The impact of research should not always be measured by whether it becomes a business or generates commercial profit. Different research can take different paths and have different definitions of success, depending on the purpose and the benefits it is meant to deliver.
That was the point made by Eko Agus Prasetio, Deputy Dean for Academic Affairs at SBM-ITB, during a discussion titled “Measuring, Maintaining, and Expanding Research Impact” at Menara Kompas, Jakarta, on Tuesday (September 8, 2026).
Eko argued that commercialization is certainly one way for research to create impact, but it should not be treated as the only definition of impact. Research that builds a business, addresses a social problem, or develops strategic infrastructure can all create value, but their success cannot necessarily be judged by the same standards.
His view was based on research involving seven case studies and 18 interviews with technology commercialization practitioners at ITB. One of the examples he highlighted was KAZEE, a social media analytics company that started as a venture involving three students and eventually grew into a company with more than 70 employees.
Vent-I tells a very different story. The portable ventilator was developed during the Covid-19 pandemic but did not continue as a business. Still, the project raised Rp12.5 billion through crowdfunding and delivered 1,050 units to 11 referral hospitals.
“If success is measured by whether a startup is still operating after its funding ends, Vent-I would be recorded as a failure. Yet it actually had one of the most concrete impacts,” Eko said.
For business-oriented research, Eko said, success can be seen through business growth, market adoption, and the ability to survive beyond the funding period. Research driven by a social mission, on the other hand, may be better measured by what it leaves behind, such as lives saved or losses prevented.
Research aimed at building strategic infrastructure requires yet another set of measures. These could include reducing dependence on imported products, creating industrial value, and strengthening institutional resilience. This is why, Eko said, research funding schemes should not force every type of research into the same definition of success.
Researchers, he added, should explain their theory of change from the beginning. This would help clarify how a research project is expected to create impact and allow its success to be assessed according to its original purpose.
The ability to create impact, however, does not rest entirely with researchers. The organization receiving the technology also needs to be ready to absorb and apply it.
“Research may have been successfully transferred, but its impact may still fail to materialize if the recipient is not ready to absorb it,” he said.
For Eko, expanding research impact therefore requires more than simply creating more technology transfer offices (TTOs) or business incubators. What is needed is an ecosystem that recognizes that research can create different kinds of impact, over different periods of time, and through different pathways.
Meanwhile, Director of Science and Technology Dissemination and Utilization at the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, and Technology (Kemdiktisaintek), Yudi Darma, said research in Indonesia still has not created enough impact. One of the problems, he said, is that the ecosystem for utilizing science and technology remains fragmented.
“The ecosystem for utilizing science and technology remains fragmented and divided into separate parts. There is little interaction and participation from the public in research activities,” Yudi said.
Yudi said this situation needs to change so that research does not end with academic publications. An internal Kemdiktisaintek survey conducted at the end of 2025 found that nearly 50 percent of lecturers identified solving real problems in society as their main motivation for conducting research.
At the same time, 77 percent said publications were aimed at improving their reputation and academic careers, including pursuing positions such as professorships. The findings suggest that an output-based mindset remains deeply rooted in research activities.
Kemdiktisaintek has since introduced several programs to encourage the utilization of research findings, including Suryakanta and Berdikari, involving research teams, vocational higher education institutions, industries, and micro, small, and medium enterprises.
In the end, the real measure of research impact should be what it changes in the real world, not simply how many papers are published, patents are registered, or businesses are created. What matters is whether the knowledge and technology produced can continue to be used, create value, and reach the people and institutions that actually need them.
