Renowned Czech-French writer Milan Kundera stated, “Business has only two functions—marketing and innovation.” These two pillars are interconnected. Marketing serves as the crucial bridge to the target audience and drives revenue growth, while innovation is the heart and pulse of any successful business. However, in the Philippines, the journey from innovation to market success is often fraught with challenges, revealing a complex paradox.
By way of illustration, consider Dr. Mananaliksik. He is confident that his revolutionary battery technology would be an instant success because it was energy-efficient, adaptable, and significantly more effective than existing alternatives. He anticipated that with the shift in focus and the rise of global demand for sustainable energy solutions, commercialization seemed inevitable.
Years later, his technology remained stuck in the research phase. Investors hesitated, industry partners were uncertain, and despite the product’s clear value proposition, no one stepped forward to adopt it. Market entry seemed to be a long way to go. This perplexing disconnect between market readiness and technological potential reflects a broader issue affecting many research and development (R&D) institutions—the commercialization paradox. Recent findings from studies on Department of Science and Technology (DOST) research and development institutions (RDIs) shed light on this challenge. The data reveal that market demand alone does not significantly affect commercialization success. Even though it plays a critical role, it is often overshadowed by two other factors: technology attributes and intellectual property (IP) protection.
The Unexpected and Unforeseen
Roadblocks to Commercialization
It seems logical that when a product meets an urgent market need, it should ultimately find its way into users’ hands. Yet, as Dr. Mananaliksik’s hypothetical case shows as evidenced by extensive literature, the reality is far more complex. Studies highlighted several systemic constraints impeding the commercialization of innovations from public RDIs in the Philippines. Beyond these, there are three main problems that the commercialization process must overcome:
First, uncertainty due to the technology’s novelty poses a major problem. Breakthrough technologies, being novel, create profound hesitation for partners and investors. They have to deal with things they don’t know, such as whether the market will accept them, how much money they need to start making new products, how long it will take to develop them, and the fact that there aren’t any good risk benchmarks to compare them to. This risk aversion, stemming from uncharted territory, can stall promising progress.
Second, weak or complex IP protection acts as a formidable deterrent. Ambiguous ownership, unenforceable patents, or rigid licensing terms often deter partners. Securing IP rights entails costs and complex legal issues, which make things much harder and often go beyond what a public institution can handle. The industry requires IP that is easy to license, transparent about who owns it, and secure.
Third, a persistent lack of sustained industry collaboration makes these problems even worse. RDI outputs frequently don’t align with specific industry needs, creating a fundamental mismatch between innovation supply and market demand. Limited early interaction means promising technologies, like Dr. Mananaliksik’s, might be developed without significant input from the market. These factors collectively contribute to the Commercialization Paradox, the more innovative a technology, the more support it needs, yet its novelty leads it to face resistance.
Revisiting and Rethinking Local Commercialization Frameworks
This paradox has serious implications for policymakers, research institutions, and innovators alike. If we expect science and technology particularly those that are funded by the government to solve society’s most pressing challenges, we must ensure breakthrough innovations can move beyond the lab. Strategies included: first, stronger linkages to industry. RDIs must build robust, long-term relationships with stakeholders through co-development models, innovation hubs, industry immersion programs and the likes, reducing uncertainty. Second, proper and effective IP education and awareness are necessary. Researchers require training in IP management, and institutions need streamlined patenting processes with accessible legal assistance, thereby incentivizing IP protection as a research and development output.
Third, tailored commercialization support is paramount. Public RDIs must create distinct strategies for complicated, high-risk inventions, including dedicated funding for proof-of-concept, support for regulatory approval, or commercialization grants. A one-size-fits-all approach fails novel innovations. Finally, fundamental policy reformation is imperative. National innovation policies must actively evolve to support IP-heavy or high-risk innovations through tax incentives, patent enforcement support, and public-private partnerships. The Philippine Innovation Act, the Innovative Start-up Act, and the Philippine Development Plan (NEDA 2023) are positive initiatives; however, their execution demands continuous improvement.
The Country Needs Support
in Its High-Impact Innovations
Ultimately, the commercialization of technologies should not be left to chance. Institutions, policy-makers, and government agencies must recognize that the characteristics that make a technology revolutionary are also the ones that make commercialization difficult. Instead of treating technologies like any other invention, they should be given specialized, contextualized, and continuous assistance throughout their entire journey from ideation to widespread market adoption. Dr. Mananaliksik’s story, though hypothetical, is one such case not confined to the Philippine context but is also happening all around the world. Countless innovations remain dormant in laboratories. It is not because they lack value, but because the path to market is obstructed by misaligned systems and outdated commercialization models. If we are serious about solving 21st-century challenges, we need 21st-century innovation frameworks – the ones that don’t just reward market-ready products.
Marion Ivy D. Decena is currently taking her doctorate in Business Administration at De La Salle University. She is also the Director of Technology Application and Promotion, the technology transfer and commercialization arm of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST). Her research interests include intellectual property (IP), commercialization, and valuation focusing more on government-funded research. She can be reached at marion_decena@dlsu.edu.ph.
The views expressed above are the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official position of DLSU, its faculty, and its administrators.
