Transcript What is an Entrepreneurial University?

Making Universities More
Entrepreneurial
Dr. David Woollard
Special projects Manager
Making Universities More
Entrepreneurial
• Entrepreneurship in universities is not new
• To me, issues seems to be:
– broadening scope
– scaling up
What is an Entrepreneurial University?
First coined by Etzowitz (1983) to describe
“institutions that are critical to regional economic
development”
What is an Entrepreneurial University?
Third Mission (1998)
“To be an integral part of regional economic
development”
Ergo – “entrepreneurial universities are those that
effectively deliver on the third mission”
What is an Entrepreneurial University?
• Etzkowitz’ original definition related to “research
intensive” universities
• Current dominant view (especially held by policy
makers and funders) is that the “third mission” is
about the commercialisation of science
• Therefore, entrepreneurial universities are those that
produce patents and spin-out companies
Policy context
• Science policy
• Distribution of research funding
• Growing pressure to specialise
Problems with this approach
• Science represents a (significant) minority of overall university
activity – what do the rest of us do?
• Push for spin-outs but major problems of attracting STEM
students
• Strategy is questionable. For example:
– Only 7 US universities made net return on patenting
– 90% of returns from handful of patents
– Spin-outs rarely grow into large businesses (Laredo, 2007)
• What about technology adopters?
• Commercialisation of IP represents less than 15% of GDP in the
UK
Problems with this approach
• Even Etkowitz later recognised the need for a
broad engagement (mid and low tech firms)
• Economic development should be stimulated
through a range of engagement activities
• Business Schools and Enterprise Centres can be
used to serve both agendas
How do we get to the promised land?
• Clark (1996,1998) – 5 pathways to transformation
• Tailored individual entrepreneurship - Gibb (2002)
• Corporate Entrepreneurship Kirkby- (2006)
Characteristics of an entrepreneurial
university
•
•
•
•
Management support
Rewards/reinforcement
Work discretion / autonomy
Expanded development periphery
From Woollard (2010) based on Corporate and University
Entrepreneurship Literature
Still have a big issue with the approach
•
•
•
•
•
Introspective
Universities are very diverse
Most do not have “strong” science base
Policy instruments are blunt
Wider entrepreneurial impact rarely considered
Entrepreneurial Impact
• Universities can have major entrepreneurial
impact without necessarily being an
entrepreneurial organisation
• Biggest impact on economy and society of any
university is its through graduates
Entrepreneurial Impact
• Creating commercialisable IP
• Patent licensing and spin-out companies
• Supporting the creation of non-IP based
companies
– Students and staff through enterprise programmes
and incubators
– Start-up support for the wider community
• Assisting existing businesses
• Developing enterprising graduates and staff
Conclusion
Enterprise Education has the scope to have the
greatest entrepreneurial impact on the economy
and society
3S Theory – Woollard (2010)
Management efforts need to focus on generating
entrepreneurial activities that are:
– Systemic – widely distributed
– Significant – of a scale to make a difference
– Sustained – become accepted norm of behaviour
INTEGRATED THEORETICAL MODEL OF 3S UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP – (Woollard,2010)
3S FEEDBACK LOOP
INPUTS
Funding at institutional and
project level
Entrepreneurs
Commercialisable core
competencies
Time availability
UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Organisational process driven by
Systemic, Significant, Sustained
entrepreneurial behaviour through performing
actions to:
Find and evaluate opportunities
Endorse, refine and shepherd opportunities
Identify, acquire and deploy resources
MODERATORS
Management
Recruitment and staff
development policies
Organisational context
Scope to invest
Institutional focus
External context
Perceptions of institution among
external academics
MODERATORS
Management
Initial commitment
to entrepreneurship
Desire for change
Organisational Context
Dominant culture
Resistant staff
External Context
Funding regimes
3S ANTECEDENTS
Management support (Kuratko et al
and Clark)
Rewards/reinforcement (Kuratko et
al)
Work discretion/autonomy (Kuratko
et al)
Expanded development periphery
(Clark)
OUTPUTS
Individual level
Financial rewards
Professional development
Impact on career
Institutional level
New products/services
Spin-out companies
Wider market penetration
Competitive advantage
New structures/systems
Better service capability
MODERATORS
Management
Formal incentive systems
Scale of external interaction
Numbers of staff involved in
entrepreneurial projects
Devolved budgeting
Organisational Context
Size of institution
Institutional focus
Number of research centres
Structural flexibility/rigidity
Adaptable systems
External Context
Economic environment
Policy environment
Existing collaborative arrangements
OUTCOMES
Financial returns
Diversified funding base
Strategic Choice
(autonomy)
Entrepreneurial culture
MODERATORS
Management
Investment appraisal systems
Risk assessment systems
Outcome targets
Commercialisation
infrastructure
Organisational Context
Structural flexibility/rigidity
External Context
Government pressure to
commercialise