1. Making Universities More Entrepreneurial Dr. David Woollard Special projects Manager

2. Making Universities More Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurship in universities is not new To me, issues seems to be: –broadening scope –scaling up

3. What is an Entrepreneurial University? First coined by Etzowitz (1983) to describe “institutions that are critical to regional economic development”

4. 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”

5. 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

6. Policy context Science policy Distribution of research funding Growing pressure to specialise

7. 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

8. 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

9. How do we get to the promised land? Clark (1996,1998) – 5 pathways to transformation Tailored individual entrepreneurship - Gibb (2002) Corporate Entrepreneurship Kirkby- (2006)

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. Conclusion Enterprise Education has the scope to have the greatest entrepreneurial impact on the economy and society

15. 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

16. MODERATORS Management Initial commitment to entrepreneurship Desire for change Organisational Context Dominant culture Resistant staff External Context Funding regimes 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 MODERATORS Management Investment appraisal systems Risk assessment systems Outcome targets Commercialisation infrastructure Organisational Context Structural flexibility/rigidity External Context Government pressure to commercialise MODERATORS Management Recruitment and staff development policies Organisational context Scope to invest Institutional focus External context Perceptions of institution among external academics 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 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 OUTCOMES Financial returns Diversified funding base Strategic Choice (autonomy) Entrepreneurial culture 3S FEEDBACK LOOP 3S ANTECEDENTS Management support (Kuratko et al and Clark) Rewards/reinforcement (Kuratko et al) Work discretion/autonomy (Kuratko et al) Expanded development periphery (Clark) INTEGRATED THEORETICAL MODEL OF 3S UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURSHIP – (Woollard,2010)