Search

This paper develops insight into the way in which twenty-first century universities worldwide have performed in the changing world and challenges that they have undergone, in order to address the ever-changing demands of the global knowledge-based economy within the innovative ecosystem. It firstly reviews current theory and practice on entrepreneurial universities. It also analyses the current dispersion of science outside academia, via laws, policies and processes of marketization more broadly. It addresses governance issues which are relevant for both researchers and policy makers, and lastly, sketches the contours of a new research and policy agenda for entrepreneurial universities via reformulating their “third task”. The issues and questions on this agenda provide focal points in discussions and policy debates on the current state and governance of the ‘entrepreneurial’ university. They reflect the importance of (1) rethinking the relation between publicly funded universities cooperating with private parties, (2) the kind of professionals delivered to society by universities, (3) the role of universities as entrepreneurs in innovation ecosystems, (4) the relation between societal relevance and commercial relevance of research, (5) implications of increased dispersion of research activities outside academia, and (6) the independence of academics cooperating with private partners in research projects.

Contains fulltext : 78570.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) The recent failure to deliver the Lisbon agenda has led to much soul-searching within Europe (cf. The Sapir Group, 2005). This failure has enlarged the gulf between the limited number of successful knowledge regions, and those regions for whom globalisation has brought further anxiety, job losses and economic restructuring. More recent Lisbon-inspired policies have therefore attempted to build linkages between successful ‘knowledge islands’ and other, outlying and peripheral places, so that all these areas can benefit from concentrations of European knowledge and innovativeness.

This paper addresses the question of how organisations can foster high technology businesses in an incubation-type environment. We compare the approaches taken by a large private firm with a successful University entrepreneurial program to outline successful elements in creating a successful high tech business incubation environment. By outlining similarities and differences of the two cases, this paper provides practical insights how to foster high technology businesses.

Mentoring is often used by business development programs to assist startups. In this paper we look at the perceptions of protégés and mentors about this process, hereby different business development programs in Europe were incorporated. It was hypothesized that there is a relationship between contact frequency and amount of support delivered to the protégé. This hypothesis was partly supported. Furthermore we hypothesized that if the amount of support is higher that the positive associated outcomes like trust and benefits to the protégé also will be higher. This hypothesis was mainly supported for the benefits of the protégé. Last also the relation between short and long term outcomes was hypothesized. The research showed that there is a relation between the benefits and the profoundness of the relation in the long term. The corresponding implication for program managers are discussed below.

This research examines how the construction industry adopts alternative transport technologies. This paper presents the general characteristics of the adopter and what his perceptions are towards innovative transport technologies. The study focused on four rates of innovation, related tot alternative transport technologies. The results show that 83% of the respondents choose innovation over no innovation; more than half of the respondents choose an innovation that can be characterized as “architectural”. Further, the perceived benefits of the innovation characteristics for an incremental innovation are higher then the perceived benefits for an architectural or radical innovation. Finally, from the ventures that chose to innovate, smaller companies prefer an architectural - more challenging - innovation rather then an incremental innovation.

The contribution has three parts. In the first part the concept of academic entrepreneurship is explained, defined and put into the context of the entrepreneurial university. In the second part four cases are described: - (1) The Nikos case at the University of Twente: In Nikos teaching, research and spin-off activities are combined into one research institute. - (2) The NICENT case at the University of Ulster: NICENT is set up under the Science and Enterprise Centre activities in the UK. It focuses on education and training of students (undergraduates, graduates and post-graduates) and the stimulation of academic entrepreneurship in the academic constituency. - (3) The S-CIO case at Saxion Universities for Applied Sciences: In 2004 Saxion set up this Centre to have a one-stop shop for all entrepreneurial activities at the University. - (4) The Chair in Technological Entrepreneurship at Tshwane University: The focus of the Chair is on education of (under)graduate students in (technological) entrepreneurship and on the stimulation of entrepreneurship in the wider community. Each case has its own specific angle on academic entrepreneurship and in the thrid part the four cases are compared and analysed according to the model presented in the first part. Finally, some conclusions are formulated regarding the organisation of effective academic entrepreneurship.

This research examines how the construction industry adopts alternative transport technologies. This paper presents the general characteristics of the adopter and what his perceptions are towards innovative transport technologies. The study focused on four rates of innovation, related tot alternative transport technologies. The results show that 83% of the respondents choose innovation over no innovation; more than half of the respondents choose an innovation that can be characterized as “architectural”. Further, the perceived benefits of the innovation characteristics for an incremental innovation are higher then the perceived benefits for an architectural or radical innovation. Finally, from the ventures that chose to innovate, smaller companies prefer an architectural - more challenging - innovation rather then an incremental innovation.

This chapter presents an overview of the main characteristics of the higher education system in the Netherlands. Section 2.1 presents some key facts about the system as a whole (types of institutions, number of students, degrees). Section 2.2 discusses the different types of higher education products, that is teaching and research. Section 2.3 presents a description of policymaking with respect to higher education and shows the different policy networks where policies are discussed and initiated. Section 2.4 is about the funding of higher education while section 2.5 discusses institutional collaboration. The final section (2.6) reflects on the regional dimension in Dutch higher education policy.

Higher education institutions - universities, technological universities, and universities of applied sciences - are expected to respond to societal challenges. One mode of response is academic engagement with society, which is captured as ‘the integration of society into the research process’. Academic engagement describes activities such as consulting and joint research, in which academics collaborate with societal stakeholders, for instance, individual citizens or organizations like non-governmental organizations, hospitals, and churches. Academic engagement with society is dependent on academics’ motivation which are studied in this dissertation guided by the research question: ‘How can motivation for academic engagement with society be explained?’ Following an explanatory mixed method approach, four empirical studies are conducted analysing data collected in good practice cases, surveys, and interviews. This dissertation explains motivations and regulations underlying academics’ engagement with society on the organizational and individual level. Theoretically, it contributes by providing insight in how self-determination theory is suited as a research framework for explaining academic engagement with society. Practically, this dissertation offers recommendations on motivational strategies to create an impetus for academics to engagement with society, which are especially relevant to higher education institution managers who are expected to guide academics to engage with society. This dissertation further opens avenues for future research on motivations explaining academic engagement with society.

Experiential and socially-situated learning theories suggest that practice should be introduced in the business curriculum through a pedagogy based on four blocks that closely represent managerial practice. First, managerial learning experiences should be based on (1) ill-defined problems because this is the type of problems that best captures the complexity of managerial practice. Similarly, learners should not only articulate but act in the world. They must (2) execute their business solutions in real life. Additionally, learners must (3) closely interact with an authentic professional environment to absorb the nature of that practice. Last, (4) reflection is necessary to transform experience into learning. As an outcome of this pedagogical design, students shall acquire knowledge, skills, and attitudes. While the relevance of these four blocks as representations of managerial practice is well-grounded in learning theory and managerial practice, three issues require further examination. (1) To what extent are these four blocks present in the business school curriculum? (2) What competencies does a learning environment comprised of these four building blocks promote and are these competencies transferred to professional practice? (3) How precisely do these four building blocks function to promote managerial competencies in students? The first question is addressed in a conceptual paper exploring how the three most popular approaches for introducing practice into the business curriculum—case method, internships and PBL—incorporate the four blocks. Results suggest that none of these three approaches incorporates all of them but PBL provides the most prone environment for adaptation. The retrospective nature of the case method prevents students from executing their solutions or interacting with the environment where the problem originated. Internships deliver action yet relying heavily on the will and the interest of external organisations to be educational. This can result in learning experiences that trap the learner into an employer-driven or instrumental agenda that does not require solving ill-defined problems or performing critical reflection. Differently, in PBL, the real world problems come to the students and not the other way around. This enables the business school to have more control over the learning experience. I can select problems that are relevant and ill-defined; ensure that students work under the supervision of an experienced lecturer and safeguard that action is carefully supported by reflection. The second research question is addressed based on the case of the Management Experience Programme (MEP), in which the design is in line with the four building blocks. MEP alumni were asked open questions that explored what they have learned during MEP and if learning outcomes were transferred to professional practice. Results show that MEP fosters students’ knowledge, skills, and attitudes—competencies thoroughly transferred to practice. The third research question was also based on MEP. Students, alumni, lectures and company-representatives were asked to explain how exactly the four blocks operate to promote knowledge, skills and attitudes. Ill-defined problems set the stage, where learners interact with theory and with each other to envisage solutions to problems that are complex and cross-disciplinary. When the solutions are executed, initial propositions do not unfold as expected and conflict arises, forcing students to re-think their theories and surpass the contextual difficulties imposed by the external world. This process catalyses knowledge and skills fostered at the planning stage while developing attitudes like self-knowledge and self-efficacy. Connecting this problem-solving process with a real work environment allows learners to observe and interact with real practitioners, shaping knowledge and skills to meet the reality of organisational life. Last, reflection is necessary to foreground all these competencies. But not just any reflection: one based on open discussion of the experience thorough dialogue among the different parties involved (students, lecturers, organisations).

In a world of continuous change, companies’ conventional modes of doing business are being disturbed at an ever-increasing pace. Hence, scholars from the innovation and management domains are discussing innovation-induced market changes. The concept of disruptive innovation captures a portion of these changes. Disruptive innovation describes how new entrants gain a foothold in a niche market before moving upmarket and challenging powerful incumbents. From its emergence in the mid-1990s, the concept of disruptive innovation was first theorised with a focus on technology. Since 2006, the debate has shifted focus, and the business model is acknowledged as the decisive vehicle that spurs related market dynamics. Given the complexity of disruptive innovation, this thesis builds on multiple theoretical streams to further extend our understanding of companies’ strategic management choices in the face of disruptive innovation. An integration of elements from business model innovation, strategic alliances, platform development and growth, and dynamic capabilities enables a complementary picture of the levels of disruptive innovation. This research is guided by the following question: ‘how do companies manage business model innovation along the process of disruptive innovation?’ Following a sequential mixed methods approach, this research uses publications, interview data, archival data, and survey data. Chapter 2 presents a consolidation of lessons learned from previous waves of disruption. It furthers understanding of disruptive innovation by reviewing disruptive business models that have been discussed in the academic literature. Based on a qualitative content analysis, a classification framework proposes five archetypes: 1) matchmakers, 2) standardisers, 3) service providers, 4) open collaborators, and 5) performance reducers. Chapter 3 adds to discussions on theorising the entrant as a proactive strategic actor. Drawing on the strategic alliance literature, the chapter explores how entrants strategically configure an alliance portfolio to pursue a disruptive path despite an interplay with incumbents. Based on longitudinal research, the development trajectories of two disruptive entrants in the German fashion retail and insurance industries are studied. The findings demonstrate how entrants engage in early network building by configuring an alliance portfolio with partners unaffected by the disruption. Furthermore, how entrants have used the power of their alliance portfolios to combine social and timing defence mechanisms to manage the interplay with incumbents and guard against dissuading influences is discussed. In Chapter 4, the discussion of the entrant as a strategic actor is extended. Specifically, dynamics involved in developing and growing a multi-sided disruptive platform are investigated. The longitudinal study proposes three mechanisms through which the entrant leverages relationships with its multiple platform sides. 1) ‘Guarded inception’ involves collaboration with a knowledgeable partner unaffected by disruption to overcome the chicken-and-egg problem quickly. 2) ‘Activating force multipliers’ entails the strategic orchestration of complementors contractually tied to the entrant and working to extend the entrant’s value network. Enabled by these two mechanisms, the entrant is 3) ‘building on others’ to develop the platform along a disruptive path while circumventing internal limitations and external resistance. Chapter 5 presents a general model in which relationships are integrated, as has been called for in disruptive innovation debates. According to survey data on German companies, it can be suggested that value proposition innovation activities regarding new offerings and channels fully mediate the relationship between dynamic capabilities and disruptive innovation. This thesis explores under-theorised facets of the disruptive innovation phenomenon while supporting attempts to generalise more established theoretical statements further. In addition to contributing to the construction of a theory of disruptive innovation, the thesis delivers prescriptive guidelines for corporate managers and entrepreneurs on how to manage business model innovation. This work thus paves the way for further studies on disruptive innovation, ultimately fostering this emerging intellectual field.