Sdílet
28. listopadu 2025
When Roman Badík returned to CEITEC Masaryk University a year ago to take up the role of Deputy Director, he came from the environment of a biotechnology company where key decisions can often be made within a single day. Academia, with its multiple layers of governance, operates on a very different timeline. Today, he aims to draw on his experience from the private sector to streamline decision-making in science, strengthen internal communication, and open an institutional discussion on the economic sustainability of research. In this interview for Universitas, he explains why he wants the university to operate more agilely, how CEITEC is preparing for closer links with practice, and why he sees commercialisation as a natural part of academic life.
It has been a year since you returned to CEITEC Masaryk University (MU) after working in the private sector, most recently as CEO of the biotechnology company Enantis. What did you initially notice through your “business lens”?
What struck me most was the complexity of decision-making processes. In a company, if you agree with the owners or shareholders, you can implement the decision the next day. In academia, everything takes much longer – proposals go through several levels of review, and the process can easily take weeks or months. At the beginning, I found it quite challenging. I have learned to work with it, but I still see it as an area with great potential. I would like public research institutions to be able to react more flexibly and respond more quickly to new opportunities. Processes that are within CEITEC MU’s control should be simpler, faster, and digitalised.
Many might assume your first changes would focus on budgeting or competencies. Yet you started with communication. Why?
Because no organisational change works without functional communication. I saw no direct and reliable information channel between the management and employees. I wanted to eliminate “kitchen rumours” and give people confidence that information comes quickly, directly, and from the right source. In an institute of five hundred people, that is not self-evident. Setting up transparent and reliable communication channels was therefore essential. Only with those in place could we begin to address organisational changes and the complex challenges the institute faces.
“I saw no direct and reliable information channel between the management and employees. I wanted to eliminate “kitchen rumours” and give people confidence that information comes quickly, directly, and from the right source.”
What specific steps have you taken in communication?
We introduced regular quarterly meetings, for now at the level of administrative staff. At these meetings, I summarise what we have achieved, what is currently being addressed by the management, and what our plans are. People can ask questions, raise concerns, or engage in discussion. It is important that they can participate – not only listen.
We also created a new Microsoft Teams communication channel for real-time updates from management to administrative staff. We are now testing the involvement of laboratory managers, who sit between administration and researchers and can help facilitate the flow of information. In the long term, we would like to introduce a single channel for all staff, but before communicating with five hundred people at once, we want to test processes on a smaller scale – our roughly ninety-member administrative team.
And the communication isn’t one-way, right?
Exactly. Alongside the information channel, we created a community channel open to everyone. Employees can ask questions, share ideas, or organise activities. And the community really is alive – we have held a charity bazaar in the atrium, launched our own kiosk that we occasionally stock also with products made by our colleagues, and sometimes go for a run together. When people get space to take initiative, the community starts to grow naturally.
Which other area has undergone significant changes?
We streamlined the organisational structure. We drew on data from an internal survey conducted before my arrival, but I did not want to implement the recommended changes mechanically. I first needed to be sure that the recommendations made sense in practice. We eventually introduced them step by step, and we will continue evaluating their impact. Despite the initial surprise, the reactions have been positive – colleagues seem to have accepted the changes and are beginning to see their benefits. My closest team has also changed, but this is similar to the private sector: I need to have a high-quality team around me that I can rely on so that we can tackle complex challenges together.
Which area was the most difficult to address?
The biggest challenge so far was preparing new budgeting rules that reflect the amount of space used by each research group. Previously, this factor was not considered at all. As our facilities will expand next autumn with new laboratories and offices in the BioPharma Hub, we needed to think ahead – to ensure that the new premises are financially sustainable. It is not an easy process because it affects every research group, but thanks to open communication and cooperation across all administrative departments, we were able to present a proposal that has been positively received. My team deserves a lot of credit for that. From 2026, we will have new, transparent and predictable budgeting rules that support CEITEC’s long-term sustainability.
As a former CEO, you're accustomed to evaluating economic performance. How has that shaped your work at CEITEC?
The new budgeting system looks at the economic contribution of each research group – not only at publications or prestige of grants, but also at how much overhead expenses the group generates and how much it costs us in terms of centrally paid space. It may sound strict, but financial sustainability is essential for further development. Academia typically evaluates scientific performance primarily from a professional point of view; we add an economic dimension. Without that, planning the institute’s future would be nearly impossible.
“In the new budgeting rules, we examine not only scientific quality but also how much a group generates and how much it costs.”
Funding science is an ongoing challenge. How does commercialisation fit into this picture?
Research funding depends heavily on public resources and competitive grants, both of which are limited and highly competitive. We therefore look for additional ways to strengthen financial stability – and commercialisation is one of them. We want commercialisation to be seen positively, even in basic research, and to have motivational potential. This is why we embedded it into the new career framework as an equal academic path. A research group may have a dedicated subteam focusing on knowledge transfer without being penalized in its scientific evaluation. On the contrary – successful transfer should be rewarded just like high-quality publications or grants.
How do you work with knowledge transfer in practice?
Every group has some transfer potential, but not everyone recognises it. Researchers focus primarily on basic science, so it is understandable that commercial or application-oriented opportunities are not always visible to them. Therefore, we collaborate with the university’s Technology Transfer Office and, more recently, with experts from the innovation agency JIC. They help identify promising results and provide specialised advisory support. The final decision, however, always rests with the group leader, as it affects the strategic direction of the whole team.
"We want commercialisation to be seen positively, even in basic research, and to have motivational potential."
Shouldn’t commercialisation be introduced earlier to young scientists?
Absolutely. Together with JIC and the Faculty of Medicine, we launched the Life Science Transfer Academy for PhD candidates and postdocs in the life sciences. The goal is to encourage them to think like entrepreneurs and consider building their own spin-offs. We also linked commercialisation with newly defined profile research topics with societal impact – for example infectious diseases, targeted therapies, new therapeutics, or synthetic biology. Within these themes, smaller research units may form and later become the basis for spin-off companies.
We began preparations in the spring and launched the pilot academy in September. The programme runs in English to be accessible to international researchers, and interest is high – ten of the sixteen participants come directly from CEITEC.
“Together with JIC and the Faculty of Medicine, we launched the Life Science Transfer Academy for PhD candidates and postdocs in the life sciences. The goal is to encourage them to think like entrepreneurs and consider building their own spin-offs.”
Are you also looking for new funding sources beyond grants and commercialisation?
Yes. We want to take inspiration from Canadian and US universities and engage private donors more systematically. That is why we support the establishment of a university-wide endowment fund that could help finance top-level research and infrastructure in the future. Such a system requires long-term work with the university brand and its community. It is important for people who pass through CEITEC to leave with a good experience and stay connected with us – whether they later become scientists, managers, or entrepreneurs.
A new law was passed this year requiring research organisations to have a strategy for transferring knowledge into practice. Is CEITEC ready for this?
Yes, our strategy is being developed even without any direct pressure from the law. Everything we have discussed – the career system, collaboration with transfer experts, and support for spin-offs – will form its natural basis. The aim is to create an environment where transfer can thrive without researchers feeling that talent is being “taken away” from their labs. That is why we want transfer potential to be explored within research groups, in the context of their profile topics.
What comes next?
Turning such a big ship takes time. The changes we introduced need space to show their impact. Now comes a period of implementation and continuous evaluation. We are already discussing plans for 2026, but it is too early to share details. What makes me happy is the openness of our colleagues – they are not afraid to offer constructive feedback and bring their own ideas. That is not a given in every institution. Such a culture of openness and collaboration is, in my view, the best foundation for long-term success.
Roman Badík, MPA
- Studied European Studies at Palacký University Olomouc; earned his MPA in Research, Development and Innovation Management in 2018.
- Part of the founding CEITEC team between 2011–2015, focusing on international research projects.
- Head of the Research Office at Masaryk University from 2016–2019.
- CEO of Enantis, a Masaryk University spin-off, from 2019–2024.
- Since 2024, Deputy Director of CEITEC MU for Administration and Secretary of the University Institute, responsible for all financial and operational matters.
Autor/ka
Odborný kontakt
Secretary, Deputy Director for Administration, Head of Administration Section
Osobní profil