Developing a European guiding framework for entrepreneurial universities

Rebecca Allinson Technopolis Ltd, Brighton IEEC 2012 Conference, Plymouth

The objectives of the study

• The University-Business Forum in March 2011 formulated the recommendation to have a closer look at underlying concepts and characteristics of an Entrepreneurial Universities and to come forward with a guiding framework that would be available to universities as a concrete tool for learning and inspiration. It should provide for a comprehensive and broad approach to "entrepreneurial universities"

• The objective of the study is to develop the guiding framework in cooperation with a small group of experts in the field

• The study takes an iterative process including piloting the framework with EU HE institutions

• The output will be a tool for institutions accompanied by a set of good practice examples

2

Key to developing the guiding framework

• This guiding framework is for European Institutions who are interested in becoming more entrepreneurial

• It does not set out to define the "entrepreneurial university" but rather to enable universities to assess themselves

• It therefore needs to be • Useable • Practical • Work across Europe – across all different countries and types of

universities • Generate results which universities want to use

• The aim is to enable institutions to identify their own situation, and to identify potential areas for action should they so wish, and taking into account their local and national environments

3

European landscape of HE – key facts

• 4,000 undergraduate and postgraduate institutions • Wide variety of institutional forms, governance and funding • Almost 20 million students • 4.5 million graduates (2009) • In 2010, 26 % of the population in the EU-27 had had a higher

education qualification • EU 2020 target to raise this proportion to 40% • EU 2020 target to raise R&D/innovation spend to 3% of GDP • HE seen as central to EU innovation & global competitiveness • Bologna Process promotes harmonisation/modernisation of EU

4

The wide range of issues

• Philosophical idea of a university and what it means is changing • It is also diversifying – the definition of a HEI? • Challenges are more focused on employability and the student • Demand is therefore increasing for new skills for

employability/entrepreneurship • The challenges of internationalisation and globalisation • The squeeze on public funding • New models of engagement with other stakeholders (as well as

local and regional environments) • Pressure of measuring impact • Pressure on academic career structures/rewards and recognition

5

Diversity in institutions (Birnbaum (1983) indentifies seven categories of diversity) • Systemic diversity: institutional type, size and control found within a

higher education system; • Structural diversity refers to institutional differences resulting from

historical and legal foundations, or differences in the internal division of authority among institutions;

• Programmatic diversity relates to the degree level, degree area, comprehensiveness, mission and emphasis of programmes and services provided by institutions;

• Procedural diversity describes differences in the ways in which teaching, research and/or services are provided by institutions;

• Reputational diversity communicates the perceived differences in institutions based on status and prestige;

• Constituent diversity alludes to differences in students and other constituents (faculty, administration) in the institutions;

• Value and climate diversity is associated with differences in social environment and culture. 6

7

Questionnaire/feedback

7

Literature review

Organisation and drafting for first framework

First expert meeting

Revised framework online

Piloting with institutions

Analysis/refinement framework

Second expert meeting / Validation

Draft final framework

Final framework and launch

Document existing definitions, concepts and framework

OECD input

Use framework

Case material We are here

Issues arising

• In the literature: • Many different kinds of definitions of entrepreneurial universities –

many oriented around the third mission activities • There are many existing “models” • There are some very well designed concepts – but still little evidence

of their importance relative to each other • The concepts are not formulated in a consistent manner, nor are they

generally categorised • There are recurring central factors:

• Autonomy, steering core, funding system, culture • Entrepreneurship education and incentive systems • Relations with the regional / national environment

8

The first framework

• Five overarching areas for universities to explore • Leadership • Knowledge exchange and impact • Stakeholder engagement • Internationalisation • Entrepreneurial learning

• For each area, a series of statements with supporting information to help a universities self assess.

9

The guiding framework…..

10

11

Pilot of the framework

• Selection of pilot institutions: • The scientific orientation of the HEI • Quantitative indicators e.g. number of staff per student • Models of education and geographic coverage • The age of the university: old and new • Research and / or teaching focused universities • Ranking of the universities: mid range / top range • Public / private universities

• Based on the sampling frame we selected 137 HEIs: 128 public and 9 private institutions

• HEIs included in the pilot cover all 27 EU MSs

12

Pilot of the Framework

• Pilot with the selected institutions consists two parts: Filling the guiding framework + accompanying questionnaire for feedback

• Accompanying questionnaire covers the following issues: • Content of the guiding framework: the most important supporting

statements within each parameter and identification of missing statements • Completion of the guiding framework: target audience; resource

intensity of the completion of the framework; technical / structural issues • Usefulness of the guiding framework: the most useful features of the

online tool and what type of information would be the most helpful • Presentation of the framework: incl. whether the tool should be

available in any other languages not only in English • Future use: willingness to publish the results, case materials

13

What did we learn from this pilot

• Majority of the respondents found the tool to be useful • Most of the respondents considered it to be very practical • Most useful features of the guiding framework:

• The questions themselves • The possibility of comparing their current results with future

completions • Self-assessment is the right approach for institutions using

this guiding framework • Additional support is of interest to respondents: case materials

and publications on the subject (e.g. document library with relevant studies, case materials and also contact details )

• Not all universities will answer all sections 14

What did we learn from the pilot

• Target audience: • It is best and should be answered by central management

but there is also a need to include individuals from faculties and other departments – gathering the right group of people can take time

• Scoring • Time to complete the guiding framework:

• Usually it takes between 10 minutes and three hours, but some institutions admit to just “playing with the tool”

• This is indicated to be a reasonable amount of time - Only one institution indicated this was not reasonable

• Permission can be an issue - for some institutions

15

Combining efforts with the OECD

• OECD – LEED working on “university entrepreneurship support” • Skills for entrepreneurship project – focusing on entrepreneurship

education and start up support • Looking at university practices in entrepreneurship • Case study reviews in various participating countries • Diagnostic report for the country • Study missions in universities

• OECD developed a supporting framework for assessment purposes • Similarities:

• Common content and statements • Difference:

• Level of granularity • OECD tool is for comparison purposes (Universities can receive

learning modules for areas with low scores) 16

University Entrepreneurship Support Conceptual framework

17

The draft final version…..

18

Guiding framework

• INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT • Strategy and Governance • Resources and Infrastructure • Recruitment, Human Resource Development and Incentives

• ENTREPRENEURIAL CHALLENGES AND OUTCOMES • Entrepreneurship Teaching and Learning Support • Graduate start-up support • University – business/external linkages for knowledge exchange • The entrepreneurial university as a dynamic, proactive organisation

19

INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT

1. Entrepreneurship is a major part of the university strategy 2. The university has formal strategic objectives for its entrepreneurship education and start-up

support activities 3. There is commitment at a high level to delivering the strategy 4. The faculties and units have autonomy to act, free from central regulation 5. The institution evaluates the impact of its strategy on entrepreneurship across the institution 6. Evaluation of entrepreneurship activities is formalised and forms an integrated part of the

impact monitoring process

20

Strategy and Governance Resources and Infrastructure Recruitment, Human Resource Development and Incentives

INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT

1. The institution’s entrepreneurial objectives are supported through a wide variety of funding sources/investment, including investment by external stakeholders

2. Self-sufficiency of institutional internal entrepreneurship support is a goal 3. Minimum long-term financing of staff costs and overheads for graduate entrepreneurship is

agreed upon as part of the institution’s budget 4. A dedicated entrepreneurship structure within the university (chair, department, support centre)

is in place, which co-ordinates and integrates department-level activities 5. The institution recognises the importance of all its internal stakeholders (in its staff, students,

departments etc) and there are mechanisms in place to encourage the breaking down of traditional boundaries and fostering cross-disciplinary collaborations

21

Strategy and Governance Resources and Infrastructure Recruitment, Human Resource Development and Incentives

INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT

1. Recruitment of academic staff takes into account entrepreneurial attitudes, behaviour and experience as well as entrepreneurship support activities

2. The institution is open to recruiting and engaging qualified individuals from outside academia in positions of leadership

3. Human Resource Development for entrepreneurship education is in place 4. Human Resource Development for staff involved in start-up support is in place 5. There are clear incentives and rewards for educators, professors and researchers, who actively

support entrepreneurship 6. The institution gives status and recognition to external stakeholders who contribute to the

institution’s entrepreneurial activities

22

Strategy and Governance Resources and Infrastructure Recruitment, Human Resource Development and Incentives

ENTREPRENEURIAL CHALLENGES AND OUTCOMES

1. The university is structured in such a way that it stimulates and supports entrepreneurial learning. 2. Staff have an entrepreneurial approach to teaching in all departments 3. Entrepreneurship training for staff takes place in all parts of the institution 4. The institution supports innovative approaches to learning, such as the use of mentors, living labs,

cross disciplinary learning, entrepreneurship champions, etc 5. The suite of courses has a differentiated offer that covers the pre-start-up phase, the start-up

phase and the growth phase. For certain courses active recruitment is practiced 6. Outreach to Alumni, business support organisations and firms is a key component of

entrepreneurship education 7. The results of entrepreneurship research are integrated into entrepreneurship education and

training 8. The institution validates entrepreneurship learning outcomes 9. Regular stock-taking and performance checking of entrepreneurship education activities is

undertaken

23

Entrepreneurship Teaching and Learning Support Graduate start-up support University – business/external linkages for knowledge exchange The entrepreneurial university as a dynamic, proactive organisation

ENTREPRENEURIAL CHALLENGES AND OUTCOMES

1. Entrepreneurship education activities and start-up support are closely integrated 2. Team building for students is actively facilitated by university staff 3. Mentoring by professors and entrepreneurs is offered 4. Access to private financing is facilitated through networking and dedicated events 5. Facilities for business incubation either exist on the campus or assistance is offered to gain access

to external facilities 6. Regular stock-taking and performance checks of start-up support are carried out

24

Entrepreneurship Teaching and Learning Support Graduate start-up support University – business/external linkages for knowledge exchange The entrepreneurial university as a dynamic, proactive organisation

ENTREPRENEURIAL CHALLENGES AND OUTCOMES

1. The institutional commitment to knowledge exchange with industry, society and the public sector for research is embedded in institutional policy and practice

2. The institution provides opportunities for students to take part in entrepreneurial activities with business/external environment, including informal methods of knowledge exchange

3. The institution supports student mobility between academia and the business sector 4. The institution has strong links with incubators and science parks, creating opportunities for

dynamic knowledge exchange 5. Research, industry and the wider community's involvement are embedded in the institution’s

teaching activities (from curriculum development to delivery) 6. Teaching, industry and the wider community's involvement are embedded in the institution’s

research activities 7. Regular stock-taking and performance checks of the universities’ knowledge exchange activities

are carried out

25

Entrepreneurship Teaching and Learning Support Graduate start-up support University – business/external linkages for knowledge exchange The entrepreneurial university as a dynamic, proactive organisation

ENTREPRENEURIAL CHALLENGES AND OUTCOMES

1. The institution is a driving force in its regional, social and community entrepreneurial development

2. The institution demonstrates active involvement in partnerships with a wide range of stakeholders

3. The institution explicitly supports the international mobility of its students 4. The institution seeks and attracts international and entrepreneurial teaching staff 5. The university seeks and attracts international and entrepreneurial researchers including PhD

students 6. The institution demonstrates internationalisation in the curriculum 7. The institution and its departments actively participate in international networks

26

Entrepreneurship Teaching and Learning Support Graduate start-up support University – business/external linkages for knowledge exchange The entrepreneurial university as a dynamic, proactive organisation

Questions

• Is it a valid assumption that universities are interested in reviewing themselves from the entrepreneurial point of view across these areas? • Strategies, policies, governance. • Resources, infrastructure • Recruitment, HRD, incentives • Entrepreneurship Teaching and Learning Support • Graduate start-up support • University – business/external linkages for knowledge exchange • The entrepreneurial university as a dynamic, proactive organisation

• Is this framework a good approach? • Would you use such a tool? • Can you provide interesting case material?

27

28

Thank you

For more information: Rebecca.allinson@technopolis-group.com Entrepreneurialuniversities.eu

technopolis |group| has offices in Amsterdam, Ankara, Brighton, Brussels, Frankfurt/Main, Paris, Stockholm, Tallinn and Vienna