they see that I’m the one who should be doing that.
A fourth participant, L7, discussed the effect of lower-level accountability supported cooperation
across the organization. L7 said,
One of the things that’s great now about our company. They’ve really pushed the
decision making and budgeting and everything significantly down. There isn’t, like, a
hierarchy that you have to go to. So, you know, it’s very easy to work across teams and
there’s also a very high spirit of collaboration.
95

Alternatively, two participants talked about the pitfalls of culture, as related to
cooperation. L5 talked about the challenges with business unit leaders crafting messages to
senior leaders about CILURP projects. L5 remarked, “Some of the division stakeholders get a
little bit nervous about what we bring to leadership, so we have to be really careful that we don't
burn any bridges with the relationships that we’ve developed.” Correspondingly, L3 stated, You
need to make sure you keep the right people in the conversation because if they feel like they’re
left out, or if they’re not included in the conversations and their name wasn’t in it, that's not good
for them.” The evidence suggests organizational culture can influence the behavior of those
interacting with the CILURP through doing what’s best for the company, a willingness to help
each other, a focus on customers, and communication with senior leaders.
Summary of Research Question 2
The findings suggest that organizational structure, processes and culture impacted the
CILURP leaders’ ability to use the CILURP to develop innovation with their organization.
Organizational structure influenced access of executive support, valuable projects, and resources.
Organizational structure also influenced CILURP expectation by the kinds of innovation output,
the process to create the innovation output, and who the innovation output is for. Organizational
process influenced productivity of the CILURP through the speed and flexibility of the processes
to meet the fluid needs of the CILURP. Human resources, IT, and procurement processes were
specifically highlighted by participants as pain points. Organizational culture influences the
propensity to experiment and the propensity to cooperate in the CILURP. Higher propensity was
favorable to the CILURP and lower propensity hindered the CILURP.

96

Chapter Five: Recommendations
This fifth chapter is the last chapter of the dissertation. The chapter is organized into five
sections: (a) discussion of findings, (b) recommendations for practice, (c) limitations and
delimitations, (d) recommendations for future research, and (e) a conclusion. The study’s
problem of practice was that organizations struggle to yield direct revenue impact from
innovation within their CILs in URPs. The purpose of this study was to explore the leaders of
CILs in U.S. URPs to determine how KMO influences affect the leaders’ ability to develop
innovation within their organization. Two questions guided the research: (a) What are the
CILURP leaders’ knowledge and motivation related to using the CILURP to develop innovation
within their organization? And (b) How do a firm’s culture, structure, and processes impact a
CILURP leaders’ ability to use the CILURP to develop innovation within their organization?
Data was collected through semistructured interviews of 12 current and past CILURP leaders in
large organizations with a CIL in a URP in the Midwest region of the United States.
Discuss of Findings
The research study provided data about CILURP in large companies within one URP and
what the leader of the CILURP needs to develop innovation for their organization. While there is
limited research on the needs of the CILURP leader, Decreton et al. (2021) proposed thinking
about CILURPs as brokers in Silicon Valley, CA, connecting the main office of a company and
the local innovation ecosystem. The research study builds on Decreton et al.’s work by
examining the CILURP leader’s needs in a Midwest region URP. The research study also
supports Kuratko et al.’s (2014) findings of four key corporate innovation implementation issues
as (a) understanding the type of innovation being sought, (b) coordinating managerial roles, (c)
effectively using operating controls, and (d) properly training and preparing individuals. The
97

study adds to the literature by exploring the needs of the CILURP leader as it relates to corporate
innovation implementation. Together, the findings reveal areas for improvement in the CILURP
leaders’ KMO factors to use the CILRUP most effectively for innovation, which aligns with
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis model that addresses how to close KMO gaps and increase
accountability for improvements in KMO.
The research uncovered four knowledge competencies: (a) university ecosystem, (b)
parent company, (c) technology application, and (d) workplace administration. One competency,
university ecosystem knowledge, described how CILURP leaders partnered with the university
faculty, administrators, and staff, and partnered with the URP leadership, and how they used the
URP facilities or interacted with other companies in the research park to develop innovation. The
findings are similar to research by Ng et al. (2021), supporting the importance of knowing when
and how to use URP attributes for company needs. The importance of local ecosystem
knowledge aligns with the findings from Decreton et al. (2021) who noted the broker role the
CILURP leader plays in helping the organization navigate the local university ecosystem. Since
leaders who take over CILURPs or build CILURPs need to understand the local innovation
ecosystem, it is valuable for the CILURP leader to network and learn how the ecosystem works
to get innovation value for their CILURP and organization.
A second competency, parent company knowledge represented knowledge about the
organization including the organization’s industry, products, structure, and financial
performance. The finding that parent company knowledge is a critical competency for CILURP
leaders is supported by findings from Decreton et al. (2021), who found effective CILURP
leaders know how the organization operates to be an innovation broker for the organization
between the local innovation ecosystem and the home company. As a result, new CILURP
98

leaders with limited parent company knowledge may want to invest in learning about the parent
company’s business and the product they make.
A third competency was technology application knowledge, described as the
understanding of the technical skills and emerging technology trends used in the CILURP. The
findings are consistent with Gliddon’s (2006) innovation leader competency model that explains
how understanding the external environment and learning are important to an innovation leader,
including knowledge of the organization’s competitors, market, industry, and innovation
opportunities (Gliddon & Rothwell, 2018). CILURP leaders need to understand the
organizations’ direct industry competitors and emerging technology in other industries that could
impact the organization’s industry in the future. The technology application knowledge enables
the CILURP leader to launch CILURP projects that develop innovation in their organization.
A fourth competency was workplace administration knowledge, which refers to the
CILURP leaders’ abilities to work with students, engage with stakeholders, supervise people, run
the office, and execute projects. The findings are consistent with Gliddon’s (2006) innovation
leaders competency model, which posits that leading teams, managing and delegating,
identifying with the role, and navigating power and politics are essential to innovation leaders’
success (Gliddon & Rothwell, 2018). CILURP leaders need to understand how to run the
CILURP office and the innovation projects being executed within the CILURP, how to
effectively interact with the workers, often students, and internal and external stakeholders, and
emerging technologies in other industries that could impact the organization’s industry in the
future. The workplace knowledge competency enables the CILURP leader to operate the
CILURP efficiently.
99

The study found CILURP leaders need to “wear many hats,” as noted by the participants’
reports of the knowledge mix needed to be successful in the role. The knowledge combined is
significant because it helps organizations have a deep awareness of what it takes to operate a
CILURP successfully and how to identify the gaps of selected leaders. Organizations can use the
CILURP role as a leadership development opportunity to complement other business
competencies.
CILURP leaders in the current study were self-efficacious and intrinsically motivated.
The study found belief that the CILURP work was valuable, interest in working with students,
interest in CILURP work, and confidence in the ability to do the job were important motivators.
The findings suggest when leading innovation efforts, such as a CILURP, organizations should
select people that have those motives or can develop them. The findings align with Gliddon
(2006) innovation leader’s competency model noting that energy level and motivation are useful
to an innovation leader (Gliddon & Rothwell, 2018). Gliddon and Rothwell, (2018) pointed to
the importance of the innovations leader’s clarity in knowing their own motivation and others
with whom they work, while managing the CILURP leader’s energy level. The findings indicate
it is important for leaders to be self-aware of their motivations, when considering CILURP
leadership roles to determine the degree of fit with the roles.
The research uncovered three organizational influences on the CILURP leader’s ability to
develop innovation within their organization: (a) organization structure impacted support for the
CILURP, (b) organizational processes impacted the productivity of the CILURP, and (c)
organizational culture impacted the behavior of those that interacted with the CILURP.
Organizational structure influenced the access the CILURP had through executive visibility and
support, projects, resources, and the expectations of the CILURP through kind of output, process
100

to create the output, and for whom the output is created. The research study supports Decreton et
al.’s (2021) findings, revealing the importance of clarity of purpose for the CILURP and
organizational structure to support the CILURP. This finding helps organizations decide where
to place and how to structure their CILURP. The lack of appropriate access or expectation could
impact the performance of the CILURP.
Organizational processes affected the productivity of the CILURP. In particular, HR, IT,
and procurement process were noted the most by CILURP leaders because HR processes
supported hiring of CILURP workers, and IT and procurement processes supported workers’
abilities to perform their innovation jobs. The findings align with Kuratko et al.’s (2014) study in
terms of the importance of coordinating managerial roles and operating controls. Large
companies design their organizational processes for efficiency and consistency, while the
CILURP requires flexibility and speed to run effectively (Sinha, 2016). This conflict was at the
center of the CILURP determining the productivity of the CILURP through roadblocks of the
processes. Organizations looking to start a CILURP should examine the organizational processes
needed to support the company and ensure the CILURP is given the flexibility and speed
required to deliver innovation results.
Organizational culture effected the behavior of those interacting with the CILURP in
their propensity to cooperate and their propensity to experiment. The findings align to Ringel et
al.’s, (2015) work on the barriers to returns on innovation findings that risk-averse culture and
lack of coordination are two barriers. The findings also align with Pisano’s (2019) leadership
challenges of building a culture of innovation, specifically a willingness to experiment while
being highly disciplined and collectively collaborative with individual accountability. A high
propensity to experiment and to cooperate increase the likelihood of successful development of
101

innovation for the organization while low propensities in these areas decrease the likelihood of
successful development of innovation and slows the CILURP impact on the organization.
Organizational activities that support increasing the propensity to experiment and cooperate
helps organizations manage their innovation culture and support the CILURP.
Recommendations for Practice
Organizations use CILURP to drive innovation in the organization (Ubeda et al., 2019).
Given the data collected from interviews, evidence supports that a few recommendations will
assist organizations in successfully using their CILURP to develop innovation within their
organization. Based on the findings of this study and research literature, the recommendations
for practice are as follows: (a) creating a shared understanding of the CILURP, (b) developing a
shared way of working with the CILURP, (c) designating an executive sponsor for the CILUR,
(d) providing comprehensive training for the CILURP leader, and (e) expanding organizational
process for flexibility.
Recommendation 1: Create a Shared Understanding of CILURP
The current research study discovered that organizational culture impacted the propensity
for cooperation with the CILURP. During the interview, six of seven participants hired outside of
the local URP community remarked how important prior relationships were to get stakeholders
to just “take their call.” The act of getting on the phone was just the first step in beginning the
process of interacting with the CILURP within the organization. Consequently, I recommend
creating a shared understanding of the CILURP across the organization to address the values,
beliefs, and attitudes toward the CILURP and how it fits within the organization (Schein &
Schein, 2017). My recommendation includes a four-step process. The first step is to answer the
question of why the CILURP is needed and how it aligns with the broader company vision and
102

mission (Clark & Estes, 2008; Schein & Schein, 2017). The second step is to develop
expectations of the CILURP and how they might be similar or different from what has worked in
the past for the organization (Schein & Schein, 2017). The third step is to address the new
attitudes with the CILURP, who will be participating in the interactions, and the purpose of those
participating (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). The fourth step is to develop a communication
plan with simple concise messaging and embedded storytelling that helps build trust; the plan
should also support communicating at different levels of the organization and in different regions
of the world if the company is global (Denning, 2017; Hattaway & Henson, 2013).
Recommendation 2: Develop a Shared Way of Working With the CILURP
The current research study revealed organizational culture impacted the propensity for
experimentation with the CILURP. Seven of 12 participants shared how the willingness to
experiment influences the ability to work on innovation projects in the CILURP. Many
participants shared experimentation and failure were accepted, and learning was celebrated;
whereas some participants said experimentation was feared and that they were risk averse,
sometimes preventing follow through for projects. Accordingly, I recommend developing a
shared understanding of how to work with the CILURP that the organization supports. I
recommend following the steps from Clark and Estes (2008) to support organization change.
Step 1 is to develop a compelling vision, clear work goals, and an assessment strategy for
progress toward those goals. Step 2 is to articulate and affiliate the current structure and
processes of the organization—I address some of this in more detail in Recommendation 5.
Building on the first recommendation, Step 3 is to develop a communication plan to share the
plan and progress of those involved with the CILURP and those in the CILURP. The messages
should be simple and concise with a lot of storytelling (Denning, 2017; Hattaway & Henson,
103

2013). Step 4 is to continually involve and update the senior leadership team (Clark & Estes,
2008). The senior leadership team can publicly recognize those who are working in the desired
manner in the CILURP. Step 5 is to develop a mechanism to provide any knowledge and skills
for those working with the CILURP or who could work with the CILURP. One key topic to
address is the balance necessary for an ambidextrous organization as introduced in the literature
by O’Reilly and Tushman (2004): the balance of exploiting current resources, competitive
advantages, and markets and experimenting to grow, finding new market, products, and business
models. Sinha (2016) posited the acknowledgement of divergent decision-making processes to
balance innovation and efficiency is helpful in managing an ambidextrous organization.
Recommendation 3: Designate an Executive Sponsor for the CILURP
The current study found organizational structure impacted access to means for the
CILURP and the expectation of output for the CILURP. Participants commented how access
influenced executive support, type of projects, and ability to get needed resources, combined
with clarity on the types of output, who the output was for, and the process to create the output.
Therefore, I recommend designating an executive sponsor for the CILURP. Kloppenborg et al.
(2014) described an executive sponsor as an senior leader responsible for providing resources for
a project and delivering the intended results of the project. Research has shown there is value to
have an executive sponsor to help with organizational challenges of projects (Chandler &
Thomas, 2015; Clark & Estes, 2008; Kloppenborg et al., 2014). The executive sponsor can
support the CILURP leader with the access and expectation needs including defining success,
clarifying output, managing stakeholder relations, ensuring successful communication across the
organization, and mentoring the CILURP leader (Kloppenborg et al., 2014). Further, during the
selection and formalization process in selecting an executive sponsor, organizations need to
104

consider who will increase the likelihood of success of the CILURP (Chandler & Thomas, 2015).
Based on reporting levels in companies, organizations can consider selecting an executive
sponsor who is one to three reporting levels from the CEO, depending on the structure of the
company (one level from the CEO is the CEO’s direct reports).
Recommendation 4: Provide Comprehensive Training for the CILURP Leader
Comprehensive training would support CILURP leaders who require knowledge to
develop innovation at the organization. The current study found four categories of knowledge:
(a) university ecosystem, (b) parent company, (c) technology application, and (d) workplace
administration. Therefore, the first recommendation is to improve the knowledge of CILURP
leaders through a mix of job aids, training, and education. Job aids are tools that CILURP leaders
can use to perform a task like recalling factual knowledge (Clark & Estes, 2008). Krathwohl
(2002) posited factual knowledge is the basic facts a person must know to complete a task.
Training includes activities CILURP leaders can use to learn and practice conceptual and
procedural knowledge and receive feedback (Clark & Estes, 2008). Conceptual knowledge is the
fundamental categorial or structural knowledge of a field (Krathwohl, 2002). Procedural
knowledge is the knowledge of methodology or techniques to execute a task (Krathwohl, 2002).
Education is used to build the metacognitive knowledge and skills of CILURP leaders so they
can handle unexpected future challenges, which is inherent in a CILURP environment (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Krathwohl described metacognitive knowledge as strategic knowledge, knowledge
about cognitive tasks, contextual and conditional knowledge, and self-knowledge. Together, job
aids, training, and education can help a CILURP develop the knowledge and skills to
successfully use the CILURP within their organization (Kuratko et al., 2014).
105

To develop university ecosystem knowledge, CILURP leaders require factual knowledge
about the university, the research park, and how they work together. I recommend the
organization develop a job aid with key university contacts, for example, the name, phone
number, and email of the corporate relations or corporate advancement liaisons for the university
or specific school or department. While each university has its own way of organizing, this list
can provide CILURP leaders with a starting point to acquire university knowledge and can
receive guidance from the from the corporate relations or corporate advancement liaisons on how
to navigate the university. In addition, I recommend the organization develops a job aid with all
the contact information of all leaders of CILURPs in the research park and the management of
the URP. The URP job aid provides two things to CILURPs leaders: (a) limits where they have
to search for the information and (b) multiple ways to support the leader. The organization could
request both job aids from the URP management. Further, I recommend the organization request
URP management to designate a local CILURP leader to mentor the new CILURP leader within
their organization. Studies have shown one value of URP management is to help the CILURP
leader navigate the URP and the university (Ng et al., 2021).
The development of parental company knowledge by CILURP leaders is needed as they
are the highest-ranking person locally representing the company and often need to speak on
behalf of the company. I recommend two actions to develop the factual, conceptual, and
procedural knowledge required. First, I recommend developing a job aid listing all the fact and
figures about the company, products made by the company about the company, and line of
business in the company. It is a tool CILURP leaders can study by themselves and prepare for
any speaking engagements, meetings with people outside of the company, or with their workers
in the CILURP (Clark & Estes, 2008). Second, I recommend the organization develop a
106

leadership-onboarding program for CILURP leaders, especially if they are new to the
organization. The program would involve a 30-to-60-minute meeting with 15 to 30 key leaders
within the company over a 3- to 9-month period. In addition to supplementing the job aid
knowledge, CILURP leaders could meet with, develop relationships with, and learn how distinct
parts of the organization operate, and the procedures they follow. Leaders who would be critical
in this program are key business unit leaders, leaders of operational support functions like
finance, HR, IT, or procurement, and several chief-level leaders. I recommend some of these
meetings be in person and some use a video call platform. The in-person meetings would provide
opportunities for the new CILURP leader to visit different organizational locations or for key
leaders to visit the CILURP for awareness and exposure (Clark & Estes, 2008). Video calls
provide a way for CILURP leaders to “put a name with a face,” deepening the relationship, even
if it is not in person.
The development of technology application knowledge by CILURP leaders can influence
the selection of projects at the CILURP. I recommend CILURP leaders take a course or
certification program through university executive education that covers the basics of the
existence of technologies and new emerging technologies, how those technologies work, the
applications of those technologies in a business context, and the development of innovation
processes within an organization. The class could cover key topics and allow CILURP leaders to
develop their networks of industry professionals challenged with the same takes they are in their
organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Because this type of education is highly specialized, it may
be best to seek outside expertise. Examples of university executive education that meets the
criteria are the University of California at Berkley’s (2022) Future of Technology: Trends,
Strategies, and Innovation Opportunities, Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (2022)
107

Corporate Innovation: Strategies for Leveraging Ecosystems, and Harvard University’s (2022)
Innovation and Strategy. The programs all three programs are under $3,000 and are no longer
than 2 months (Berkely, 2022; Harvard, 2022, MIT, 2022).
The development of workplace administration knowledge by CILURP leaders is
required, as these leaders are responsible for the entire office’s operations. The findings identify
working with students, engaging stakeholders, supervising people, running the office, and
executing projects as key knowledge areas important for CILURP leaders. The average years of
work experience after the bachelor’s degree of the CILURP leaders in the study is 15 years.
Therefore, I recommend developing job aids for each of the five key areas identified. In addition,
I recommend organizations provide an internal mentor or coach to help support CILURP leaders
and supplement the job aids (Clark & Estes, 2008). The mentor or coach would provide an outlet
for CILURP leaders to discuss challenges and be reminded of internal resources that could help
them. Further, if required, the mentor or coach could advise CILURP leaders if additional
internal training is recommended, or if a refresher of a training course previously taken might be
helpful (Clark & Estes, 2008). Two areas the additional training might be useful are working
with students or running an office because those are specialized tasks specific to a limited
number of jobs within a large organization. Most workers in a large organization do not work
with students nor do they run an office; they work with peers or in an office.
Recommendation 5: Expand Organizational Processes for Flexibility
Throughout the interviews, there were regular mentions of approaches to interacting with
organizational processes, including how much of a “nightmare” they were, how the processes
were circumvented completely, or the extra steps required to engage with the organizational
processes, especially with HR, IT, and procurement. Productivity was slowed when the
108

organizational processes could not meet the need of the CILURP leader. Therefore, I recommend
the organization expand current organizational processes that can specifically support the needs
of the CILURP. There are four steps to consider based on prior research (Clark & Estes, 2008).
First, identify the owner or the governing body of the organizational process. Second, review and
expand on the current documentation and procedures for the organizational process, which can
be done by examining the needs of the CILURP and other cases ours of the current process.
Third, design metrics and goals to help monitor the new procedures or expanded processes.
Fourth, communicate the changes to all stakeholders and specifically the reason for the changes
and how those changes may impact current stakeholders. Kuratko et al. (2014) found the
importance of organizational operating controls and manager role coordination in corporate
innovation.
Limitations and Delimitation
There are several limitations to the study. First, targeting the leaders of the CILURP
limits the perspectives of the entire organization on the CILURP. While other perspectives may
be useful to understand how the CILURP developed innovation within the organization, the
study is limited to the CILURP leaders for the practicality of the research study. Second,
targeting large organizations, defined by greater than $1 billion in annual revenue, regardless of
the size of the CILURP, leaves out small and early-stage companies, particularly those with their
entire corporate presence in the URP. The study is not generalizable to all companies with a URP
presence nor for CILURP outside the URP. Third, the study focused on one URP in the United
States. It will not be generalizable to all CILs of URPs in the United States.
There were several delimitations by the researcher to shape the parameters of the study
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). First, the researcher focused mainly on knowledge and
109

organizational influences with minimal emphasis on motivation as manifested in the conceptual
model and the questions in the interview. Knowledge and organizational influences target the
leader of the CILURP and the company it operates within. Second, the research focused on large
organizations. Targeting large companies helps discern the organizational challenges of different
work in a different office on a college campus. Third, the researcher focused on one URP in the
United States. Pursuing one URP limits the variability across URPs that is difficult to detect. The
variability could influence the results of the study. Finally, the theoretical framework I selected
meant that my study explicitly focused on the KMO influences as these three elements relate to
exploring the role of CILURP leaders using the CILURP to develop innovation within their
organization. If I used another framework, the data would reveal different information.
Recommendations for Future Research
The study sought to address the problem of practice that organizations struggle to yield
direct revenue impact from innovation within their CILs in URPs. While the study revealed
several findings, additional research is warranted to further understand the development of
innovation within organizations. This section provides recommendations to further address the
problem of practice.
The study focused on CILURP leaders; therefore, widening the scope of interviewed
workers within the organization would enable researchers to ascertain similarities and
differences in the perceptions of using the CILURP to develop innovation within their
organization. This recommendation would include the managers of the CILURP leaders, senior
executives, business unit leaders, operational support function leaders, workers in the CILURP,
and workers that support the CILURP, for example, those that work in HR, IT, or procurement.
110

The study targeted large organizations with over $1 billion in annual revenue and with
their home office outside the URP. There is a need for further study of different organizations
and industry characteristics and their impact on developing innovation using the CILURP.
Organizational characteristics might include medium-sized organizations with less than $1
billion in annual revenue and greater than $100 million in revenue, organizations that only have a
U.S. presence or are headquartered outside of the United States, and the business lifecycle stage
of an organization (Michelin et al., 2022). The characteristics of organizations may shape how
managers and workers behave and respond to innovation needs (Michelin et al., 2021). Industry
characteristics could include those in financial services with high regulation or those in
manufacturing that need to support manufacturing plants. The industry characteristics that
influence the organizations within them may affect their innovation needs.
The study focused on one URP in the Midwest region of the United States; hence,
expanding the number of URP studied could enable researchers to determine the point of parity
and differentiation in how CILURPs are used within organizations across URPs. This
recommendation would include other URPs in the Midwest region or other regions of the United
States. Further study would also help better refine the function and value of CILURP (Memon &
Meyers, 2017).
The study used Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis to guide the exploration of the
CILURP leader role through knowledge, motivation and organizational influences. Another
study guided using a different theoretical model would produce different data on the
organization’s use of the CILURP to develop innovation. I recommend using Zahra and
George’s (2002) absorptive capacity model to assess an organization’s ability to acquire,
assimilate, transform, and exploit knowledge (Zahra & George, 2002).
111

Conclusions
The study sought to explore the role of the CILURP leader to better understand why
CILURPs may not be performing well and not yielding revenue impact in their organization. The
recommendations help meet the organizational needs: creating a shared understanding of the
CILURP, developing a shared way of working with the CILURP, designating an executive
sponsor for the CILURP, providing comprehensive training for the CILURP leader, and
expanding the organizational process for flexibility.
Consequently, this study has broad implications for the existence of the organization,
economic impact, and workforce development. Organizations with CILURPs may be better
equipped to develop new products, services, and business models to meet customer needs and
remain viable (Solis et al., 2015). Successful companies learn to balance implementing
organizational and operational changes and training the workforce for the new roles that come
from technological advancements (Collins et al., 2007; Heater, 2017). URPs have a significant
economic impact on the region they are in and the university they are associated with (Battelle,
2012). Successful operation of the CILURP could support increasing that impact and prosperity
for all those living in that region and the anchoring university (Hobbs et al., 2020). On
September 2, 2022, U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA, 2022) announce the 21
winners of the $1 billion Build Back Better Regional Challenge. According to the EDA press
release, “Awardees span 24 states and will receive between $25 million and $65 million to
execute transformational projects and revitalize local industries.” CILURPs and their leaders
could play a significant role in helping the create value for regions across the United States.
Understanding how to run a successful CILURP could help leaders develop the skills needed to
guide their organization through the divergent needs. Mastering these skills will help
112

organizational leaders extract innovation value for their companies and empower future leaders
to successfully support the sustainability of their firm.

113

References
Ahuja, S. B. (2019). The hard truth about innovative cultures. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2019/01/the-hard-truth-about-innovative-cultures
Albahari, A., And Pérez-Canto, S., Landoni, P., & Pérez-Canto, S. (2010). Science and
Technology Parks impacts on tenant organisations: A review of literature. Munich
Personal RePEc Archive. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/41914/
Anthony, S. D., Viguerie, S. P., Schwartz, E. I., & Van Landeghem, J. (2018). 2018 corporate
longevity forecast: Creative destruction is accelerating [Executive briefing]. Innosight.
https://www.innosight.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Innosight-Corporate-Longevity-
2018.pdf
Association of Science and Technology Parks of Spain (APTE). (n.d.). Definition of science and
technology park. https://www.apte.org/en/definition-of-science-technology-park
Association of University Research Parks (AURP). (n.d.). What is a research park/innovation
district? https://www.aurp.net/what-is-a-research-park
Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary definition of
innovation. Management Decision, 47(8), 1323–1339.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740910984578
Barsh, J., Capozzi, M. M., & Davidson, J. (2008). Leadership and innovation. McKinsey
Quarterly, 1, 37–47.
https://immagic.com/eLibrary/ARCHIVES/GENERAL/MCKNSYUS/M080104B.pdf
Battelle. (2012). Driving regional innovation and growth: The 2012 survey of North American
university research parks.
https://aurp.memberclicks.net/assets/documents/aurp_batelllestudy2012-final.pdf
114

Bennett, N., & Parks, J. M. (2015). Struggling to innovate? Examine your structure, systems, and
culture. Business Horizons, 58(5), 563–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2015.05.009
University of California Berkley. (2022). Future of technology: trends, strategies, and
innovation opportunities. https://em-executive.berkeley.edu/future-technology
Blank, S. (2019). Why companies do “innovation theatre” instead of actual innovation? Harvard
Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/10/why-companies-do-innovation-theater-instead-
of-actual-innovation
Bradley, J., Loucks, J., Macaulay, J., Noronha, A., & Wade, M. (2015). Digital vortex how
digital disruption Is redefining industries digital vortex. Global Center for Digital
Business Transformation.
https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/en/us/solutions/collateral/industry-solutions/digital-vortex-
report.pdf
Breeze, M. (2018). Imposter syndrome as a public feeling. In Taylor, Y., Lahad, K. (Eds.)
Feeling academic in the neoliberal university (pp. 191-219). Palgrave Macmillan.
Brix, J. (2019). Innovation capacity building: An approach to maintaining balance between
exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. The Learning Organization,
26(1). https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-08-2018-0143.
Buvat, J., Turkington, E., Ghosh, A., Gilchriest, B., & KVJ, S. (2017). The discipline of
innovation: Making sure your innovation center actually makes your organization more
innovative. Capgemini Digital Transformation Institute. https://www.capgemini.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/12/capgemini-dti-report_innovation-centers_final.pdf
115

Castonguay, Y., Saint-Yves-Durand, S., & Hamouti, R. (2018). The Expectations of Businesses
Settled in a Science Park. International Journal of Research in Science, 4(3), 1–5.
https://doi.org/10.24178/ijrs.2018.4.3.01
CBInsights. (2018). State of innovation. https://www.cbinsights.com/reports/CB-Insights_State-
of-Innovation-2018.pdf
Chandler, D. E., & Thomas, J. L. (2015). Does executive sponsorship matter for realizing project
management value? Project Management Journal, 46(5), 46–61.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21521
Chen, C. J., Liu, T. C., Chu, M. A., & Hsiao, Y. C. (2014). Intellectual capital and new product
development. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 33(July–September
2014), 154–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2014.06.003
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Performance Improvement Advisor, 43(1), 44–46.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4140430110
Collins, D. T., & Ryan, M. H. (2007). The strategic implications of technology no job loss.
Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 6, 27–46.
https://www.abacademies.org/journals/academy-of-strategic-management-journal-
home.html
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. SAGE Publications.
Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of organizational
innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47(6),
1154–1191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00880.x
116

Decreton, B., Monteiro, F., Frangos, J. M., & Friedman, L. (2021). Innovation outposts in
entrepreneurial ecosystems: How to make them more successful. California Management
Review, 63(3), 94–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/000812562199649
Denning, S. (2017). The leader’s guide to storytelling: Mastering the art and discipline of
business narrative. John Wiley & Sons.
Díez-Vial, I., & Fernández-Olmos, M. (2015). Knowledge spillovers in science and technology
parks: How can firms benefit most? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(1), 70–84.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9329-4
Díez-Vial, I., & Fernández-Olmos, M. (2017). The effect of science and technology parks on a
firm’s performance: a dynamic approach over time. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,
27(3), 413–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-016-0481-5
Díez-Vial, I., & Montoro-Sánchez, Á. (2016). How knowledge links with universities may foster
innovation: The case of a science park. Technovation, 50–51(April–May 2016), 41–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.09.001
Dougherty, D., & Hardy, C. (1996). Sustained product innovation in large, mature organizations:
Overcoming innovation-to-organization problems. Academy of Management
Journal, 39(5), 1120–1153. https://doi.org/10.5465/256994
Economic Development Administration (EDA). (2022, September 2). U.S. Secretary of
commerce Gina M. Raymond announces finalist for $1 billion “Build Back Better
Regional Challenge.” https://eda.gov/news/press-releases/2022/09/02/build-back-better-
regional-challenge-awardees-announced.htm
117

Edison, H., Bin Ali, N., & Torkar, R. (2013). Towards innovation measurement in the software
industry. The Journal of Systems and Software, 86(5), 1390–1407.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2013.01.013
Elfsberg, J., Larsson, T., Johansson, C., & Larsson, A. (2020). Unlocking the full value of a
corporate innovation hub. Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet. https://www.diva-
portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1597368&dswid=3664
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The triple helix: University-industry-government
relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST Review.
https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2480085
Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2018). Innovation incommensurability and the science park. R and D
Management, 48(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12266
Fecher, F., Winding, J., Hutter, K., & Füller, J. (2020). Innovation labs from a participants’
perspective. Journal of Business Research, 110(May 2017), 567–576.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.039
Fritsch, M. (2017). The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital, credit,
interest, and the business cycle. Regional Studies, 51(4), 654–655.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1278975
Frost & Sullivan. (2019). Innovation labs: Driving the future of industry evolution.
https://www.experian.co.th/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Frost-and-Sullivan-X-Labs-
piece.pdf
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
118

Gey, R., Meyer, L. P., & Thieme, M. (2013). A conceptual framework for describing the
phenomenon innovation laboratory: A structurational viewpoint. Proceedings of the
XXIII International RESER Conference, Aix-en-Prodence, France.
Gliddon, D. G. (2006). Forecasting a competency model for innovation leaders using a modified
Delphi technique [Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University].
https://www.proquest.com/docview/305250569?pq-
origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true
Gliddon, D. G., & Rothwell, W. J. (Eds.). (2018). Innovation leadership. Routledge.
Gonzales-Bustos, J. P., & Hernández-Lara, A. B. (2016). Corporate governance and innovation:
A systematic literature review. Corporate Ownership and Control, 13(3), 33–45.
http://www.virtusinterpress.org/IMG/pdf/10-22495_cocv13i3p3.pdf
Hattaway, D., & Henson, J. (2013). It can be smart to dumb things down. Stanford Social
Innovation Review. https://ssir.org/
Harvard University. (2022). Innovation and strategy. Harvard University Professional
Development. https://professional.dce.harvard.edu/programs/innovation-and-
strategy/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7vnj9d37-
QIVkmxvBB35CQevEAAYBCAAEgJ3H_D_BwE#outcomes
Heater, B. (2017, March 26). Technology is killing jobs, and only technology can save them.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/26/technology-is-killing-jobs-and-only-technology-can-
save-them/
Henriques, I. C., Sobreiro, V. A., & Kimura, H. (2018). Science and technology park: Future
challenges. Technology in Society, 53(May 2018), 144–160.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.01.009
119

Hobbs, K. G., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2017). Science and technology parks: an annotated and
analytical literature review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 957–976.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9522-3
Hobbs, K. G., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2017). The growth of US science and technology
parks: does proximity to a university matter? The Annals of Regional Science, 59(2),
495–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-017-0842-5
Hobbs, K. G., Link, A. N., & Shelton, T. L. (2020). The regional economic impacts of university
research and science parks. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 11(1), 42–56.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-018-0566-5
Holtzman, Y. (2014). A strategy of innovation through the development of a portfolio of
innovation capabilities. Journal of Management Development, 33(1), 24–31.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-11-2013-0138
Hölzl, W., & Janger, J. (2012). Innovation barriers across firms and countries. WIFO Working
Papers. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/128992
Iho, S., & Missonier, S. (2021). Conceptualizing knowledge in digital innovation labs.
Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Manoa,
HI. https://doi.org/10.24251/hicss.2021.614
International Association of Science Parks (IASP). (n.d.). Definitions. https://www.iasp.ws/our-
industry/definitions/
Kahn, K. B. (2018). Understanding innovation. Business Horizons, 61(3), 453–460.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.01.011
120

Kalay, F., & Lynn, G. S. (2015). The impact of strategic innovation management practices on
firm innovation performance. Pressacademia, 2(3), 412–412.
https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/rjbm/issue/32452/360901
Kloppenborg, T. J., Tesch, D., & Manolis, C. (2014). Project success and executive sponsor
behaviors: Empirical life cycle stage investigations. Project Management Journal, 45(1),
9–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21396
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kuratko, D. F. (2017a). The organization: Corporate entrepreneurship and corporate
entrepreneurship & innovation: Today’s leadership challenge. In G. Ahmetoglu, T.
Chamorro-Premuzic, B. Klinger, & T. Karcisky (Eds.) The Wiley Handbook of
Entrepreneurship (pp. 273–291). Wiley.
Kuratko, D. F. (2017b). Corporate entrepreneurship & innovation. In G. Ahmetoglu, T.
Chamorro-Premuzic, B. Klinger, & T. Karcisky (Eds.) The Wiley Handbook of
Entrepreneurship (pp. 293–311). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Kuratko, D. F., Covin, J. G., & Hornsby, J. S. (2014). Why implementing corporate innovation is
so difficult. Business Horizons, 57(5), 647–655.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.05.007
Lam, A. (2005). Organizational innovation. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson.
(Eds.). (2005). The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 115–147). Oxford University
Press.
121

Lamperti, F., Mavilia, R., & Castellini, S. (2017). The role of science parks: a puzzle of growth,
innovation and R&D investments. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(1), 158–183.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9455-2
Lenarduzzi, V., & Taibi, D. (2016, August). MVP explained: A systematic mapping study on the
definitions of minimal viable product. 2016 42th Euromicro Conference on Software
Engineering and Advanced Applications, Limassol, Cyprus. (pp. 112–119).
Lewis, M., & Moultrie, J. (2005). The organizational innovation laboratory. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 14(1), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
8691.2005.00327.x
Liberati, D., Marinucci, M., & Tanzi, G. M. (2016). Science and technology parks in Italy: main
features and analysis of their effects on the firms hosted. The Journal of Technology
Transfer, 41(4), 694–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9397-8
Link, A. N. (2009). Research, science, and technology parks: An overview of the academic
literature. In C. Wessner (Ed.) Understanding research, science and technology parks:
Global best practice (pp. 127–139). National Academy Press.
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2017). U.S. university research parks. In D. B. Audretsch & A. N.
Link (Eds.) Universities and the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem (pp. 44–55). Edward Elgar
Publishing Limited.
Magadley, W., & Birdi, K. (2009). Innovation labs: An examination into the use of physical
spaces to enhance organizational creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management,
18(4), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2009.00540.x
Manly, J., Apostolatos, K., Baeza, R., Krühler, M., Panandiker, R., Ringel, & M., & Harnoss, J.
D. (2021). Overcoming the innovation readiness gap. The Boston Consulting Group.
122

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). (2022). Corporate innovation: strategies for
leveraging ecosystems. https://mit-online.getsmarter.com/presentations/lp/mit-corporate-
innovation-online-short-course/?ef_id=c:514572233702_d:c_n:g_ti:kwd-
298572696142_p:_k:%2Binnovation%20%2Bcertification_m:b_a:60676009581&gclid=
EAIaIQobChMI7vnj9d37-
QIVkmxvBB35CQevEAAYASAAEgJlYvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
McCarthy, I. P., Silvestre, B. S., von Nordenflycht, A., & Breznitz, S. M. (2018). A typology of
university research park strategies: What parks do and why it matters. Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management, 47, 110–122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2018.01.004
Memon, A. B., & Meyer, K. (2017). Towards the functional roles of an innovation laboratory as
a platform for innovation: An observational approach. International Journal of Service
Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology, 8(1), 32–49. https://www.igi-
global.com/chapter/towards-the-functional-roles-of-an-innovation-laboratory-as-a-
platform-for-innovation/231205
Memon, A. B., Meyer, L.-P., Meyer, K., & Fähnrich, K.-P. (2014). An insight survey of
innovation laboratories worldwide. In L. Freund & W. Cellary (Eds.) Advances in the
Human Side of Service Engineering, (pp. 174–185). AHFE International.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
123

Michelin, C., Minello, I. F., Siluk, J. C., Gerhardt, V., dos Santos, J., & Neuenfeldt, A. (2022).
Evaluation of entrepreneurial behavior of technology based companies in stages of the
business life cycle. Intangible Capital, 18(1), 1–19.
https://upcommons.upc.edu/handle/2117/367844
Michelin, C. F., Minello, I. F, Siluk, J. C. M., Santos, J. R, Gerhardt, V. J., & Stieler, E. G
(2021). Mensuração do comportamento empreendedor como norteador de
competitividade em startups na fase inicial do negócio. Espacios, 42(02), 167–184.
https://doi.org/10.48082/espacios-a21v42n02p14
Moore, G. (1965). Moore’s law. Electronics Magazine, 38(8), 114. www-
inst.eecs.berkeley.edu//~cs10/sp11/lec/08/2010Fa/2010-09-29-CS10-L08-DG-
Concurrency-6up.pdf
Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. (2017). Digital Innovation Management:
Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Quarterly, 41(1).
https://asset-pdf.scinapse.io/prod/2610102381/2610102381.pdf
Ng, W. K. B., Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Cloodt, M., & Arentze, T. (2019). Towards a
segmentation of science parks: A typology study on science parks in Europe. Research
Policy, 48(3), 719–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.11.004
Ng, W. K. B., Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Cloodt, M., & Arentze, T. (2021). Perceptual measures of
science parks: Tenant firms’ associations between science park attributes and benefits.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163(October 2019), 120408.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120408
124

Ng, W. K. B., Junker, R., Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Cloodt, M., & Arentze, T. (2020). Perceived
benefits of science park attributes among park tenants in the Netherlands. The Journal of
Technology Transfer, 45(4), 1196–1227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09744-x
Olvera, C., Piqué, J. M., Cortés, U., & Nemirovsky, M. (2020). Evaluating university-business
collaboration at science parks: A business perspective. Triple Helix Journal, 1–41.
https://brill.com/view/journals/thj/8/3/article-p445_3.xml
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business
Review, 82(4), 74–83. https://hbr.org/2004/04/the-ambidextrous-organization
Pellegrino, G. (2018). Barriers to innovation in young and mature firms. Journal of Evolutionary
Economics, 28(1), 181–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-017-0538-0
Pisano, G. P. (2019). The hard truth about innovative cultures. Harvard Business Review, 97(1),
62–71. https://hbr.org/2019/01/the-hard-truth-about-innovative-cultures
Provasnek, A. K., Schmid, E., Geissler, B., & Steiner, G. (2017). Sustainable Corporate
Entrepreneurship: Performance and Strategies Toward Innovation. Business Strategy and
the Environment, 26(4), 521–535. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1934
Raabe, J. P., Horlach, B., Schirmer, I., & Drews, P. (2020, January 1). “Forewarned is
forearmed”: Overcoming multifaceted challenges of digital innovation units. AMCIS
2020. https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2020/strategic_uses_it/strategic_uses_it/8/
Ringel, M., Taylor, A., & Zablit, H. (2015). The rising need for innovation speed. The Boston
Consulting Group.
Santarsiero, F., Schiuma, G., & Carlucci, D. (2020). Entrepreneurability: Innovation labs as
engines of innovation capacity development. International Studies in Entrepreneurship,
115–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42538-8_8
125

Schein, E., & Schein, P. (2017). Organizational culture and leadership (5th edition). John Wiley
& Sons, Inc.
Schiavone, F., Meles, A., Verdoliva, V., & Del Giudice, M. (2014). Does location in a science
park really matter for firms’ intellectual capital performance? Journal of Intellectual
Capital, 15(4), 497–515. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-07-2014-0082
Schumpter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Harvard University Press.
Sinha, S. (2016). Managing an ambidextrous organization: balancing innovation and
efficiency. Strategic Direction, 32(10), 35–37. https://doi.org/10.1108/SD-05-2016-0061
Solis, B., Buvat, J., KVJ, S., & Singh, R. R., (2015). The innovation game: Why and how
businesses are investing in innovation centers. Capgemini Consulting and Altimeter.
https://www.slideshare.net/capgemini/the-innovation-game-why-how
Staack, V., & Cole, B. (2017). Reinventing innovation: Five findings to guide strategy through
execution: Key insights from PwC’s innovation benchmark.
https://www.pwc.com/gr/en/publications/assets/innovation-benchmark-report.pdf
Tohidi, H., & Jabbari, M. M. (2012). The important of innovation and its crucial role in growth,
survival and success of organizations. Procedia Technology, 1, 535–538.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2012.02.116
Tucker, R. (2017, November 20). Starting an innovation lab? Avoid these pitfalls. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbtucker/2017/11/20/starting-an-innovation-lab-avoid-
these-pitfalls/?sh=5181682b7a2b
126

Ubeda, F., Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, M., & Mora-Valentín, E. M. (2018). Do firms located in
science and technology parks enhance innovation performance? The effect of absorptive
capacity. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(1), 21–48.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9686-0
United Kingdom Science Park Association (UKSPA). (n.d.). Articles of association.
https://www.ukspa.org.uk/articles-of-association/
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (n.d.). Concept
and Definition. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/science-
technology/university-industry-partnerships/science-and-technology-park-
governance/concept-and-definition/
University of Southern California. (2021). Integrity and accountability code.
https://policy.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Code-of-Integrity-and-Accountability-
Online-Version_FINAL-12-2-21.pdf
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management
Science, 32(5), 590–607. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590
Van de Ven, A. H., & Engleman, R. M. (2004). Central problems in managing corporate
innovation and entrepreneurship. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and
Growth, 7(04), 47–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1074-7540(04)07003-5
Vásquez-Urriago, Á. R., Barge-Gil, A., & Modrego Rico, A. (2016). Science and Technology
Parks and cooperation for innovation: Empirical evidence from Spain. Research Policy,
45(1), 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.07.006
127

Vásquez-Urriago, A. R., Barge-Gil, A., & Rico, A. M. (2016). Which firms benefit more from
being located in a Science and Technology Park? Empirical evidence for Spain. Research
Evaluation, 25(1), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv033
Viki, T. (2018). The myth of the innovation lab. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tendayiviki/2018/04/15/the-myth-of-the-innovation-
lab/?sh=7865635a4125
Viki, T. (2020). Pirates in the Navy: How innovators lead transformation. Holger Nils Pohl.
Visnjic, I., Wiengarten, F., & Neely, A. (2016). Only the brave: Product innovation, service
business model innovation, and their impact on performance. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 33(1), 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12254
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and
extension. Academy of management review, 27(2), 185–203.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.6587995

128

Appendix
Name of Appendix
Questions about the participant and the company:
● What is the highest degree of level of school you have completed? If you’re currently
enrolled in school, please indicate the highest degree you have received.
● How many years of full-time work experience after your bachelor’s degree did you have
when you began your research park office leadership role? If you were engaged in part-
time work, add up the fractions and round up to the nearest number of years.
Questions about the company:
● What is the ownership structure of your organization? Public, private, other?
● What is the primary industry of your organization?
● What is the organization’s approximate annual revenues (in U.S. dollars)
Questions about the CILURP:
● What year was the research park office founded?
● On average, approximately how many total people (including students) work in your
research park office? Choose the nearest match on the high side.
● On average, what is the mix of people in your research park office? Full-time employees,
part-time employee, students, contractors/contingent, other?
● Select all the statements that describe the function of your research park office. The
associated offering of the function is described next to the function.
(a) Creativity Stimulation: creative space; flexible infrastructure; creativity tools
brainstorming sessions; idea generation and assessment techniques
(b) Knowledge Dissemination: teaching and training; consultation and expert advice;
moderated workshops
(c) Business Incubation: coworking space with shared equipment; finding support;
business potential analysis; coaching and mentoring
129

(d) Network Formation: linking with experts; bridging business partners; open platform
with necessary infrastructure; networking events
(e) Resource Provision: shared space and field specific equipment; high- and low- tech
multidisciplinary tools; financial support
(f) Process Intermediation: systematic procedures; technical skills; methodological
expertise
(g) Research and Development: devising new methodologies; investigation of
innovation related problems and solutions; recognizing emerging trends; establishing best
practices; project documentation
(h) Market Research: customer research; feedback acquisition; market analysis;
(i) Other, please specify ______
● What value-add does your research park office provide to your company? Select all that
apply
(a) increasing the novelty of ideas,
(b) building human capacities,
(c) acquiring knowledge and technical expertise,
(d) dissolving management barriers for innovation,
(e) reducing initial costs of new businesses,
(f) accessing the complimentary assets,
(g) reducing risks associated with the innovation,
(h) sharing costs for the innovation projects,
(i) lowering time to market,
(j) alleviating dearth of resources,
(k) integrating technology,
(l) collecting the feedback,
(m) applying the systematic innovation methodologies,
(n) learning emerging trends, innovation-related problems, and their solutions, and
(o) financing the innovation projects
(p) Other, please specify ______

RQ1 What are the CILURP leaders’ knowledge and motivation related to using the
CILURP to promote, develop, and scale innovation within their organization?
● Tell me about your role and how long you have been in this position.
● Tell me what knowledge or skills you think have been essential to leading you to this
point leading a CILURP. Were there any experiences that were critical and what did
those experience teach you?
● What knowledge or skills do you think are important to promoting innovation in terms of
how you use the CILURP? Can you give me some examples?
130

● What knowledge or skills do you think are important to developing innovation in terms of
how you use the CILURP? Can you give me some examples?
● What knowledge or skills do you think are important to scaling innovation in terms of
how you use the CILURP? Can you give me some examples?
● Tell me about the things that impact your own motivation to promote, develop and scale
innovation as it related to the CILURP? How efficacious do you feel about your work?
How do you feel about the value it will create within your organization?

RQ2 How do a firm’s culture, structure, and processes impact a CILURP leaders’
ability to use the CILURP to promote, develop, and scale innovation within their
organization?
● What kind of organizational culture influences your ability to use the CILURP to
promote, develop and scale innovation? What about the ability to experiment, fail, and
learn? Can you give examples?
● What kind organizational structure(s) influences your ability to use the CILURP to
promote, develop and scale innovation? What about who you report to and your reporting
line / department? What specifically made it supportive or what specifically was a
hinderance? How did you share knowledge and educate stakeholders?
● What kind of business processes influence your ability to use the CILURP to promote,
develop and scale innovation? What about success metrics, how are they measured?
What about how your projects are funded?
● Some people say that innovation is all about change management. What are your
thoughts about this?
131

● What do you wish you could tell others or share about your job that they just don’t seem
to understand but would be helpful to you being more effective?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Collaboration, capacity, and communication: Leaders’ perceptions of innovative work behavior across hybrid and remote work environments

PDF

The role of organizational leaders in creating sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the workplace

PDF

Unpredicted but not unexpected: developing prepared health and human services crisis leaders

PDF

Women in information technology senior leadership: incremental progress and continuing challenges

PDF

A qualitative examination of the methods church leaders use to increase young adult attendance in Christian churches: an evaluation study

PDF

Game changers: developing high-technology industry innovative cultures during times of disruptive change

PDF

Taking the pulse on accountability: an innovation study

PDF

The first-time manager journey: a study to inform a smoother leadership transition

PDF

Raising women leaders of Christian higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Lack of culturally relevant teaching in international bilingual schools: a gap analysis

PDF

The organizational impacts of executive technology leadership role proliferation

PDF

Gender role beliefs of male senior leaders in retail and the impact on women’s advancement

PDF

Managing successful organizational change for faculty in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

COVID-19 pandemic: the impact on the Napa Valley wine industry workers

PDF

Understand how leaders use data to measure the effectiveness of leadership development programs

PDF

A faith-based nonprofit organization’s implementation of strategic planning: A qualitative study

PDF

Primary care physicians' experiences working within the patient-portal to improve the quality of patient care

PDF

Maintaining alignment between strategic and tactical goals in an innovative healthcare organization

PDF

First-generation college students and persistence to a degree: an evaluation study

PDF

An in‐depth look at leadership in creating a diverse and inclusive culture for African‐American employees

Asset Metadata

Creator Charles, David Scott (author)

Core Title Corporate innovation labs: exploring the role of university research park innovation lab leaders

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-12

Publication Date 10/18/2022

Defense Date 09/26/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag corporate innovation,innovation laboratory,innovation leadership,innovation outpost,OAI-PMH Harvest,university research park

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony (committee member), Muraszewski, Alison (committee member)

Creator Email davidc23@usc.edu,davidscharles@zoho.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112124632

Unique identifier UC112124632

Identifier etd-CharlesDav-11270.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-CharlesDav-11270

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Charles, David Scott

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20221019-usctheses-batch-987 (), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu