Four Common Fixes for the Commercialization Bottleneck — and the One That Works
Hidden Bottleneck Series
Editor’s Note
This article is part of a five-part series, Eliminating the Hidden Bottleneck in Research Commercialization. The series examines why promising licensing and partnership conversations stall—and how Commercialization CatalystTM activates researchers to restore momentum.
If you missed it, start with 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 is well-intentioned—but each misses 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, and 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 Department of Energy-funded startup accelerator at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. I’ve seen firsthand 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 often feels misaligned.
Participants learn business models, customer discovery, and product–market fit. They gain exposure to real-world market dynamics and develop commercial instincts.
But for the vast majority 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 those researchers are placed in entrepreneurship programs, here’s what often happens:
- They disengage halfway through because the content feels irrelevant
- They struggle to connect it 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 common 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 solid fundamentals: structure, clarity, and evidence-based communication.
The problem?
They optimize for understanding, not engagement.
When you’re speaking to a funding agency or conference audience, clarity is the goal.
When you’re speaking 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 polished explanation of a mechanism or material is still the wrong message if it doesn’t connect to a partner’s need.
In fact, science communication training can sometimes make the problem worse—because it reinforces the instinct to talk more about the science, when the real breakthrough comes from talking about the problem the science solves.
3. Ad Hoc “Fix My Pitch” Coaching: Helpful, But Not Scalable
If you’ve ever received a call that starts with,
“We have an important meeting tomorrow—can you help us polish the slides?”
you know this one.
I get those calls all the time.
And don’t get me wrong—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
- What the audience actually cares about
Worse, this approach often keeps researchers on the sidelines—bringing them in only to present—rather than engaging them as true collaborators throughout the process.
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 engage researchers, try a different tactic: they go around them.
They invest in training commercialization staff or postdocs to “speak for” the researchers. Or they rely heavily on AI tools to generate summaries, slides, and talking points—hoping someone else can carry the message to industry.
It can feel efficient in the short term.
But it quietly reinforces the core problem.
When researchers are removed from the dialogue, the story of the technology loses authenticity, depth, and momentum.
AI can absolutely play a powerful supporting role. In fact, my programs include custom AI tools designed to help researchers prepare for engagement—by researching potential partners, surfacing audience insights, and anticipating business questions.
The key is this:
The tools don’t replace the researcher—they equip them.
No amount of briefing material can substitute for the credibility and insight of the people who created the work.
Why These Methods Feel Helpful—But Don’t Create Change
Here’s the irony:
- Entrepreneurship programs build founders
- Science communication workshops build clarity
- Ad hoc coaching builds confidence
- Bypass tactics build speed—temporarily
But none of them builds activation.
They don’t address the root issue: low researcher engagement isn’t a skill gap—it’s an alignment gap.
Until researchers understand their role in commercialization—and feel equipped and valued in that role—no amount of training (or avoidance) will change how they show up.
That’s why organizations often see small improvements followed by a return to old patterns.
The interventions weren’t wrong.
They were 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 exactly what Commercialization CatalystTM is designed to do.
The program is powered by the RAMP Method, which helps researchers show up as partners—not entrepreneurs or presenters.
RAMP builds engagement readiness through four pillars:
- Researcher Role – clarity on expectations and contribution
- Audience Awareness – understanding how industry sees the world
- Messaging Mastery – framing work in ways that connect
- Powerful Presentations – showing up prepared, responsive, and professional
When researchers internalize these pillars, they no longer need constant coaching.
They start leading conversations instead of waiting to be invited.
That’s activation—and it’s where the bottleneck finally widens.
Why This Shift Matters Now
With uncertainty in federal research funding, rising expectations for economic impact, and increased pressure for industry partnerships, the stakes have never been higher.
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 better 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 Before You Fix
Now that you know what works—and what doesn’t—the next step is to pinpoint where engagement is breaking down in your organization.
The Researcher Engagement Readiness Scorecard helps you do exactly that.
In about 5 minutes, it allows you to:
- Map researcher engagement readiness across the four RAMP pillars
- Identify strengths and gaps
- Focus your effort where activation will unlock the most momentum
Because great research deserves greater impact
Dr. Angelique Adams is CEO of Angelique Adams Media Solutions and Professor of Practice at the University of Tennessee. She helps universities, national labs, and research organizations accelerate commercialization through Commercialization CatalystTM powered by the RAMP Method.