Why task world class researchers with commercialisation?
Australia’s landmark R&D review is grappling with how to prioritise research impact over output volume, but misses a fundamental question that cuts to the heart of our innovation problem: do we understand the different skills required for research excellence versus commercial translation?
This question matters. When academic experts, investment professionals, and government officials gather to solve commercialisation challenges, solutions reflect their own professional competencies. The theoretical assumption is research quality determines commercial success. Research experts suggest better industry partnerships. Investment professionals recommend more capital allocation mechanisms. What’s missing are the commercial professionals, those with the experience of translating innovation into market success.
Different jobs require different skills. Both are vitally important for a sophisticated economy, yet consultations assume these competencies are interchangeable. This blind spot has created a systematic failure to translate Australian discoveries into national competitive advantage, leaving decades of stranded research hidden in our world class institutions.
Foundational skills
Academic core competencies are built through years of specialisation in scientific methodology and research rigour, publication and peer review processes, grant acquisition and academic networking, long-term fundamental research planning, and institutional governance. Researchers optimise for publication impact, citation metrics, and academic reputation. Success means advancing human knowledge through rigorous investigation and scholarly collaboration.
Commercial translation core competencies centre on customer discovery and market validation, product-market fit assessment under competitive pressure, commercial due diligence and risk assessment, revenue generation and P&L accountability, international market entry and scaling strategies, and technology integration with existing commercial operations. Commercial professionals understand that market success requires sustained customer focus, competitive positioning, and financial accountability.
Investment skills focus on capital allocation and risk assessment, portfolio management and investment analysis, due diligence processes and financial modelling, and exit strategy development. Investment professionals optimise for return on investment, portfolio performance, and capital efficiency through sophisticated financial analysis.
The competency gap isn’t subtle. Research institutions excel at advancing Technology Readiness Levels through systematic investigation. Commercial organisations excel at translating technologies into market value through customer-focused development. Investment professionals excel at capital allocation and financial risk management. Expecting research institutions to develop commercial translation capabilities is like expecting commercial companies to conduct peer review for academic publication.
Risk and Reward
Academic risk management focuses on reputation protection and publication success, operates with long-term research horizons and patient funding cycles, measures success through publications, citations, and peer recognition, manages failure through peer review and academic discussion, and optimises performance for research advancement and institutional credibility.
Commercial risk management focuses on market opportunity assessment and commercial viability, operates with short to medium-term commercial horizons and revenue accountability, measures success through customer satisfaction, revenue growth, and market penetration, manages failure through rapid pivoting and market responsiveness, and optimises performance for competitive advantage and financial sustainability.
Academic risk frameworks are designed to maximise research integrity. Commercial risk frameworks are designed to maximise market opportunity. These frameworks are fundamentally incompatible, and without recognising the incongruence, can create invisible barriers that stifle collaboration. The same can be said for performance metrics.
Academic performance metrics include research output quality and peer-reviewed publications, citation impact and academic reputation, grant acquisition and research funding success, student outcomes and institutional rankings, conference presentations and peer recognition, and tenure track progression and career advancement.
Commercial performance includes revenue generation and profitability, customer acquisition and retention rates, market share growth and competitive positioning, time to market and scaling efficiency, international market penetration and export development, and economic impact and job creation.
Australian Evidence
Current research performance measurement actively discourages commercial engagement. Researchers are rewarded for publications, not economic impact. Career progression is tied to academic metrics, not commercial outcomes. Risk tolerance focuses on research integrity, not market opportunity. Time horizons are measured in research cycles, not commercial scaling requirements.
The Australian Research Council’s own analysis reveals this disconnect. Despite substantial investment in resources technology research generating over 1,200 patents, no systematic measurement exists of commercial outcomes: products created, companies scaled, revenue generated, or jobs sustained.
Australian research is genuinely world-class. The challenge is that academic accountability systems are structurally incompatible with commercial objectives.
International comparison
Leading innovation economies recognise this competency distinction and design policy accordingly.
The Israeli Innovation Authority requires mandatory economic impact expectations with transparent reporting, creating fundamentally different incentive structures that drive commercial outcomes. Israeli research institutions focus on research excellence while commercial intermediaries handle market translation through specialised commercial capabilities.
The German Fraunhofer Reality demonstrates that success comes not from conducting research, but from operating under commercial discipline with commercial leadership. With 70% industry-funded revenue requirements, Fraunhofer institutes are managed by executives with deep industry experience who understand customer needs, market dynamics, and commercial viability.
The Canadian Resource Sector Success shows how resource-based economies can develop sophisticated commercial intermediary capabilities. Canadian mining technology companies systematically translate research into global market solutions, generating billions in export revenue while serving international mining operations.
The New Zealand Callaghan Model provides sustained company-centric support with international market focus from inception. This approach recognises that small economy innovation must be born-global, requiring commercial expertise rather than academic project management.
The pattern is consistent: successful innovation economies leverage complementary capabilities through systematic partnerships rather than expecting individual organisations to excel at incompatible competencies.
Australian commercial leadership
There are many Australian companies big and small, who demonstrate exceptional commercial capability when technologies are developed through commercial processes.
Cochlear Limited achieved global market leadership in medical devices through commercial leadership with deep industry experience. Research priorities were determined by clinical need and market opportunity, not scientific curiosity. International market entry occurred within two years of technology development, with performance measured by market share growth and customer satisfaction, not publications. The company’s success required systematic customer discovery, regulatory navigation, and international scaling—competencies developed through sustained commercial practice.
Visy built packaging and recycling leadership through manufacturing industry experience and international market expertise. Commercial priorities were determined by customer needs and sustainable manufacturing requirements, not academic research alone. International operations developed as core business strategy from inception, with global manufacturing facilities and supply chain management. The company’s success in becoming one of the world’s largest privately-owned packaging and recycling companies required sustained commercial development, customer-focused innovation, and competitive positioning under real market pressure.
CSL Limited built biotechnology leadership through pharmaceutical industry experience and international market expertise. Market-driven research focused on commercial viability and regulatory pathway validation, with global operations as core business strategy from inception. Commercial risk management included systematic due diligence and market validation processes that drive innovation quality through customer accountability.
These companies succeeded because they recognised that commercial translation requires commercial expertise. They invested in customer discovery, market validation, regulatory navigation, competitive positioning, international scaling, and sustained market development; capabilities that develop through sustained commercial practice, not academic training or investment analysis.
Leveraging complementary strengths
The competency distinction suggests straightforward policy opportunities to leverage Australia’s existing strengths without forcing organisations to develop capabilities outside their expertise.
- Protect research institution excellence by allowing universities and CSIRO to focus on research excellence where they demonstrably excel. Protect academic institutions from commercial accountability that conflicts with research mission and institutional design. Measure research institutions through research excellence metrics that optimise their core competencies.
- Develop commercial translation partners by supporting Australian companies with proven commercial capabilities to become translation engines. Identify companies with existing customer bases, technical integration expertise, and international market access capable of sustained commercialisation. Measure commercial partners through commercial outcome metrics that optimise their market capabilities.
- Create systematic partnership frameworks that connect excellent research institutions with commercially mature Australian companies through collaboration structures that play to each organisation’s strengths. Design partnership models that recognise and support different competency requirements, rather than bundling up competency gaps into ‘innovation hubs’ for retraining and retrofitting.
- Don’t be afraid to Implement appropriate performance metrics, that evaluates partnerships through successful research-to-market translations reflecting both research quality and commercial success. Track economic outcomes including revenue generation, export development, employment creation, and international market penetration.
This recognises that innovation success depends on connecting different strengths, not expecting individual organisations to excel at everything. Australia has both world-class research capabilities and commercially mature companies across multiple sectors. The opportunity lies in better connecting these strengths through policy frameworks that play to rather than confuse their different contributions.
Core Competencies
Australia’s innovation challenge isn’t research quality, our research institutions are world-class and should remain focused on research excellence. The challenge is commercial translation, which requires commercial expertise that research institutions cannot and should not be expected to develop.
You wouldn’t ask the Reserve Bank to manage tourism promotion. You wouldn’t expect the Australian Electoral Commission to commercialise medical devices. You wouldn’t want the Bureau of Meteorology running export development programs.
Yet innovation policy routinely expects research institutions to excel at commercial translation. This is a completely different professional competency requiring different skills, different risk frameworks, and different performance accountability systems.
Current approaches fail because they misunderstand fundamental competency requirements. Forcing academic institutions into commercial roles creates systematic failure regardless of research quality or funding levels.
The solution requires recognising that different jobs require different skills. Research excellence requires academic competencies, and our researchers excel at this. Commercial translation requires commercial competencies. Both are essential for innovation success. Neither can substitute for the other.
International evidence demonstrates that successful innovation economies achieve technology export success through specialisation and systematic collaboration, not through academic institutions developing commercial capabilities they’re not designed to possess.
Australia has the research capability and commercial capability necessary for innovation success. We need policy frameworks that connect these strengths appropriately rather than forcing organisations to develop capabilities outside their core expertise.
And perhaps more fundamentally: if commercialisation requires commercial expertise, why do policy makers consistently ask professors for advice on how to deliver commercial outcomes?
Different skills. Different jobs. Both are critical success factors essential for innovation success.
Australian Innovation Exchange – Building the bridge from research to market