The need for the entrepreneurial transformation of academic institutions into ‘entrepreneurial universities’ was first identified by Burton Clark (1998). Clark (1998) completed a comprehensive case study of universities which had developed the ability to adapt to changes in the external environment and transform to become more entrepreneurial. The external challenges include the demands of industry for an increasingly diverse skillset among graduates coupled with the expectation of government of increased student numbers at a lower cost. Clark identified academic institutions as particularly resistant to change with transformation of this
84
nature requiring champions from across all sections of the campus. The Clark (1998) model focuses on the process of a university becoming entrepreneurial and identifies five elements required:
(i) A strengthened steering core
(ii) An expanded developmental periphery
(iii) A diversified funding base
(iv) A stimulated academic heartland
(v) An integrated entrepreneurial culture.
Further work by Etzkowitz (2004) expresses the entrepreneurial university in terms of its relationship with its triple helix partners:
1. Interaction –its ability to interact with triple helix partners, 2. Independence – its ability to retain its academic freedom
3. Hybridization - its ability to realize both interaction and independence with its triple helix partners
4. Reciprocity- its ability to continually evolve internally as the relationship with industry and government
Etzkowitz (2008) developed a framework of the entrepreneurial university comprising four parts, or pillars:
1.academic leadership
85
3. entrepreneurial ethos
4. legal control over resources.
Guerrero et al. (2006) in their literature review on the entrepreneurial
university, reviewed theoretical models and empirical studies. Their model is based upon previous contributions from Clark (1998), Sporn (2001),
Etzkowitz (2004) and Kirby (2006). The environmental factors which
influence effective entrepreneurship within universities are classified formal and informal. Their findings, i.e. factors affecting creation and development of entrepreneurial universities are shown (Figure 2.13):
Figure 2.13: Factors affecting creation and development of Entrepreneurial Universities (Guerrero et al., 2006)
Kirby et al. (2011) propose further development of this model in term of influencing factors on the development of an entrepreneurial university and the outcomes of these processes in terms of teaching, research and
86
Figure 2.14: Conceptual framework of entrepreneurial universities (Kirby et al., 2011)
Salamzadeh et al. (2011) builds upon the Guerrero (2006) model and utilise systems theory and present a systematic approach using the IPOO Model (Input-Process-Output-Outcomes Model) (Figure 2.15). Salamzadeh et al. (2011) see the framework as dependent on its environmental factors and context.
87
Figure 2.15: Systematic framework for Entrepreneurial Universities (Salamzadeh et al. (2011)
Guerrero and Urbano (2010) developed the conceptual model of an
entrepreneurial university to show the entrepreneurial university as a function of the environmental and internal factors involved in their creation and
development (Figure 2.16). They consider the evolution of the
entrepreneurial university from an Institutional Economics (formal and
informal factors) and Resource Base-View (resources and capabilities). This idea of the inputs and outputs related to entrepreneurial universities is
developed to show that the outcomes of an entrepreneurial university are linked with its missions; teaching, research, and entrepreneurial activities. Based on this, the conceptual model of an entrepreneurial university
integrates the environmental and internal factors involved in the creation and development of entrepreneurial universities:
88
Figure 2.16: Conceptual framework of factors involved in the transition of universities into Entrepreneurial Universities (Guerrero & Urbano, 2012)
Gibb (2012) presents a framework which considers the contribution of the entrepreneurial university to key elements of the university strategy. The framework considers the contribution of entrepreneurial initiatives to the strategic goals of developing as a learning organisation, developing
alternative revenue streams and greater innovation and research excellence through interaction with the broader entrepreneurial ecosystem (Figure 2.17). Gibb presents the framework as a potential ‘audit framework’ of a wide range of university entrepreneurial activities.
89
Figure 2.17: Key areas of university entrepreneurial potential. (Gibb, 2012)
Each of the models of the development of the entrepreneurial
university presented in this section foreground equal importance of a culture of entrepreneurship as the development of physical resources such as technology transfer offices. However, it is important to note that each university has different cultures, research traditions and priorities (Gibb, 2012). The models highlight that the entrepreneurial third mission is supported and best achieved through the combining of an entrepreneurial culture with physical resources and organisational design. The models illustrate desired outputs including the development of entrepreneurial graduates, knowledge transfer and the commercialisation of research as an additional source of funding, entrepreneurial engagement with external ecosystem and the development of entrepreneurial networks, and the
90
development of mechanisms and infrastructure supportive of entrepreneurial activity.
2.11.2 Models of academic entrepreneurship
Grimaldi et al. (2011) refers to as “academic entrepreneurship” any technology based entrepreneurial activity which results in the
commercialisation of academic research. Within academic entrepreneurship, Grimaldi et al. (2011) include the technology transfer activities of patenting, licensing, start-up creation, and university–industry partnerships.
Rothaermel’s (2007) extensive literature review of university
entrepreneurship identified four areas of contribution and an academic entrepreneurship model is developed based on these principal themes. Rothaermel (2007) identified university research, the effectiveness of
commercialisation and technology transfer offices, the ability to generate spin offs, and the development of effective entrepreneurial ecosystems as the key contributors to effective academic entrepreneurship (figure 2.18).
91
Figure 2.18: Framework of university entrepreneurship (Rothaermel, 2007)
O’Shea et al. (2007) identify, from a resource-based view perspective, the inter-related factors that have contributed to successful academic
entrepreneurship in Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a top spinoff generator in the United States. They present a model (figure 2.19) suggesting that four attributes of the university can be important in
supporting and encouraging spinoff activity. The identified attributes include:
- the science and engineering base of the university
- the quality of research by university staff
- the commitment to spinoff activity within management in the university (leadership and supporting policies)
92
- the culture within the university (Entrepreneurial Orientation of the university)
Figure 2.19: Spinoff performance model (O’Shea et al., 2007)
2.11.3 Models considering socioeconomic impact of the entrepreneurial university
Urbano and Guerrero (2013) develop their work on the entrepreneurial university to consider the socioeconomic impact of activities supportive of academic entrepreneurship within entrepreneurial universities. The entrepreneurial university is considered a natural incubator of new
93
development. Based on institutional economics, the resource-based view, and endogenous growth theory, the model identifies the need for knowledge capital and entrepreneurial capital to realize the socioeconomic outcomes related to the activities of the entrepreneurial university (teaching, research, and entrepreneurial but, particularly, academic entrepreneurship). The possible socioeconomic impacts of the entrepreneurial university based on these determinants are presented in terms of realizing competitive
advantage and productivity gains as an institution and regional benefits through improved GDP and social benefits.
Urbano and Guerrero (2013) focus very much on the traditional areas where universities can add value and subsequently financially exploit that added value through technology transfer, licencing and the development of spin out companies. They highlight how in the Catalonian universities, there is a policy directed at improving the capabilities in these specific areas. Interestingly, the research highlights the importance of universities
supporting the development of entrepreneurial capabilities, not only within the university but also within the companies and firms that the universities engage with. They also note the importance of the history and culture of the university as a determinant of the success of the entrepreneurial activities of the institution. However, the research affords less attention to the nature of university government engagement and the role of universities as supports of governmental economic strategy (Pugh et al., 2016).
94
2.11.4 Models which evaluate the impact of entrepreneurial activities