Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [Queensland University of Technology]On: 20 November 2014, At: 17:14Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Higher Education Policy andManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjhe20
Business plan competitions intertiary institutions: encouragingentrepreneurship educationRoslyn Russell a , Mary Atchison a & Robert Brooks ba RMIT University , Melbourne, Australiab Monash University , Melbourne, AustraliaPublished online: 26 Jun 2008.
To cite this article: Roslyn Russell , Mary Atchison & Robert Brooks (2008) Business plancompetitions in tertiary institutions: encouraging entrepreneurship education, Journal of HigherEducation Policy and Management, 30:2, 123-138, DOI: 10.1080/13600800801938739
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13600800801938739
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Business plan competitions in tertiary institutions: encouragingentrepreneurship education
Roslyn Russell*a, Mary Atchisona and Robert Brooksb
aRMIT University, Melbourne, Australia; bMonash University, Melbourne, Australia
The development of entrepreneurial skills and knowledge is a priority forgovernments that want to encourage an innovative and enterprising society.Furthermore, education institutions are becoming increasingly required byemployers to produce graduates that have practical, real-world skills. Businessplan competitions, although primarily aimed at producing start-ups, have beenfound to provide a range of benefits to participants, the most important being thedevelopment of entrepreneurial skills, access to mentors, opportunity fornetworking and increased self-confidence and risk-taking propensity.
Keywords: business plan competitions; entrepreneurship education
Introduction
Globally, there is a growing emphasis on encouraging entrepreneurship and
innovation as a means to foster economic health. In Australia, especially over the
past decade, there have been strong recommendations from the federal government
for education providers to put in place more programmes to develop the
entrepreneurial capacities of future Australian business managers (Karpin, 1995).
In 2000, the National Innovation Summit called for greater integration of
entrepreneurial skills development into the education system. This paper will
demonstrate how entrepreneurial skills and attitudes can be developed effectively
through the use of business plan competitions in a tertiary institution setting.
As part of the current Backing Australia’s Ability policy 2001–2011
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2001, 2004) the Australian federal government has
invested over $8 billion to promote innovation. One programme arising from a
recommendation of Backing Australia’s Ability, the Promoting Young Entrepreneurs
programme, was established to facilitate programmes to encourage young people
to develop entrepreneurial skills. A number of universities, including RMIT
University, Melbourne, have received seed funding under this programme to assist
them to start business plan competitions. In addition, the federal government
recently announced the Enterprise Learning for the 21st Century initiative, which
aims to promote enterprise programmes for the school, vocational educational and
community sectors.
Although a significant measure of the success of the government’s investment
into programmes that foster entrepreneurship and innovation is, of course, growth in
the number of new businesses, other less tangible outcomes are also important. A
study conducted on behalf of the Department of Industry Tourism and Resources
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
Vol. 30, No. 2, May 2008, 123–138
ISSN 1360-080X print/ISSN 1469-9508 online � 2008 Association for Tertiary Education Management and the
L H Martin Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Management
DOI: 10.1080/13600800801938739
http://www.informaworld.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 17:
14 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
that investigated the impact of business plan competitions in Australia found that
the competitions have the potential to enhance the education experience of the
participant by developing entrepreneurial skills, self-confidence and propensity for
risk-taking, and providing valuable networks (Russell et al., 2004). Competitions
that offer mentoring, team-building activities and entrepreneurial skill-basedworkshops equip students with transferable knowledge and skills that are valuable
to them as nascent entrepreneurs or as highly sought after employees.
This paper draws from the data from the Department of Industry, Tourism and
Resources (DITR) study but focuses on how it relates to and informs business plan
competitions in the tertiary education institution setting. The paper provides an
overview of the purpose and nature of business plan competitions; background
literature on the value of business plan competitions to learning and to the
institution: the methodology of the study; results and discussion that illustrates therole of competitions and their impacts on participants and on the university; and
concludes with recommendations for establishing best-practice business plan
competitions for the higher education sector.
Purpose and nature of business plan competitions
Business plan competitions around the world have been established to provide astimulus for new venture creation and for capturing the ideas, talents and potential
in the community, especially that of tertiary education students. Many of the
competitions not only provide the opportunity to win seed money to start new
ventures but also provide a means of developing the skills and contacts required for
these new ventures to be successful.
There are a number of features common to the larger business plan competitions.
Features include significant corporate sponsorship, substantial prize money (the
Cambridge University Entrepreneurs Competition, for example, awards £100,000, andmany US competitions offer US$50,000 or its equivalent in prizes) and significant
prizes in kind (such as business incubation and free professional services awards).
Education programmes (credit-bearing and non-credit bearing), skills development
programmes and access to the business community through networking opportunities,
mentors and judges all provide enormous benefits to participants and host institutions.
Two models, (the MIT 50K Entrepreneurship Competition and MOOT CORP),
could be considered ‘benchmark’ competitions because of the influence that they
have had on competitions around the world. These two competitions were suggestedas models for the development of new business plan competitions funded through
the Australian federal government’s National Innovation Awareness Strategy
(NIAS) ‘Promoting Young Entrepreneurs’ initiative. For further details and
information on these competitions see their respective web sites: http://
50k.mit.edu/index.php and www.mootcorp.org.
Many Australian business plan competitions have been based upon the MIT and
Moot Corp models (Russell et al., 2004), albeit on a smaller scale. The research
reported on in this paper focuses on Australian business plan competitions and thebenefits that accrue to participants and institutions in the higher education sector.
Business plan competitions in higher education
Business plan competitions contribute to the range of programmes offered in higher
education institutions to promote and develop entrepreneurial and innovative
124 R. Russell et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 17:
14 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
attitudes and behaviour in students. The preparation of a business plan for the
creation of the new venture requires discipline, specific skills and knowledge to
develop the new product or service, as well as business skills and industry knowledge
to negotiate the path to market.
Many competitions are described as ‘university-wide’, meaning that they are
designed to attract students from across the spectra of disciplines and sectors offered
by the institution; others are designed to raise the profile of a certain industry sector
or particular education segments, such as the MBA market (Russell et al., 2004;Streeter et al., 2002). The majority of business plan competitions appear to be multi-
and cross-disciplinary in their conception and do not necessarily fit the traditional
discipline-based curriculum.
The educational contexts of business plan competitions are both action learning
and work-integrated learning with participants managing their own learning through
the choice of learning experiences offered to them through the competition. Judges
of competitions consider the merit of the business plan in terms of the expression of
industry and market relevance and currency, its logic and commercial viability rather
than the discipline, level or sector of the participants. Judging takes place in thecontext of the marketplace and not in the context of the institution.
The challenge for the education institution
Education institutions do not necessarily choose, or have the flexibility in the
curriculum or in their existing infrastructures, to implement a business plancompetition into the curriculum. Regardless of whether the business plan
competition is credit bearing or not, its implementation requires significant thought
and planning in educational design and delivery. Any learning that occurs outside
the traditional realms will present challenges (Boud & Solomon, 2001) but will lead
to greater rewards for the student, ‘equipping them to be continuing learners and
productive workers through engagement with tasks that extend and challenge them,
taking them beyond their existing knowledge and expertise’ (Boud, 2001, p. 38).
The challenge for institutions is to invest in entrepreneurship and innovation
programmes without any clear evidence at this stage of their return on investment.The MI50K Entrepreneurship Competition cites the impact of its competition to
include: the birth of over 60 companies with an aggregate value of $10.5 billion
dollars, which have generated 1800 jobs and received $175 million dollars in Venture
Capital funding.
In the opinion of Etzkowitz (2002), based on the MIT experience is that
universities need to take on new roles:
The university’s unique status as a teaching, research and economic developmententerprise, whose traditional and new roles reinforce each other, places it in a centralposition in the new economy … As the universities’ involvement in the capitalization ofknowledge increases, their position in society is transformed from a secondary to aprimary institution … Even as the university retains its traditional functions ofconservation and production of knowledge, socialization of youth and dissemination ofresearch, it becomes a founder of firms in incubator facilities, playing a new role informing organizations. (Etzkowitz, 2002, p. 150)
New roles, new programmes, new relationships and people all require a context
in which to flourish. It will be important for institutional managers to create
environments where innovation is championed, expected and rewarded if they are to
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 125
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 17:
14 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
join industry and governments with an equal voice. Key features of a supportive
environment for innovation include the organizational culture that values pro-
activity and capacity to change; the hiring of innovative people; appropriate and
timely rewards; the encouragement of cross-pollination of ideas; and support for the
innovators (Harvard Business Essentials, 2003, p. 40–43; Latchem & Hanna, 2001,
p. 32–40).
Learning through participation in business plan competitions
Although they do not necessarily form part of the formal teaching and learning
curriculum, business plan competitions do offer a broad range of learning
opportunities that links university learning to workplace learning. Business skills
workshops, team-building, mentoring, judges’ feedback, and networking together
provide a range of contexts in which to view and explore discipline-specific
knowledge in an experiential and motivational learning environment.
Business plan competitions can also be seen as a model of work-integrated
learning. They provide opportunities for students to develop generic skills, as well as
knowledge capabilities, through engagement in the real world of work contexts
noted above (Atchison & Gotlieb, 2004; Streeter et al., 2002). The synthesis of
knowledge and skills that can take place through active participation in the business
plan competition experience is important for the development of the graduate
capabilities, which are so highly valued by educational institutions, governments and
industry (Bowden & Marton, 1999; Stephenson & Weil, 1992; Weisz, 2001).
The key educational elements of a business plan competition would appear to
replicate the characteristics of rich teaching/learning contexts, noted by Biggs (1999,
p. 73) as ‘a well structured knowledge base; an appropriate motivational context;
learner activity; interaction with others’.
The richness of the learning environment can be seen in Table 1, where the
characteristics noted by Biggs are related to the fundamentals of the model Business
Plan Competition.
Table 1. Characteristics of rich learning environments provided by business plan competitions.
Characteristics of a rich learning
environment Features of business plan competitions
Well-structured knowledge base # Education in specific business planning skills, as well as general
entrepreneurial insight
# Content-rich feedback on their business model from world-class
entrepreneurs, investors and professional service providers on
the judging panel
Appropriate motivational context # Prizes (cash and in kind)
# Broad media exposure and public relations buzz
Learner activity # The development of a commercially viable business plan
Interaction with others # Access to members of the private equity community
# Team-building opportunities to create a winning team of
founders
# Networks of world-class entrepreneurs, investors and potential
partners
# Mentorship by successful and seasoned professionals
126 R. Russell et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 17:
14 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Learner activity
The learner elects to be involved in the development of a business plan around a new
idea for a product or service for a new or existing venture. Participation provides theopportunity to be involved in a range of activities that are offered through the
competition and which are designed to assist participants to understand and fill the
gaps between their idea and a commercially viable business plan. A difficult
component for participants is in understanding the knowledge gap between their
idea and a judge’s or the market’s view of a business plan.
The well-structured knowledge base
The ‘well-structured knowledge base’ comprises a series of structured workshops and
seminars that are offered within the calendar of the competition. They are designedto complement participants’ disciplinary knowledge and assist them to learn the
basic skills to develop a business plan from the initial bright idea to a fully developed
document that maps and validates the path of the idea to its launch and running of
the business. Industry experts generally deliver these workshops or seminars on
themes that include: skills for entrepreneurs; idea generation and screening; business
planning; marketing; the business plan financials; and intellectual property. The
seminars assist in both building the knowledge base and providing participants with
interaction with others from across the institution, as well as from organizations andindustries that they may not usually have access to.
Seminars and workshops are sometimes open to the wider community of the
institution and some topics may also be available as credit-bearing courses towards
an academic award. Some competitions offer academic credit for participating in the
business plan competition itself, and, in this case, the knowledge base must be
considered to be the total experience of bringing a business focus and structure to an
idea that may well have its origin in another discipline and knowledge base.
Appropriate motivational context
The competition, the prizes and the resultant publicity provide the motivationcontext for the participants. For many, this means balancing the load of work and
study with the addition of the development of the business plan to fit the time frames
of the competition.
Interaction with others
Business plan competitions are designed to bring people together for the purpose of
creating a context in which an idea might be developed and tested in a supportive
and non-threatening environment. Networking, team building and mentoring
provide a range of opportunities for learning through interaction with others.The terms ‘coaching’ and ‘mentoring’ appear, at times, to be used interchange-
ably in the literature. Nevertheless, Megginson and Clutterbuck (2005) and
Cunningham et al. (2004) agree that coaching relates to tactics and can be focused
on the teaching or development of a specific skill or set of skills in a specific time
frame, whereas mentoring relates to understanding and developing the potential of
an individual over time. Whether the actual relationship is one of coaching or
mentoring, it is clear that the ‘mentoring’ programmes in business plan competitions
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 127
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 17:
14 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
provide participants with a range of benefits, which include industry expertise,
industry networks, a knowledgeable sounding board, advice and provision of
feedback and role models (Megginson & Clutterbuck, 2005). Mentors and coaches
can also provide a different learning perspective to participants. Mentors can extend
and challenge participants and take them beyond their existing knowledge and
expertise (Boud, 2001).
Methodology
A study of business plan competitions was undertaken on behalf of the Department
of Industry, Tourism and Resources (DITR) to explore the role and impact of
business plan competitions operating in Australia in the higher education, corporate
and government sectors (Russell et al., 2004). Although the study investigated a
number of aspects, such as the nature and impact of ventures arising from all
competitions, this paper will focus on the educational benefits gained from
participants involved in a business plan competition.
Survey method and response rates
The study included surveying the organizations that conducted business plancompetitions and also past participants of competitions. To identify the organiza-
tions that have run competitions, DITR provided a list of business plan competitions
(BPCs) that they had funded over the past four years, and this was augmented by an
Internet search process to form a sampling frame for the survey. The sample
contained organizations that have and have not been sponsored by DITR in the
past. In total, 35 current competitions were identified and grouped, as detailed in
Table 2, comprising 22 universities, eight TAFEs and five corporate/government
programmes. Eighteen of the respondents are currently or have in the past receivedfunding from DITR.
Questionnaires were distributed via postal survey to the identified 35 business
plan competition organizers and we had a useable response rate of 22 (67 per cent) in
total, whereby 11 questionnaires were returned from universities (52 per cent).Table 2 provides a breakdown of the response rate.
Past participants were sent questionnaires through the organization.1 Eight
organizers agreed to forward the participant questionnaire. This cannot be regardedas a formal probability sampling technique because the number of email addresses
Table 2. Response rate by organization type.
Organization type
Competitions
targeted (n)
Organizations unable
to respond (because
of newness of
competition) (n)
Questionnaires
completed (n)
Effective
response rate
(%)
Universities 22 1 11 52
TAFE 8 1 7 100
Corporations/Government-run
programmes
5 0 4 80
TOTAL 35 2 22 67
Source: Russell et al. (2004).
128 R. Russell et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 17:
14 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
on the list is unknown but, more importantly, the proportion of email addresses that
are still used actively is impossible to determine. Many student email accounts
become inactive upon graduation, or they may remain active but are infrequently or
never used. A total of 73 useable responses from six organizations were received back
via email and mail. There were 51 participants in student competitions and 22 in
corporate/government competitions.
Amongst the university and TAFE competitions, some are targeted at specific
discipline areas, whereas others are open to all students. Not all competitions were
able to supply information on the breakdown of students from each faculty;
therefore, these proportions should be regarded as indicative only. Table 3 gives a
breakdown across eight of the university and TAFE competitions that were able to
provide details.
Hospitality ranked highly because two of the TAFE competitions were
specifically run with hospitality departments. Business also ranked highly, as did
science and engineering. There were also 12 per cent ‘external’ participants, which
refers to non-students involved as participants in university/TAFE competitions.
Results and discussion
From the questionnaire responses it is clear within the range of competition models
represented in this study that there are common structures, support programmes,
expectations and outcomes. First, the characteristics of the competitions will be
provided to give a context of how the educational benefits to participants are
created. The specific details of the nature of the educational benefits as experienced
by participants will be subsequently provided.
Characteristics of competitions
Purpose of competition
Organizers had a range of aims in the development of their business plan
competitions. The most common aim (approximately 60 per cent) cited by organizers
is to foster skill development in business planning and entrepreneurial activity within the
university and the broader community.
Judging criteria and panels
Competitions have different emphases when it comes to setting the criteria of judging
business plans. Some focus more on the business plan itself, its structure and content,
Table 3. Discipline breakdown of competition participants.
Discipline Proportion of student participants
Hospitality 34.0%
Business 30.0%
Science and Engineering 18.0%
Arts (including design, fashion) 35.5%
Technology 1.0%
Source: Russell et al. (2004).
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 129
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 17:
14 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
whereas others put more emphasis on the idea, its uniqueness and potential for
commercialization. Others take both aspects into account equally.
Seventeen competitions emphasize the quality of the submitted business plan
when judging the entrants. One organizer stated: ‘Judges will be mindful that this is a
business plan competition and not an inventor’s competition’.
Judging of the business plan includes assessing teams’ abilities to articulate areas
such as executive summary, business overview, SWOT analysis, market analysis/
research, competitor analysis, sales and marketing plan, management team,
financials (including cash flow analysis), investment potential, risk analysis, and
plan implementation. Fifteen competitions explicitly ask: ‘Does this plan have
commercial potential? Will it form the basis of a viable business?’
The competition judging panels include a range of different experts on their
judging panels. Table 4 provides details on the composition of judging panels used in
business plan competitions.
Feedback to participants
Ten of the organizers said that judges’ feedback is provided to all participants after
each round of the competition. Organizers use a variety of methods to relay the
feedback to participants, including structured evaluation forms, and written
comments on their business plans and online facilities. Informal feedback is offered
by six competitions either via networking events or upon participant/team request.
In ten competitions, judges provide oral feedback to finalists only, usually at the
time when the participants give their presentations. A few competitions offer further
feedback to finalists or winning teams via meetings following the competition. One
competition has judges passing feedback on to tutors who, in turn, share it with
participants.
Sponsorship
The success of business plan competitions relies heavily on the level of sponsorship
they receive from either government or corporate bodies. Meenaghan (1983) gives a
Table 4. Judging panel composition.
Expert type % Of competitions using these experts
Faculty 42.9
Entrepreneurs 66.7
Sponsors 52.4
Venture capitalists 38.1
Lawyers 14.3
Financiers 33.3
Others 76.2
Industry experts 54.5
Government representatives (e.g. Austrade) 27.3
Chamber of Commerce representative 9
Student Association representatives 4.5
Source: Russell et al. (2004).
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 because competitions have multiple judges.
130 R. Russell et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 17:
14 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
loose definition of sponsorship as: ‘The provision of assistance, either financial or in
kind, to an activity (e.g. sport, musical event, festival, fair, or within the broad
definition of the Arts) by a commercial organization for the purpose of achieving
commercial objectives’ (p. 9).
The extent of sponsorship could be seen as an indicator of the interest and valuethat the community and organizations have for the sponsored item or event; in this
case, business plan competitions. Competition organizers were, therefore, asked to
provide details on the sponsorship in the most recent year in which they had run the
competition in order to gauge the extent and type of sponsorship that is attracted by
business plan competitions.
Sponsorship for competitions is provided from a range of sources in the
community, including private businesses (small and medium size and large
international), government departments, as well as philanthropy and communityorganizations, such as Rotary clubs. The cash value of sponsorship varies
substantially between the organizations; that is, from $850 to over $1.3 million.
This is obviously associated with the size and reputation (related to history) of the
competitions. Amongst the corporate/government competitions, the average level of
sponsorship in 2004 was over $425,000, for universities it was $38,500, and for
TAFE programmes it was $7,800.
Contributions in kind
Feedback from participants and organizers indicated that contributions in kind are
extremely important to the overall success of business plan competitions. This isparticularly true in terms of time donated by individuals from within the university
and externally from the local businesses, government and industry supporters who
act as mentors, judges and workshop presenters.
Contributions in kind also include:
N Incubation and business advisory services
N Business support services
N Printing
N Venue hire
N Event sponsorship
N Marketing and promotions
N Web site accessN Travel and accommodation
N Prizes (e.g. camera, gift certificates, trophy)
Prizes and awards
The prizes and awards offered vary between the organizations, with the larger andlonger-running competitions offering more substantial prizes. First prize awards
range from $400 to $150,000. First prize winners in some of the competitions are also
offered travel expenses and the opportunity to compete in a national round of
competition. Second prize awards range from $200 to $10,000, with third prize
ranging from $100 to $5000. Other awards, such as fourth place awards and $1000
encouragement prizes, are also given. Some awards are supplemented with
incubation membership/time for further development and launch of the new
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 131
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 17:
14 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
venture. Prizes in kind are also awarded as a supplement to first, second or third
prize. Examples include a camera, a weekend away, membership to the Australian
Technology Park, business development support, advertising, Hewlitt-Packard
products and services, gift vouchers to restaurants and a prepaid mobile phone.
Some of the competitions offer industry-specific/industry-sponsored prizes.
Examples of this are the City of Melbourne fashion and textile prize, Information
City IT prize, Strive Simpsons Micro Business Award, Hospitality Award, Visual
Arts Award and a Hairdressing Award. Table 5 shows the average cash prizes by
competition type.
Competition success factors
Organizers were asked to rank the relative importance of the various components of
the competition that contribute to the success of the competition. As shown in
Table 6, sponsorship was seen as the most important factor for competition success,
followed by mentors and networking activities.
Participant characteristics
Amongst the respondents to the survey there were 51 participants in student
competitions and 22 in corporate government competitions. The average age of
competition participants is 26.7 years. The university/TAFE competitions had
slightly more females, whereas the government/corporate competitions had slightly
more males. University/TAFE competitions had an average team size of 2.6
participants, and the government/corporate competitions had an average team size
of 1.4 participants.
Amongst the respondent group, 82.6 per cent of teams were formed from existing
networks prior to joining the competition and 80.3 per cent of teams had formed
their business idea prior to entering the competition. The most common motivations
for joining the competition was ‘to move the business idea forward’ and the
‘opportunity to win prizes and awards’. Other motivations included greater
understanding of business, experience and learning, and industry recognition.
Benefits to participants
Participant respondents were asked to value the importance of the various
components of the competition, as offered by their respective competitions. As
shown in Table 7, the most highly rated components were ‘access to mentors’,
‘opportunity to win prizes and awards’ and the ‘workshops and training’.
Table 5. Average prizes (cash component only).
First Second Third
University $11,938 $3,520 $2,075
TAFE $2,460 $1,300 $663
Corporate $19,667 $3,000 $2,000
Source: Russell et al. (2004).
132 R. Russell et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 17:
14 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
The most significant benefit of conducting business plan competitions within a
tertiary institution is to provide an effective vehicle for entrepreneurship education,
skill development and support for venture creation to nascent entrepreneurs.
Providing this opportunity to young people will help to create a culture of
innovation by bringing the concept of venture creation into the spotlight at the time
when they are forming their futures. It also highlights to younger entrepreneurs the
critical need for sound business practices in their ventures. The findings from this
study have clearly indicated that the education, support and skill development
components are significant benefits arising from their competition experience. These
benefits, unlike the financial awards, were gained more readily and are longer
lasting.
Some qualitative remarks of the participants include:
[The competition] made me aware of pitfalls and opportunities in my business. The skillsI gained during this time I still use today, some nine years later. I recently used theseskills in successfully applying for a loan to move into a new phase of the business.
I not only have a business plan, but the skills and knowledge to write fifty more if Iwant. I found the value of research, planning, targeting specific markets and customersall very important in keeping my plan current and my business moving forward.
The main benefit was education. Because of the education, I have now been given theskills necessary to be able to write a business plan for any business, any time.
I learned a great deal about the number of factors that must be considered beforeforming a company; for example, target market, potential market share, competitoranalysis, product positioning.
Educational outcomes
The National Youth Entrepreneurship Attitude Survey in May 2001 investigated the
attitude of young Australians towards entrepreneurship and the factors that
influence those attitudes. Survey findings reported that the ‘reluctance to take the
risk of starting one’s own business appears to be the principal barrier’ (DISR, 2001,
p. 35).
Respondents were asked to assess the extent to which their skills, knowledge and
confidence had increased as a result of their participation in the competition. As
Table 6. Organizers’ ratings of competition success factors.
Not at all
important (0)
%
Slightly
important (1)
%
Somewhat
important (2)
%
Very
important (3)
% Mean
Importance of sponsorship/awards 5 0 15 80 2.8
Importance of mentors 10 10 30 50 2.2
Importance of networking activities 5 25 20 50 2.2
Importance of financial advice 15 15 45 25 1.8
Importance of team-building
resources
30 20 30 20 1.4
Importance of legal advice 15 30 50 5 1.5
Source: Russell et al. (2004).
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 133
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 17:
14 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Table 7. Participants’ value ratings of competition components.
% % % Of all respondents % Of respondents who utilized the opportunity
Not
available
Available,
did not use
No value
(0)
Slightly
valued (1)
Somewhat
valued (2)
Highly
valued (3)
No value
(0)
Slightly
valued (1)
Somewhat
valued (2)
Highly
valued (3) Mean
Access to mentors 10.1 11.6 1.4 7.2 26.1 43.5 1.9 9.3 33.3 55.6 2.4
Opportunity to win prizes/
awards
1.5 5.9 2.9 8.8 36.8 44.1 3.2 9.5 39.7 47.6 2.3
Workshops/training 11.8 14.7 2.9 5.9 36.8 27.9 4.0 8.0 50.0 38.0 2.2
Judges’ advice/feedback 20.3 4.3 4.3 14.5 26.1 30.4 5.8 19.2 34.6 40.4 2.1
Access to networking events 17.9 10.4 4.5 23.9 23.9 19.4 6.3 33.3 33.3 27.1 1.8
Access to team-building
events
26.9 10.4 7.5 28.4 14.9 11.9 11.9 45.2 23.8 19.0 1.5
Source: Russell et al. (2004).
Note: There are no significant differences between the ratings of these opportunities by prize winners when compared with those who did not win a prize.
13
4R
.R
ussell
eta
l.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 17:
14 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
shown in Table 8, most participants reported substantial learning from the
experience.
Some qualitative remarks are given.
[It] taught me to think in a more entrepreneurial way, generally. I am always vigilant foropportunities, thinking creatively and contemplating exciting possibilities for when Icomplete my studies. Prior to the Business Plan Competition, I always thought settingup my own business was out of the question as it was too complex, fraught with redtape, too risky. My business plan taught me a clear way through the ‘maze’ and madeself-employment a real option, for the first time ever. Extremely hard work, but hugelearning curve with it.
As a scientist it has shown me the business side of developing new products, whilebuilding my own skills in developing my own innovations into products.
[The competition gave me the] chance to hone skills in preparing plans, presenting anddefending them. From the process of generating a suitable idea through to the comingup with a viable business model for it and then following through on preparing theactual plan are all very worthwhile pursuits. Also can be learnt from the team dynamics.Having gone through this process several times, when the right idea comes along I’ll bebetter able to make the most of the opportunity.
Obviously, in any competition, there are only very few ‘winners’ but the results
showed that those who did not win prizes still benefited enormously from the
experience. Participants undertaking business courses at university or TAFE found it
very beneficial to be able to apply their classroom learning to a real venture.
I was motivated to actually try and apply the stuff I was learning at uni, rather than justwait to finish the degree and then apply for a job. Doing something like this changes theway I look at myself. Yes, I can set up a business, and yes I can motivate other people tohelp me. It’s exciting!
For some, participating in the competition opened their minds to possibilities of
venture creation. The competition in these cases has provided an earlier trigger to
innovation than those already possessing a business idea. Although a business was
not immediately launched, many indicated that they intend to start one when
finishing their studies.
[The competition] provided options [for me that] I hadn’t considered myself capable ofpreviously. Thought I’d always be on the work-for-someone-else treadmill. Knowledgegained from the business plan opened up a whole new world of opportunity to me once Icomplete my educational goals. The business plan was most taxing, but the mostvaluable thing I have ever encountered in my entire educational life. [I am] very proud of[the] outcome. Nothing I have ever done since progressing to uni has challenged norinspired me half as much.
Table 8. Ratings of educational outcomes.
Not at all
(0) %
Slightly
(1) %
Somewhat
(2) %
A lot
(3) % Mean
Level of skill in business planning has increased 2.9 7.4 29.4 60.3 2.5
Knowledge of new venture creation increased 0 14.5 26.1 59.4 2.4
Overall business knowledge increased 4.3 2.9 37.1 55.7 2.4
Confidence in dealing with risk increased 5.8 11.6 40.6 42.0 2.2
Source: Russell et al. (2004).
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 135
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 17:
14 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
The competition has played an important role in developing self-confidence in
the participants and this benefit will be applicable to all areas of their lives. Even
though the timing or lack of finances may have inhibited the participant in
immediate venture creation, the increased confidence and interpersonal skill
development is beneficial to any workplace. There is evidence to suggest that higherlevels of social skills are related to greater entrepreneurial success (Baron &
Markman, 2003). Below are comments that participants have provided regarding the
benefits they have gained from entering a competition.
As a result, I have more self-confidence in my abilities in the area of business eventhough I am a science student.
The main benefit for me from the competition is confidence; I never knew I could do abusiness plan. I have not yet started my business, but I feel very confident that I willstart [one] in the near future.
…working in a team, dealing with pressure in terms of getting things done on time,striving to do your best to achieve a positive outcome. It has also helped me to furthermy education at university.
Opportunity to work in a team to reach a common goal. Problem solving andbrainstorming I found to be very beneficial.
The education and awareness provided by the competition had an unintended
benefit of convincing at least one participant to not start their business at that time.
The high failure rate of small business in the first two years of operation has long
been a concern for government. If risks can be reduced through the education
opportunities offered through the competition and, consequently, lowering the
mortality rate of small business then surely that is a beneficial outcome.
I found, as a result of the competition, that I was unable to start the business as I did nothave access to enough financial resources; so [al]though this was disappointing, itprobably saved me a lot of future troubles with possible business failure.
Conclusion
This research shows that business plan competitions provide a significant
opportunity to enhance entrepreneurial education within tertiary institutions.
Although business plan competitions are created to primarily encourage the creation
of new enterprises, participants gain important and long-lasting benefits, such as
entrepreneurial skill development, increased self-confidence and risk-taking pro-
pensity, and access to mentors and networking opportunities. This ‘real-world’,
practical education is not only important in successful business start-ups, it is also in
high demand from employers.An important outcome to this research has been the development of good
practice modules for the implementation of business plan competitions. Although
these modules can be accessed via the DITR web site [http://www.innovation.
gov.au/index.cfm?event5object.showContent&objectID536C76376-65BF-4956-
BA4F5D3CE67C4C2F] a number of elements, such as that of good practice in
relation to the design, development and ongoing management of business plan
competitions or business ideas competitions, are listed below.
Management features should include:
N Developing a business plan for the development, launch and management of
the competition
136 R. Russell et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 17:
14 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
N Gaining high level support – both at institutional/organizational level and also
from the industries and communities who will benefit from a successful
competition
N Paid staff devoted to the managing of the competition
N The appointment of industry advisory boards to assist competition organizers
N Processes for review
Design features should include:
N Educational programmes available to all participants (these may be for
academic credit in an educational institution)
N Access to mentors
N Clear guidelines for the mentoring programme
N Mentor training for mentors and participants
N Networking
N Team building
N Access to capital or to advice on accessing capital
N Protection of intellectual property
N Clarity of processes and roles for all involved; that is, organizers, participants,
judges, mentors, sponsors
N Data collection and management
In addition to the extensive benefits accrued to participants of business plancompetitions, this study also found indicators that suggest that institutions gain
considerably in conducting these competitions. Stronger links with the community
and industry can have symbiotic benefits in terms of research programmes, student
placements and network development, in general. Further research is necessary to
explore these benefits fully.
Acknowledgement
This project was funded by the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources.
Note
1. Privacy laws prevented us from contacting participants directly.
References
Atchison, M., & Gotlieb, P. (2004). Innovation and the future of cooperative education. In
R. Coll & C. Eames (Eds.), International Handbook for Cooperative Education: An
international perspective of the theory, research and practice of work-integrated learning
(pp. 261–269). Boston, MA: World Association for Cooperative Education Inc.
Baron, R. A., & Markman, G. D. (2003). Beyond social capital: the role of entrepreneurs’
social competence in their financial success. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 41–60.
Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does.
Buckingham, UK: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open
University Press.
Boud, D. (2001). Knowledge at work: issues of learning. In D. Boud & N. Solomon (Eds.),
Work-based learning: A new higher education (pp. 34–43). Buckingham, UK: The Society
for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 137
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 17:
14 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
Boud, D. & Solomon, S. (Eds.). (2001). Work-based learning. Buckingham, UK: The Society
for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Bowden, J., & Marton, F. (1999). The university of learning: Beyond quality and competence in
higher education. London: Kogan Page.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2001). Backing Australia’s ability: An innovation action plan for
the future. Canberra: AGPS.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2004). Backing Australia’s ability: Building our future through
science and innovation. Canberra: AGPS.
Cunningham, I., Dawes, G., & Bennett, B. (2004). The handbook of work-based learning.
Aldershot, UK: Gower.
Department of Industry, Science and Resources (DISR). (2001). National youth entrepreneur-
ship attitude survey, Occasional paper, Commonwealth of Australia. Canberra: DISR.
Etzkowitz, H. (2002). MIT and the rise of entrepreneurial science: Studies in global
competition series. London, New York: Routledge.
Harvard Business Essentials. (2003). Managing creativity and innovation. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Karpin, D. (1995). Enterprising nation: Renewing Australia’s managers to meet the challenges of
the Asia-Pacific century. Industry Taskforce on Leadership and Management Skills,
Commonwealth of Australia. Department of Employment, Education and Training.
Latchem, C. & Hanna, D. E. (Eds.). (2001). Leadership for 21st century learning: Global
perspectives from educational innovators. London: Kogan Page.
Megginson, D., & Clutterbuck, D. (2005). Techniques for coaching and mentoring. Oxford,
UK: Elsevier, Butterworth-Heinemann.
Meenaghan, J. A. (1983). Commercial sponsorship. European Journal of Marketing, 17(7),
5–73.
Russell, R., Fredline, E., Atchison, M., King, A., O’Connor, R., & Brooks, R. (2004). The role and
impact of business plan competitions. Paper prepared for the Department of Industry Tourism
and Resources, RMIT University, Melbourne. See also http://www.industry.gov.au/
content/itrinternet/cmscontent.cfm?objectid5AC296F75-65BF-4956-BC987B73769CD53F
&indexPages5/search/search.cfm.
Stephenson, J. & Weil, S. (Eds.). (1992). Quality in learning: A capability approach in higher
education. London: Kogan Page.
Streeter, D. H., Jaquette, J. P. Jr., & Hovis, K. (2002). University-wide entrepreneurship
education: Alternative models and current trends. Working paper. Ithaca, NY: Department
of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University.
Weisz, M. (2001). The added value of a cooperative education program. Unpublished DBA
Thesis, RMIT University, Melbourne.
138 Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Que
ensl
and
Uni
vers
ity o
f T
echn
olog
y] a
t 17:
14 2
0 N
ovem
ber
2014
