Listening to the Market: The Key to Avoiding Commercialization Bottlenecks
Nguyen Dang Tuan Minh
In recent years, the phrase research commercialization has moved beyond academic conferences and become a recurring topic in high-level policy discussions. In Vietnam, it is no longer an issue confined to engineering universities or a handful of application-oriented laboratories. Instead, it has evolved into a broader question about the purpose of scientific research itself: Are we conducting research merely to publish papers, or to solve real-world problems facing society and the economy?
This shift is by no means unique to Vietnam. Around the world, universities and research institutes have undergone a similar transformation in mindset. The traditional model of research first, application later is gradually giving way to a more pragmatic approach - one that places market needs at the center of the research process. This emerging philosophy is commonly known as market-driven research.
It is important to clarify from the outset that this approach does not diminish the importance of fundamental research. No one expects scientists to abandon basic science in favor of becoming salespeople. Rather, what is changing is how we perceive the role of researchers and universities in society. Knowledge is no longer viewed solely as something to be published in academic journals; it is increasingly expected to travel beyond the laboratory and generate tangible value - as products, services, public policies, or meaningful improvements in people's lives.
From “Research for Publication” to “Research for Use”
For decades, universities - both in Vietnam and in developed countries - have largely measured research success through academic reputation: journal publications, patents, and citation counts. This model has undeniably helped build national scientific capacity and intellectual prestige.
Yet it also has a limitation. A great deal of scientifically valuable research never moves beyond papers or project reports because it is not closely connected to the real needs of end users.
Market-driven research begins with a very different set of questions: Who will use this research? Would they be willing to pay for it? If so, why?
Instead of waiting for companies to knock on the laboratory door, research teams proactively explore the market, interview users, engage with businesses across the value chain, and validate demand. They do not simply wait for commissioned projects - they move first.
This approach asks scientists to step beyond their familiar role as creators of knowledge and experiment with another role:
creators of value. For many serious researchers, that shift is a far greater challenge than it may initially appear.
When the Laboratory Is No Longer the Final Destination
In the United States, the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) I-Corps program, along with initiatives such as SBIR, has fundamentally transformed the way scientific research is commercialized. Research teams participating in I-Corps are required to engage directly with the market, speak with dozens of potential customers, and confront a straightforward question that many of them may never have encountered at an academic conference: “Do I really need this?” The objective is not to turn scientists into salespeople, but to help them realize that what they consider an “important application” may not necessarily be what the market values most. This process may lead to product refinement, changes in research direction, or even abandoning the original idea in pursuit of a different challenge with clearer economic and societal potential.
Academic research is the foundation of knowledge and must be protected as a strategic national asset. Market-driven research does not negate this; it simply builds a bridge that allows knowledge to cross the river and enter everyday life. A strong innovation ecosystem is one that accommodates both approaches, rather than forcing one to become a replica of the other.
Similarly, in South Korea, the government not only funds research but also becomes involved at a very early stage in answering the question: “Who will use this technology, and where does it fit within the value chain?” They establish a tripartite collaboration among scientists, businesses, and investors from the idea stage onward. Rather than allowing technology to remain in the laboratory before attempting to “market” it, they bring businesses to the table from the very beginning.
In Australia and the United States, universities such as the University of Melbourne and The Ohio State University have adopted a dual-path commercialization model. One path follows the traditional route of intellectual property protection, technology licensing, and the creation of spin-off companies. The other is more flexible, connecting researchers with businesses at a very early stage, even before the product has been fully defined. Not every research project needs to establish a company immediately; in some cases, a collaborative pilot development project with industry is sufficient to generate impact.
Many middle-income countries - including Egypt, the Philippines, and Kenya - are establishing university intellectual property offices, commercialization mentoring programs, and small seed funds to help researchers move through the stage from laboratory → prototype → initial market entry. What these countries have in common is that they regard knowledge transfer as a public mission rather than merely an opportunity to generate revenue.
Comparative data show that this approach is more than just a philosophical concept. Universities adopting a market-oriented approach typically create more than three times as many spin-off companies, generate five times more licensing revenue, and achieve research-to-real-world application rates that are two to three times higher than those of traditional models focused primarily on academic publication. In other words, when the market is listened to from the outset, the path to commercialization is far less likely to become bottlenecked at the final stage.
The Key Differences Between the Two Approaches
If the differences between the traditional and market-driven mindsets had to be summarized, they could be described as follows.
Under the traditional approach, research typically begins with the scientist’s own research idea. Success is measured by the number of publications, patents, and citations. Businesses, if they become involved at all, usually appear only at the end of the process - as recipients of technology transfer, licensors, or adopters.
Under the market-driven approach, the starting point is a specific need identified by users or industry. The questions “What is the real problem?”, “Who is experiencing this problem?”, “Why has it not yet been solved?”, and “Would they be willing to pay to solve it?” are asked from the very beginning. Success is no longer measured solely by publications, but by the ability to generate tangible impact, including revenue, the number of spin-off companies, high-quality jobs, or even measurable improvements in social challenges such as environmental protection, public health, and food security.
The process is also different. The traditional model tends to follow a linear sequence: Research → Application. The new approach follows an iterative cycle: Research → Validation → Market Feedback → Refinement. In other words, products are no longer developed in isolation and unveiled only after completion as a “technological declaration.” Instead, they are refined repeatedly through ongoing dialogue with real users.
As a result, the pace of commercialization also changes. When the market is involved from the beginning, products tend to reach society more quickly - not because corners are cut, but because costly trial-and-error cycles at the end of the process are significantly reduced.
Most importantly, these two approaches should not be viewed as opposing camps. Academic research is the foundation of knowledge and must be protected as a strategic national asset. Market-driven research does not negate this; it simply builds a bridge that enables knowledge to cross into society. A strong innovation ecosystem is one that embraces both approaches rather than forcing one to become a copy of the other.
Vietnam: Policy Momentum Has Begun, the Remaining Question Is How to Implement It
In Vietnam, the 2025–2030 period is being framed within a new policy mindset. The 2025 Law on Science, Technology and Innovation, together with Resolution 57 on science and technology, innovation, and digital transformation as three drivers of economic growth, all emphasize the need to
align research with market capabilities. Decree No. 271/2025/ND-CP is regarded as an important enabling step, allowing benefit-sharing mechanisms among scientists, universities, and industry partners; expanding institutional autonomy; and encouraging technology transfer through equal partnerships rather than one-way project handovers.
Drawing on international experience as well as emerging domestic models, several practical and relatively low-cost measures can be identified to help foster cultural change.
First, build market research capability within universities.
It is unrealistic to expect scientists who are accustomed to laboratory work, ISI publications, and project evaluation reports to naturally communicate fluently with industrial customers. Skills such as listening to market needs, understanding industry trends, and identifying business pain points are all skills that can be taught. In many countries, I-Corps-style training has been incorporated directly into postgraduate and postdoctoral programs as a mandatory component for researchers seeking product development funding.
Second, establish clear and fair benefit-sharing mechanisms.
If scientists are expected to participate in commercialization, they must be appropriately recognized - not merely through acknowledgements in project reports. Profit-sharing mechanisms for technology transfer, intellectual property licensing, and equity in spin-off companies must be transparent, easy to understand, and sufficiently attractive to encourage participation. This is not simply a matter of money; it is also a matter of professional respect.
Third, involve businesses at the beginning of the research process.
Rather than treating businesses as technology buyers, they should be regarded as co-designers of research problems. Businesses understand where production, processing, logistics, and international standards create bottlenecks, and they can help research teams avoid pursuing directions with little prospect of practical application. The tripartite model involving scientists, businesses, and investors, as practiced in South Korea, offers a practical reference for Vietnam, particularly in areas such as deep-processing agriculture, advanced materials, and applied biomedicine.
Fourth, pilot a Vietnamese version of the I-Corps program.
Research teams should receive initial seed funding not to conduct additional experiments, but to engage with the market. They should speak with real users, gather genuine feedback, and refine their product hypotheses accordingly. Only those teams that demonstrate genuine market demand should receive subsequent rounds of funding for technology development. Although this approach may appear demanding, it is essentially a risk-reduction mechanism for both the government and universities, allowing greater investment in projects with stronger prospects for success.
Fifth, cultivate the mindset of scientists as potential founders.
This does not mean requiring every academic to establish a company. Rather, it means recognizing that a laboratory can become the starting point of a science and technology enterprise, and that scientists should have the opportunity to step beyond purely academic roles to become co-founders, senior scientific advisors, or even the public face of a technology during negotiations with industry partners. In many countries, universities provide legal liability protection as well as legal and branding support, enabling scientists to engage with industry in a safe and secure manner. This is a subtle yet deeply humane form of institutional support.
We often speak about innovation with great enthusiasm, as though everything could change within a single political term or a single budget cycle. Yet what we have observed in the United Kingdom, the United States, and South Korea tells a slower and more enduring story. University College London spent nearly ten years investing in spin-outs with little meaningful revenue, while continuing to fund its commercialization team. The university remained patient because it understood that it was building foundations rather than chasing short-term performance.
As one technology transfer director at UCL once remarked: “It took us 30 years to come a long way.” At first glance, the statement may sound pessimistic, but it is in fact a reassuring reminder: commercialization is not an overnight miracle. It is a shared learning process through which universities, businesses, and society discover how knowledge can be transformed into lasting value.
If Vietnam truly wishes to enter an era in which science serves not only as a source of national pride but also as a source of competitive strength, the path forward lies not only in policy documents. It lies in gradually changing established habits: bringing scientists out of the laboratory to engage with the market; bringing businesses into the laboratory to speak honestly about their needs; and accepting that periods without revenue are a normal part of creating long-term impact.
Knowledge truly comes alive only when it steps beyond the laboratory. The rest - patience, perseverance, and a measure of mutual trust - is a responsibility shared by us all.