Four Common Fixes for the Commercialization Bottleneck — and the One That Actually Works [Hidden Bottleneck Series]
Editor’s Note: This article is part of a five-part series: Eliminating the Hidden Bottleneck in Research Commercialization. Each post explores a different piece of the puzzle — from diagnosing the bottleneck to equipping researchers with the RAMP Method. In case you missed it, here is the link to Part 1: The Hidden Bottleneck in Research Commercialization.
If you lead a tech transfer or research partnerships office, you’ve probably felt it, the endless tug-of-war between the incredible science coming out of your labs and the slow, frustrating pace of getting that science into the world.
You already know there’s a hidden bottleneck somewhere in the process.
The question is: why hasn’t it been solved yet?
After years of working with universities, national labs, and research institutes, I’ve noticed that even the most well-resourced organizations fall into the same trap: they’re applying the wrong tools to the right problem.
Over and over, I see four predictable responses when institutions try to fix the engagement gap, each well-intentioned, but each missing the mark.
The Four Common Responses (and Why They Miss the Mark)
1. Entrepreneurship Training: Great for Founders, Not for Collaborators
Programs like I-Corps, Lean LaunchPad, or startup accelerators teach researchers how to think like entrepreneurs.
They’re incredibly valuable — when that’s the goal.
I’ve taught and coached in the Regional I-Corps program at the University of Tennessee and serve as a business mentor for Innovation Crossroads, a DOE-funded startup accelerator at Oak Ridge National Lab. These experiences have shown me just how transformative entrepreneurial training can be — when it’s applied to the right audience. But when the goal is collaboration rather than company creation, that same content can quickly feel misaligned.
Participants learn about business models, customer discovery, and product–market fit. They get exposure to real-world market dynamics and develop commercial instincts.
But for 90% of researchers, that’s not the role they want or need.
They’re not trying to spin out a company. They’re trying to support commercialization as subject matter experts and collaborators.
When you put those researchers in an entrepreneurship program, here’s what often happens:
- They disengage halfway through because it feels irrelevant.
- They struggle to connect the content back to their day-to-day work.
- They leave thinking, “This just isn’t for me.”
Instead of building confidence, the experience reinforces the belief that commercialization is someone else’s job.
They don’t need to learn how to build a business — they need to learn how to bridge a conversation.
2. Science Communication Workshops: Clearer, But Not More Compelling
Another popular approach is to send researchers to communication workshops.
These programs help scientists explain complex topics clearly, often for public audiences or interdisciplinary peers.
They teach great fundamentals: structure, clarity, and evidence-based communication. Some even cover presentation skills and slide design.
The problem?
They optimize for understanding, not engagement.
When you’re talking to a funding agency or a conference audience, clarity is the goal.
When you’re talking to an industry partner, relevance is the goal.
Industry doesn’t want to understand the science; they want to understand why it matters to them. A well-crafted explanation of a mechanism or material is still the wrong message if it doesn’t connect to a partner’s need.
Science communication training can actually make the problem worse, because it reinforces the researcher’s instinct to talk more about their science —
when the real breakthrough comes from talking about the problem their science solves.
3. Ad Hoc “Fix My Pitch” Coaching: Helpful, But Not Scalable
If you’ve ever gotten a call that starts with, “We have an important meeting tomorrow — can you help us polish the slides?” you know this one.
I get it all the time.
And don’t get me wrong, I’m happy to help.
In fact, you can have two of my go-to “fix my pitch” resources.
Ad hoc coaching can work wonders in the short term. With the right tweaks, a researcher can deliver a much stronger presentation.
But it’s reactive, not developmental.
Each time, the staff or coach ends up rebuilding the same foundation:
what to say, how to say it, and what the audience cares about.
Furthermore, that approach keeps the researchers on the sidelines, swooping in only to deliver a presentation, and doesn’t tap into all the ways that they can contribute as true collaborators.
The result?
You get a few better meetings, but no lasting capability.
You’ve fixed the symptom, not the system.
4. The Bypass: Training Everyone But the Researchers
Some organizations, exhausted by the struggle to get researchers engaged, try a different kind of fix: they go around them.
They invest in training for commercialization staff or postdocs to “speak for” the researchers, or they use AI tools to generate summaries, slide decks, and talking points — all in the hopes that someone else can carry the message to industry.
It feels efficient in the short term, but it quietly reinforces the core problem.
When researchers are left out of the dialogue, the story of the technology loses authenticity, depth, and momentum.
AI, of course, can play a powerful supporting role. In fact, my programs include custom AI tools that I’ve created to help researchers prepare for engagement — researching potential partners, surfacing audience insights, or brainstorming the kinds of questions they might be asked.
The key is that the tools don’t replace the researcher — they equip them.
No amount of briefing material can replace the credibility and insight that come from the people who created the work.
Why These Methods Feel Helpful — But Don’t Create Change
Here’s the irony:
All of these approaches work beautifully for what they were designed for.
- Entrepreneurship programs build founders.
- Science communication workshops build clarity.
- Ad hoc coaching builds confidence.
- And bypass tactics build speed — but only temporarily.
But none of them build activation.
They don’t address the root challenge of researcher under-engagement: it’s not a lack of skill, it’s a lack of alignment.
Until researchers understand their role in the commercialization process and feel equipped and valued in that role, no amount of training (or avoidance) will change how they show up.
That’s why most offices see small improvements followed by a return to old patterns.
The intervention wasn’t wrong — it was just incomplete.
From Training to Activation: What Actually Works
The solution isn’t to stop offering training.
It’s to shift the goal — from teaching information to transforming participation.
That’s what the RAMP Method was designed to do.
Instead of asking researchers to think like entrepreneurs or communicators, RAMP helps them think like partners.
Let’s break down what that means:
- Researcher Role gives them clarity: “Here’s what’s expected of me, and here’s how I contribute to success.”
- Audience Awareness builds empathy: “Here’s how industry sees the world and what they care about.”
- Messaging Mastery builds confidence: “Here’s how to frame my work in a way that connects.”
- Powerful Presentations build consistency: “Here’s how I show up ready, responsive, and professional every time.”
When researchers internalize those four pillars, they no longer need constant coaching.
They start to lead conversations instead of waiting to be invited.
That’s activation, and it’s where the bottleneck finally widens.
Why This Shift Matters Now
Uncertainty in federal research funding, growing expectations for economic impact, and increased pressure for industry partnerships mean the stakes are higher than ever.
The institutions that will lead in this environment are those that treat communication and collaboration as core research competencies, not optional extras.
That means preparing researchers not just to innovate in the lab, but to engage effectively at the table.
The Takeaway: Stop Fixing, Start Activating
If you’re investing in programs that produce great content but not lasting engagement, it’s time to rethink the model.
The next generation of research leaders won’t succeed because they know how to pitch.
They’ll succeed because they know how to partner.
And that’s the difference between training and transformation.
The Next Step: Diagnose, Then Activate
Now that you know what works and what doesn’t, you can stop wasting time and money and start taking the right actions.
The next step is to determine exactly where you have the most opportunity.
That’s what the Commercialization Catalyst Assessment is for.
In this 30-minute session, we will:
- Map your Researcher Activation levels across all four RAMP pillars.
- Identify your strengths and opportunities.
- Generate a tailored action plan.
Because Great Research Deserves Greater Impact.
Dr. Angelique Adams is the CEO of Angelique Adams Media Solutions and Director of the Leadership in Engineering and Entrepreneurship Program at the University of Tennessee. She helps universities, national labs, and research organizations accelerate commercialization by activating their researchers through the RAMP Method.