How to make university more entrepreneurial

RAMI MUSA

MBAAugust 2014

Making The University More Entrepreneurial

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank my supervisor Barry Dwyer and my course leader Hazel Messenger who supported us throughout the year. And I would like to offer my thanks to my dear family and friends who backed me the whole of this past year.

RAMI MUSA 2


Table of ContentsABSTRACT..........................................................................................................................................6

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................6

LITERATURE REVIEW......................................................................................................................7

Entrepreneurship................................................................................................................................7

The Entrepreneurial University.........................................................................................................7

Science, Technology and Innovation (STI).......................................................................................8

Innovation......................................................................................................................................8

Strategy and Triple Helix:.................................................................................................................9

Mission, Governance and Strategy:...................................................................................................9

Mission..........................................................................................................................................9

Governance....................................................................................................................................9

Strategy..........................................................................................................................................9

Knowledge organisation design and leadership.............................................................................9

Measuring excellence and public value.........................................................................................9

Leveraging public finance...........................................................................................................10

Stakeholder Engagement:................................................................................................................10

Stakeholder Relationship.............................................................................................................10

Social Enterprise..........................................................................................................................10

Engaging Entrepreneurs...............................................................................................................10

Partnership Development at the Local, Regional and National Level;.........................................10

Knowledge Transfer/Exchange and Support....................................................................................11

Knowledge Transfer Spin offs.....................................................................................................11

Incubators....................................................................................................................................11

Science park engagement (Clusters)............................................................................................11

Clusters Development..................................................................................................................12

Academic entrepreneurship.........................................................................................................12

Internalisation:.................................................................................................................................12

Staff and Student Mobility...........................................................................................................12

Partnership and network building................................................................................................13

Overseas campus development....................................................................................................13

Sharing culture.............................................................................................................................13

Cross campus initiative................................................................................................................13

Pedagogy and staff development.....................................................................................................13

RAMI MUSA 3


Students' initiatives support.........................................................................................................13

CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT.....................................................................................................14

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................15

EMPIRICAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS......................................................................................17

London Metropolitan University (LMU).........................................................................................17

Mission, Governance and Strategy:.............................................................................................17

Stakeholder Engagement:............................................................................................................17

Knowledge transfer/exchange and support:.................................................................................17

Internalisation:.............................................................................................................................18

Enterprise and entrepreneurship pedagogy:.................................................................................18

Northampton University..................................................................................................................18



Enterprise and entrepreneurship pedagogy..................................................................................18

Plymouth University........................................................................................................................18






University of Teesside.....................................................................................................................20






University Hertfordshire..................................................................................................................21




Huddersfield University...................................................................................................................22



Knowledge transfer/exchange and support..................................................................................22

RAMI MUSA 4



Enterprise and entrepreneurship pedagogy..................................................................................23

CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................................................23

REFERENCES LIST...........................................................................................................................25

APPENDICES.....................................................................................................................................30

Chronicle plan.................................................................................................................................30

Ethics Review Checklist..................................................................................................................31

SUPERVISOR MEETINGS - LOG SHEET 1................................................................................34




RAMI MUSA 5


ABSTRACT Academic Entrepreneurship is relatively a new concept and not many universities are adopting to the new trend, and this study brings out the importance of the phenomenon and how to embed it into the strategic plan by reviewing the areas of potential of entrepreneurial development. And the purpose of this report is for the completion of an MBA degree, and not publication to avoid any copy rights and ethical complications.

INTRODUCTIONUK HEI’s seek other sources of funding other than student tuition which covers the teaching costs. This consequently means that the obvious objective is attracting more students and that universities receive funding from government agencies to carry out research activities. However, most universities exploit any underutilised assets such as labs and space by offering them for external users to rent and use and they carry out some commercialisation and consultancy activities as well as knowledge transfer through Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP), all of which is capitalising on the existing human resources, knowledge and expertise. These activities are pursued by the different faculties and departments, primarily the business schools who have a slight tendency towards enterprising and entrepreneurial activities (Bailey, 2000). Other faculties do engage in these activities whether it be research and development contracts, or spinoffs / spinouts creation and some HEI go even further by establishing partnerships with the private sector and major manufacturing companies such as biomedical and engineering ventures. All of which is done to seek out other forms of financial leverage and development of HEI activities, but, as William (2009) argues, all these activities are only responsible for less than 25% of universities revenue, so why do universities engage in them?

Lambert (2003) has articulated that HEI are under pressure from government policies to meet economical and societal demands of the regions as well as demonstrate added value to the community; universities attempt to meet these demands by embedding the government objectives in their strategic planning as well as adopting innovative methods going beyond pure scholasticism and conventional pedagogical academia as there is an increase of demand from students and professionals for innovation and career relevance (Etzkowitz, 2004)

This study provides an outline for strategic planning and an exploration of the LMU’s potential entrepreneurial development and comparison of its current entrepreneurial activities with other leading universities in this field and a discussion of key areas for exploration. At the conclusion of this study, there will be a set of recommendation based on the comparison and analysis of data collected from different sources which will be explained in detail in the methodology section. This paper reviews the literature of the role of the university in the economy and discussing the university's role in society and attempting to have added value to students as well as help in the industrialisation process. Universities tend to set up incubators to create value for their students and the community they exist in, by providing the opportunity and stimulation for talented students and entrepreneurs. The findings will help the university's decision makers understand the university's role and opportunities to engage better in the economy and the stimulation of entrepreneurship. We will be looking at success stories and factors as well as challenges to improve the partnership between government, academic institutions and businesses from the university's point of view and provide recommendations based on the finding of this research project. We will investigate how to foster partnership between the government and private sector and academic work together to help increase, incubate and generate spinoff companies. University and academia plays an important role in the development of the clusters supporting research and innovation.

Universities vary in cultures, traditions, norms and disciplines, and these factors influence how a university operates and engages in entrepreneurial activities. This sometimes varies from one department to another at the same institution; some universities seek knowledge transfer and engage in entrepreneurial activities but this could be subjective or incoherent to the universities overall strategy, and not being approached from a holistic view as a core objective (Herrmann, 2008). This paper covers key areas of potential entrepreneurial development, and each of these areas will be explored and broken down to more overt points where they overlap

RAMI MUSA 6


some of the time. This indicates that it is an extensive and comprehensive framework that provides a blueprint to universities entrepreneurial development. Firstly, we define key terms and review the literature and debate the working definition of these terms to help set the groundwork for the investigation of the case study following the framework which will be discussed at a later stage in the study.

Then we analyse the data collected about several case studies from five different UK HEI’s and compare it to them with our targeted institution - London Metropolitan University (LMU). The comparison would be based on the available data from other institutions and the framework discussed in the conceptual development chapter, and the variables of the framework will be briefly discussed in the literature review section.

LITERATURE REVIEW Here we discuss all of the framework’s key variables and areas which underpin the study of potential development for the university’s entrepreneurial strategic plan. The discussion is brief and realistic and these variables consist of five main headings which are adopted by the Gibb’s framework and form the concepts of entrepreneurial education followed in many of the leading HEI.

EntrepreneurshipIn an attempt to define and understand the phenomena of entrepreneurship and the mysteries revolving around it, we have reviewed a bulk of scholars' articles and we found that the word “entrepreneur” originated from French origins; more specifically it is derived from the word “entreprendre” which means “to launch / undertake / begin something”, and it describes a person who provides a service he sees required by the people (Todorovic et al, 2007). And entrepreneurship is the observable fact demonstrated by an entrepreneur, and it is recognised as the willingness and capacity to launch and manage a business which includes risks to assume profits.

The understanding of entrepreneurship has developed over time to comply with the economical changes taking place all over the world, including an increase of competitiveness and a decrease of financial resources. This being said, it is clear that entrepreneurship plays an important role in the economic development (Eisenmann, 2014).

This is due to the fact that entrepreneurs are those launching businesses and enterprises utilising opportunities in the market using existing resources and increasing the manufacturing industry by employing technology and innovation which in turns develops the economy, and this is seen as a part of the industrialisation process, whose main goal is to build the state manufacturing capacity and improve the system to enable production of products and services (Todorovic et al, 2011).

The Entrepreneurial UniversityThe Entrepreneurial University is a primary manifestation of the Triple Helix as it demonstrates how to employ knowledge and utilise academia in creating and commercialising new knowledge as well as capitalising on R&D, adapting an interactive model of innovation as opposed to linear progress. Engaged firms increase their technological capacity, taking advantage of knowledge transfer and training (Bercovitz and Feldman,2008). On the other hand, governments play the public entrepreneur and business investor, simultaneously carrying out its usual role as a regulator in drawing the guidelines and rules. Universities continue to develop links and join new networks; they exploit every possible chance to capitalise on random intellectual property they possess the right of, to engage with businesses who are on the lookout for new innovation and they usually seek R&D institutions such as universities which satisfy the HEI objective of what is called the “third mission” while carrying out their “first mission“ (teaching)and “second mission” (research activities), as well as being involved in socio-economic development activities. The main characteristic of an entrepreneurial university is collaborative links with other institutions and firms in their network and clusters, as it increases the university’s role in the production of R&D process and therefore presence and reputation (Siegel, et al, 2007).

The Entrepreneurial University should develop the capacity to develop entrepreneurial students and staff by introducing new ideas and skills through helping talented students enhance their aptitude, so these students

RAMI MUSA 7


would become the next generation of entrepreneurs and professionals, to go out into the world and found companies and contribute to the economy and society, creating more jobs and wealth. Significance of the Study In the UK, all HEI undertake teaching and research, although they have different agendas and priorities and this is reflected in their strategic plans; some universities focus on teaching and others concentrate largely on research and new universities (Fayolle, 2007). Post-1992 universities “former polytechnics” are more keen to interact with external stakeholders and have more flexibility in their approach to networks then old and traditional HEI, and new universities tend to focus more on vocational education opposed to the traditional HEI where professional degrees are the centre of attention (law, health, medicine, mathematics, humanities studies and the like) (Gibb et al, 2013).

Science, Technology and Innovation (STI)To analyse the complexity of modern economy and society, one has to stop and reflect on the information technology revolution and its pervasiveness in everyday activities to the point that technology became fundamental to the restructuring of the capitalist systems in the modern era especially in the 1980’s and onwards (Castells, 2000). Science and technology are two of the main tools for development technology is defined as the knowledge that economically adds to the process of production and industrialisation improving products and services' efficiency (Arnold and Thuriaux, 1997).

Innovation is new ideas to improve things or novel ways of doing things better, and can be seen as the upgrading of solutions to meet new or existing market needs; it is the basis of an increase in competitiveness and productivity. Innovation requires the use of new technologies and ideas (Wong, 2013). Innovative ideas stand for being original and new and find their way to the market and to society, introducing added value to the users.

STI activities are considered to be dominant factors in the social and economic transformation; furthermore, they fuel growth and drive social changes and human interaction, increasing the capacity to produce and spread goods and services. Social media is a good example (Weyer et al, 2010). Hence STI are essential and imperative to increase competitiveness and push the limits of human capacity to boost prosperity and enhance the quality of life.

InnovationAfter discussing technology, now we move on to highlight technology transfer and innovation. Today, many firms believe that a centralised and internally oriented approach to R&D is outdated, valuable knowledge is widespread and the advancement race has become more accessible. This has formed the basis of the innovation approach which exploits external knowledge and ideas, combining it with internal R&D and creating a new value (Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, 2000).

Chesbrough (2003) has elaborated that innovation is expanding the market for use of innovation by using the inflows as well as the outflows of knowledge and this has an effect on the acceleration and improvement of internal innovation. Hence companies and institutions should use external ideas and marketplaces as well as internal ones in an attempt to advance their technology and commercialisation of knowledge by increasing their exposure to others' experiences and knowledge. This applies not just to the technological aspect but also to management, organisational, service and market knowledge.

However; firms still need to integrate these new innovative ideas to create new products and services to meet customers’ needs and satisfaction, which requires skills and expertise. Whether using internal or external means, this will help internal capacity improve and compete in the marketplace, depending on the business model chosen (Finkle, 2011).

Strategy and Triple Helix:Developing research and technology based enterprises and business partnerships to manage in the nowadays competitive economy and therefore, it became very important to develop a strategy for collaboration among the universities, local businesses, government and students. This is what is described as the Triple Helix (Etzkowitz, 2003).

RAMI MUSA 8


The aim of this is to commercialise technology, research and know-how as well as to provide employment for students by setting up an incubator in or around the university incubator to help entrepreneurial and talented students create spin-off companies. The considerable advantage of setting up an incubator is to link the latest technology, research, capital, other resources, entrepreneurial talent and spirit to accelerate enterprises and commercialise the know-how (Lam, 2011), Since the 1980’s, thousands of university based incubators (UBIs) have been set up due to the popularity of the concept and its beneficial outcome and returns.

Incubation becomes more of an added value if combined with a clustering scheme programme, which helps the commercialisation of R&D knowledge and the industrialisation process. Industrial stimulation can be achieved by public-private partnership and incubation (Mian, 1996).

Mission, Governance and Strategy:

MissionMany HEI stress the employment of entrepreneurial strategies in their mission statements and under that banner there are many perspectives of which entrepreneurial behaviours are promoted. This incorporates enterprise engagement, student entrepreneurial development, enterprise and entrepreneurship pedagogy. Therefore, the stated mission influences the extent to which a university focuses on entrepreneurship (Etzkovitz, 2004).

GovernanceThe institution's interaction with society and enterprises depends primarily on the commitment of the senior management, in this case, the university council board, and how prominent is the university staff's role in this interaction and how they engage with other stakeholders (Miller and Katz, 2004). Thus, this concerns the level of ownership of support of the entrepreneurial culture (Todorovic et al, 2005).

StrategyThe perception of HEI’s role and the level of concern and commitments to society are the fundamental aspects of drawing the institution strategy, as it integrates entrepreneurship and enterprise as a part of the strategic plan, according to the public requirements; whether it is knowledge transfer, education-industry relations or graduates employability to meet the market demands. Meeting these demands and requirements can become a predicament, especially the integration of solutions to these challenges in the strategy. Again, this depends on the senior leadership's commitment and decision to accept these responsibilities (Blackmore and Blackwell, 2008).

Knowledge organisation design and leadershipThe organisational structure of the institution can be accommodating or disobliging to entrepreneurship. Here we place emphasis on the operation's flexibility with regard to how decentralised the decision making process is, as well as leadership empowerment of bottom-up initiatives, and the degree of autonomy individuals have to innovate, besides allowing trans-disciplinary research and teaching, allowing interaction across different departments and faculties. This is extended to whether the senior management support and share responsibility for risk taking, as well as the adoption of a reward system to give the staff the incentive to go the extra mile, as opposed to daily teaching and research activities (Gibb, 2005).

Measuring excellence and public valueThe UK government is reconsidering the extent of public expenditure impact, which includes indicators of performance consisting of three elements: first, the quality of service delivered, secondly, the societal effect and last but not least ,the trust and relationship with the delivering agency which includes transparency, creditability and reputation in the civil society, media and public. Of course, this means that universities have to consider the image and their partners' (public and private) perception of the institutions' excellence and its value to the public (Gibb, 2012).

RAMI MUSA 9


Leveraging public financeAmidst the financial crisis struggle in the Western countries and the UK and due to inflation rates and other factors, universities are most likely to incur an increase in costs compared to slow growth in income and revenue. This would create an increasing pressure on institutions, which might be more of a predicament if not for the government support and initiatives (Universities Alliance, 2011) , The UK has been financing universities through the Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE), and these funds exceeded in total £7Bn (UUK, 2009). A small fraction, just over £ 100M represented in Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF), is dedicated to ‘Third Stream Activity’ which is intended to generally improve the direct and indirect input of Higher Education to the economy, including knowledge transfer and research development as well as stakeholders' engagement networking and other forms of contributions to the industry and society (UUK, 2011).

Stakeholder Engagement:

Stakeholder RelationshipThis includes all of the university networks and relations from alumni to business and media as well as other institutions and links to local and regional agencies and professional groups. This relationship is a manifestation of the level of engagement in the society and the added value it provides, which takes into account the degree of involvement in the economic development and contributions though knowledge and research to meet the community needs (D’Este and Patel, 2007).

Social EnterpriseEngaging with social enterprises and non-profit agencies is becoming a fundamental tool for knowledge transfer and exchange, as well as enhancing the relevance of the research and the reputation of the institutions in the area of knowledge (Denny, 2011).

Engaging EntrepreneursMany universities which focus on entrepreneurial education engage entrepreneurs in their activities as it can be rewarding and adds creditability and professionalism to their activities. As a part of the engagement process, entrepreneurs are offered fellowships and Professors of Practice, and other institutions put forward placements for graduates in SME’s and develop links with incubators. Incubation involves interaction with the private sector and entrepreneurs. (Hodge and Greve, 2005)

Partnership Development at the Local, Regional and National Level;Earlier United Kingdom regional development agencies have placed HEI at the centre of regional development strategies, and Smith (2007) argues that HEI are a key influential factor as they drive growth through innovation and knowledge. Thus, the regional governance relies on the HEI's entrepreneurial role and their contribution to cultural, social and community development of the region and nation.

Nonetheless, there are distinctive concerns in regards to how engaged the university is with the local, regional and national actors, such as the idiosyncratic culture and needs of the region. This has an effect on the HEI strategy to accommodate strengths and evade weaknesses, and focus on areas of potential growth and opportunities by concentration of research and development on these areas and by engaging academics and graduates with local industrial clusters and SME’s, and links to civil society and alumni associations, extending the reach further to build international bonds, to provide regional and local economical development (D’Este and Perkmann, 2011).

Knowledge Transfer/Exchange and Support

Knowledge Transfer Spin offsAs previously stated, commercialisation of research and knowledge transfer is responsible for a very small fraction of the revenue. However, the great example of knowledge transfer is the creation of spin offs, and these

RAMI MUSA 10


are new ventures that are founded in and around a university’s facilities, as they profession broader applications for university knowledge; from IT, engineering to laboratory and biomedical (Hughes 2003).

IncubatorsBusiness incubators exist to provide assistance and support to emerging businesses and entrepreneurs at the early stages of the start-up's life-cycle by providing services from infrastructure (i.e. office space) to networking (other start-ups) and consultancy (i.e. knowhow). This helps start-ups operate in a safer and more secure environment giving them a boost head start compared to other start-ups starting outside an incubator. Nonetheless, university incubators seem to give more benefits as it mostly provides academics’ support, access to the research facilities, technical support and resources when located around the campus, plus it has a better engagement with talented students, potential entrepreneurs and employees (Mian, 1996).

It is a well known fact that SME’s are the backbone of any economy and the development of any nation and that a nation's economy relies mainly on SME’s as a source of income as well as a job creation. However, most of these small and medium firms fail at their early development stages due to a number of reasons, whether financial or management , and most remain small. Business incubation helps these businesses overcome these issues and operate more smoothly by providing the knowhow support which acts as a safety net for the SMEs, which in turn gives them a better chance to succeed (NBIA, 2014).

Science park engagement (Clusters)Enterprises hardly innovate and progress independently; they have to exist within a gathering of other enterprises (competitors, buyers, suppliers, and consultants etc...) in a particular field and institutions (universities, marketing agencies, standardisation organizations, industry establishment, training groups, and research and development institutions), so they pick up skills and knowledge when they are ‘rubbing’ against each other. Porter (1998) has identified clusters as a geographical concentration of enterprises and institutions interconnected in a prolific environment that supports the networks and interaction among these enterprises and institutions within the cluster to enhance competition, productivity and innovation as a result of the collaborative work and innovation and sharing of knowledge and technology transfer.

In order to form a cluster it requires certain conditions and inputs; this includes financial backing and infrastructure as well as technical, technological and institutional skills (Schmitz and Nadvi, 1999).

Clusters are considered to be a great instrument for industrial development and economical growth, as Schmitz (1999) argues that establishing an agglomeration of business enterprises whether linked through a network or physically based in a geographical proximity increases the companies' competitive advantage and efficiency as well as improves specialisation, innovation and the complexity level of production, particularly when there are technological and innovation spillovers.Others (Solvell et al., 2003) support the hypothesis as they believe productivity is increased when similar firms operate closely and around other institutions leading to consortia formation and collective efficiency in comparison with companies that are run in isolation. This could be connected to the gains of economies of scale and inter-firms cooperation.

Clusters have existed throughout the history and there are many clusters around the world e.g. ICT in Silicon Valley and the wine cluster in Italy; they happen spontaneously but nowadays, many realise the benefit of clusters leading to an increase in productivity and innovation. This aids the sustainability of collaborative activities to provide grants and support for new research and new innovative ideas endowments which improves regional economical and technological development (Finkle, 2011).

The structure of clusters varies in complexity and sophistication; it can be a gathering of SMEs and institutions or it could be made of a few clusters or coalitions joined together or a main group and other extended networks to form a cluster. As these groups include all of the Triple Helix parties, this distinguishes the cluster from other kinds of arrangements (Schmitz and Nadvi, 1999).

RAMI MUSA 11


Clusters DevelopmentThe competition in the market is increasing and financial leverage is becoming harder in starting a business which has increased the development of cost and risk sharing programmes in mutual agreement between companies and other institutions. This generated clusters and alliances of firms and other institutions, including research and development institutions such as universities (Porter, 1998).

Cluster development is an increasing trend which has been promoted all over the world for the past decade or two, as Schmitz (1999) noted that promoting of clusters will trigger industrialisation and lead to stimulation of economy as it helps new entrants to find a place in the market and grow within a fertile environment fostering collaboration and cooperative industrial communications, helping these enterprises develop the capacity and improve competence. New entrants can choose to specialise depending on the opportunities and demands in the market which is expanded as a result of agglomeration of enterprises, creating a demand for upgraded and developed business services to compete or complement. There is the advantage of economy of scales and opportunities become more transparent (Schmitz and Nadvi, 1999).

All of these benefits should be embraced by the government, the decision and policy makers as they are tools of economic development and help to increase competitiveness of regions. The objective of the cluster formation is to support new entrepreneurs and innovators as well as to help academic institutions to capitalise on their knowledge and technology and progress from that to become more advanced, providing their students and staff with better quality options from education to research and increasing employment opportunities (Chang, 2002).

Other proven benefits of being part of a cluster is the boost of information sharing between enterprises locally, regionally and internationally, financial gains in terms of reduction of transaction costs and sharing of marketing costs since it attracts customers and buyers as well as enhancing innovation as a result of the innovation and collaborative competition.The connection established with academic institutions leads to strengthening industry-education relations and as a result improvement of knowledge transfer and technological diffusion (Schofield, 2014). These clusters are there to help existing companies and institutions within the network and new ones to start and grow, as these clusters help stimulate growth by sharing resources and specialised knowledge as well as enjoying problem solving support and expertise (Schmitz and Nadvi, 1999).

Academic entrepreneurshipThis is difficult due to structure restrictions within an organisation, which constrains academics and research staff from taking initiatives in promoting entrepreneurial activities with the institution. The existence of a reward system to stimulate these initiatives could be proven useful if it leads to encouraging entrepreneurial staff and champions within faculties, supports inter-departmental initiatives and engages internal and external stakeholders. This approach is being adopted by many universities to promote enterprising academies (Bercovic and Feldman, 2008).

Internalisation:Having an international presence is a feature that every university should consider to be deemed entrepreneurial and should be embedded in the strategic plan; this requires awareness of global trends and responds to changes. Moreover, it requires being connected and informed by developing relations, taking initiatives and seizing opportunities. This includes the nationalisation of curricula to draw more international students, partnership with overseas campuses and higher mobility of faculty, staff and exchange students (Shattock, 2009).

Staff and Student MobilityInternational students make up a great percentage of university students; statistics show that over 500,000 overseas students come to the UK every year to study at HEI, half of which are at a postgraduate level and the numbers are still increasing year in year out (UUK, 2011). Comparing the number of students studying overseas obtaining UK HEI qualifications which include distance learning, and the relatively small numbers of UK students studying abroad which is around 20,000, and bearing in mind that over 15% of UK HEI staff are of foreign countries, the mobility and international cooperation is evident on UK HEI's part to provide students

RAMI MUSA 12


and staff with more prospects in working and studying abroad through partnership with institutions overseas (Universities Alliance, 2011).

Partnership and network buildingJudging from the numbers above, it’s clear that a strategic approach is essential in the development of partnerships and the building of networks to facilitate international collaboration activities that are sustainable and continuous; this requires a strategic plan encompassing the maintenance of current partnerships and trust building, encouragement of collaborative research initiatives including individual initiatives that may lead to joint postgraduates programmes , mutual agreements and understanding of objectives and regulatory environment of the collaboration with clear terms and criteria (Lonsdale, 2007).

Overseas campus developmentThere is an increased movement towards the establishment of overseas campuses, although there is a chance of failure as many HEI’s have failed or forfeit at some stage. The development of new campuses is a beneficial financial inducement as the numbers of students increase thus impacting the institution's revenue, not to mention the opportunities for marketing and the competitive advantage in securing students for postgraduates at the UK based campuses and increasing student and staff mobility (NCGE, 2009) Major issues may face this initiative such as finding the right partners and securing a long term sustainable agreements and commitments; but, having these partnerships may lead to local stakeholders engagements from SMEs to NGOs, providing opportunities for home students overseas and creating a global market place employability (Hagen, 2002).

Sharing cultureDealing with cultural differences seems to be a key issue, which needs to be taken into account to ensure the internationalisation of the institution; this has to reflect on the international experience and learning culture of staff and students, requiring them to adapt to new cultures to communicate more efficiently. This usually includes linguistic development to comprehend the different customs and cultures in a global context in a globalised world (Martinelli et al, 2008).

Cross campus initiativeKauffmann Foundation (2010), argues that business faculties had limited communication to other faculties and a lower number of entrepreneurs sprouting as a result, and alternatively placing the initiative centrally to extend, reach and improve across campus interaction. This concept becomes prominent when combined with multidisciplinary research and knowledge transfer and in the integration of enterprise and entrepreneurial programmes and elective modules in different faculties providing more students with the opportunity to develop entrepreneurial skills and maintaining entrepreneurial culture all across the university. This requires commitment and similarly response from the different faculties and departments and this is where change agents and staff champions play a significant role in shaping these relations.

Pedagogy and staff developmentThe stimulation of staff and academics to adopt entrepreneurial means in their teaching and innovative approaches in their curriculum development has been the centre of the educators' programme developed by the UK NCEE. This programme targets educators from all departments and is very similar to programmes used by entrepreneurial organisations in the development of entrepreneurial staff (Gibb, 2011). Similar programmes can be offered at the university through the central hub discussed above.

Students' initiatives supportOne way of accumulating the students' entrepreneurial initiatives and student led efforts is the formation of a student entrepreneurship society which has a great benefit to the overall student engagement performance, as well as connecting them with other societies from other HEI. This led to the creation of the National Consortium of University Entrepreneurs (NACUE) in 2009, started as a student intuitive at Oxford Entrepreneurs Society which had thousands of members, the NACUE now has a full time chairman and staff, connecting over 50 university student entrepreneurship societies, hosting conferences and linking societies with investors and start

RAMI MUSA 13


ups incubation support, providing training and sharing of information and collaboration among societies (Price et al, 2012).

CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENTIn this part of the report, a conceptual base will be laid out for the study which is to explore areas for entrepreneurial development potential and to understand the underpinning factors to put together a strategic plan that serves as a basis for action leading to the envisioned and desired entrepreneurial development of the university.

This section is to help perceive and capture the different dynamics at play since the objective of this exploratory and explanatory project is to give the senior staff at the institution an aerial view of the interdependence and areas of potential development of entrepreneurial activities from existing knowledge exchange programmes to exploration of enterprise and entrepreneurial education activity. This, in turn, could be a starting point for further development strategies to exploit opportunities wherever possible to enhance the university’s potential and is carried out by applying a framework and comparing the institutions data with other institutions, and exploring best practises in an attempt to find ways to learn and adopt these practices.

This study is aimed at improving the entrepreneurial performance and profile of the University of London Metropolitan, and without exploring a new strategic framework for university entrepreneurial development (reinventing the wheel), the researcher decided to utilise the latest strategic approach developed by Professor Allen Gibb (University of Durham) and used by the National Centre for Entrepreneurship in Education (NCEE) formally known as National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (NCGE) which was founded in 2004. This framework places great emphasis on five main areas of which measures a university’s entrepreneurial performance, based on which the NCEE and the Times of Higher Education (THE) has been awarding universities in the UK the title “Entrepreneurial University of the year”, and it is also recognised by the Entrepreneurial University Leaders Programme (EULP) which was launched in 2010 (Gibb, 2012).

The Key Questions asked are:

• What are the university’s entrepreneurial activities?• How effective is the enterprise strategy?• How do other universities do it (best practice)?• How can the university’s enterprise strategy be improved?

Contribution to the university’s key objectives:

The overall objective of a review process is to identify how enterprise and entrepreneurship can add value in meeting a university’s key strategic objectives; for example:

• enhancing the students' experience, employability and employment;• achieving excellence in teaching and learning;• innovation in research approaches, achieving impact and finding resource;• broadening revenue flows;• improving knowledge exchange processes;• contributing to local and regional economic and social development;• creating an international presence and above all; • enhancing the reputation, competitiveness and distinctiveness of the university

The objective of this research is to provide the university with a strategic overview for:

• Long Term Strategy for Structural Transformation.• Improving Incubation Processes and Structures• Promotion of Strong Collaborations and Partnerships

RAMI MUSA 14


• Adopting New Management Principles and Methodologies• How much could the university benefit from a new strategy?

Source: Gibb, A. A. (2012) “Exploring the synergistic potential in entrepreneurial university development: towards the building of a strategic framework”.

Key areas of potential for added value:

1. Research, knowledge transfer and exchange;2. Stakeholder relationship and partnership development at the local, regional and national level;3. Internationalisation processes;4. Enterprise and entrepreneurship pedagogy and knowledge organisation across the university; and5. Governance, strategy, organisation design and leadership at all levels.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY As Yin (2009) described it, a case study is an empirical analysis and study of a contemporary phenomenon within its natural setting and real world context by defining the boundaries of the area of study.

This paper will follow a methodological path by looking at previous work conducted in this area, and constructing a list of research questions to achieve objectives through investigative study of the case at hand ; i.e. London Met.; adopting a structured method by a standard criteria that is in line with the criteria developed by Emeritus Professor Durham University, Allen Gibb, to follow a strategic approach to explore entrepreneurial university development, using the framework to explore the university’s entrepreneurship strategy. By contrasting this with other entrepreneurial universities, we will be able to see areas of potential development and improvement.

RAMI MUSA 15


By following this framework, we avoid the problem of credibility and the issue trust of research procedures, since it is very systemic and approved by many academics and experts as it is used by the National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurial (NCGE), now known as the National Centre for Entrepreneurship in Education (NCEE). This will satisfy the “Construct Validity” concern.

Since this is a business oriented report, it is focused on providing the client with case-specific recommendations and remarks. The generalisation of the results is irrelevant. However; the procedures followed to conduct the research and the comparison of the findings can be generalised to be used with other cases, producing different case-specific results which means it is an analytic generalisation but some of the remarks might be applicable to most cases.

In order to have a better understanding of the case, it has to be studied thoroughly and then compared against other cases by collecting data on each of the cases individually. The collected data needs to be similar in order for us to compare them and through the comparison we can see potential issues or areas of improvements.

Using a case study method to explore the practise and explain the use of the concept.

Faced with the limitation of how much data is available from HEI and the fact that this time of the year is the time most senior staff are on annual leave, the interviews fell short of expectation, so triangulating was a favoured option since the data will come from a wide range and multiple sources of evidence. Filling different needs, by collecting data from different sources and flexibility in collecting the data, through direct observation and attending events to collect data in a natural context and setting., interviewing staff and students (open ended conversation with key stakeholders), meeting with “Internal validity” needs, looking at archival records and documentation including annual reports and newspapers articles such as Times of Higher Education (THE) to address the issue of “External validity”.

The case (LMU) should not be studied as an isolated variable but rather as a part of a bigger group;in this case, other higher education institutions (HEI) in the UK, so the institution data and strategy can be compared against other UK HEI.

Working on the case study design comes as a priority and of high importance to help solve the issue of reliability by adopting a systemic approach to design the case study:

Firstly, by defining the case of study.

Secondly, the type of case study design.

Lastly, using theory in designing the case study (Entrepreneurial University).

After collecting the secondary data, having developed a comprehensive literature review and finding out about the latest research conducted in the area of entrepreneurial education, we will look at 5 Higher education institutions HEI to collect data on these institutions and how they go on about doing their entrepreneurial activities. These institutions are considered to be most entrepreneurial in the UK and the primary case (LMU).

This is an embedded multiple case study on a holistic strategic level of these organisations looking at records and reports produced by these institutions or other specialised institutions.

By contrasting the results for anticipated results (theoretical replication), we are using 6 cases in total. This gives us a greater confidence in the finding and more certainty and reliability of the analysis.

RAMI MUSA 16


EMPIRICAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

London Metropolitan University (LMU)

Mission, Governance and Strategy:LMU’s mission statement is:

“London Metropolitan University transforms lives through education and research of quality, meets society’s needs through our socially responsible agenda, and builds rewarding careers for our students, staff and partners.” (LMU annual report, 2011)

LMU objectives are:

1 - To provide courses of educational or technical study both full-time and part-time for students at all levels and in all branches of education.

2- To advance learning and knowledge in all their aspects and to provide industrial, commercial, professional and scientific education and training.

3- To study, conduct research in, promote and develop any art or science for the public benefit including the publication of results, papers, reports or other material in connection with or arising out of such research.

Strategic priorities:

Providing a quality learning experience for our students.

Education: enhancing participation and ensuring fair access.

Research and enterprise: advancing new knowledge and its applications.

Sustainability: driving resources harder.

Investment: accelerating our transformation through ICT.

Stakeholder Engagement:MU has established partnerships and relations with local partners; e.g. City and Islington College, and Hackney College and continues to grow with over 200 students on franchised degrees delivered on their premises. As well as active engagement with over 600 local businesses and service delivery of a total of over £ 200,000, these partnerships lead to the creation of 24 new jobs and the development of 30 new products (LMU annual report, 2012).

Knowledge transfer/exchange and support:The University currently has 6 research bodies, whose focus research is mainly of a socially oriented nature in the areas of human rights, health, international education and working lives. More than 70 research students are Vice-Chancellor scheme scholarships recipients, and LMU has been very successful in the allocation of funds given by HEFCE of Higher Education Innovation Fund 2011/15 funding. LMU's allocation over the period 2011-2015, of £1.55m per annum, places LMU as 44th highest of 129 English HEIs, but the total operating income decreased as a result of low activity since large projects ended and they were not replaced by new projects (LMU annual report, 2013).

LMU has a research development programme which was launched in 2010, and it aims to train 700 researchers throughout the academic year delivering 55 training sessions. These courses provide research staff and postgraduate students development opportunities. The LMU Postgraduate Student Society produce an online journal of peer-reviewed postgraduate research; the “Metronome”. And LMU forms 2-3 new KTPs every year

RAMI MUSA 17


and new leads to partnerships with SMEs and NGOs. These KTPs are partially funded by Higher Education Innovation Funds (LMU annual report, 2011).

LMU has founded a digital media business incubator in Shoreditch, in East London at a very important time as the government has the intention to create a Silicon Valley-like cluster in the area, ensuring a rapid growth and the development of technology start up companies; the number of companies is increasing exponentially, attracting all sorts of investments and opportunities. The LMU incubator was established in 2007 and has incubated more than 70 business; some of these start-ups generated revenues over £ 1 M, creating over 150 jobs and a network of more than 500 local companies (LMU annual report, 2012).

Internalisation:LMU developed new collaborative partnerships in Malaysia, Vietnam, Russia and Ireland and a major link was established in Nepal with over 700 students taking one of four franchised titles in Computing (LMU annual report, 2012)

Enterprise and entrepreneurship pedagogy:The LMU incubator runs a student business hatchery programme which created over 28 businesses and offers over 100 placements for students; one of these start-ups was sold for over £ 10 m (LMU annual report, 2013)

Northampton UniversityShortlisted in 2011 and 2012 for the THE Entrepreneurial University of the year.

Mission, Governance and Strategy:NU adopted an institutional strategy for the period between 2010 -2015, which aims to make the university the leading institution in Social Enterprise by the end of the period, and they have integrated social enterprising in their teaching and learning (Northampton University annual report, 2013).

NU has been awarded very prestigious awards, including an award from UnLtd (The world’s largest social enterprise start-up programme supporting 8,000 entrepreneurs), and the Higher Education Funding Council for England, naming NU the most ‘Outstanding HEI Supporting Entrepreneurship ’ (Denny, 2011).

Stakeholder Engagement:NU supports over 500 students and staff in business and social activity every year, through Enterprise Coaching and funds, leading to more than 80 new start ups, from over 400 new social enterprise ideas presented by staff. More than 20 students are supported by the social enterprise development funds provided by the university to support students with training, mentoring and consultancy as well as a grant of £ 2,500, to support many students in starting up their own social enterprises, including ‘3e’ which is a social enterprise that deals with recruitment and has helped over 300 people find jobs in the initiating year as well as‘Northamptonshire Voluntary Youth Action’ which has helped over 650 young people aged 13 – 25 to get involved in volunteering. (UUK, 2011)

Enterprise and entrepreneurship pedagogyNU has appointed a designated Social Entrepreneur in Residence who helps identify new social enterprises leading to the start up of 15 new social enterprises and 300 staff have also attended workshops run by the Social Entrepreneur in Residence.

Plymouth UniversityShortlisted for 2011 and 2012 and winner of 2013 in 2013 of THE Entrepreneurial University of the year.; became the first university globally to be awarded the Social Enterprise Mark (Plymouth University annual report, 2013).

RAMI MUSA 18


Mission, Governance and Strategy:The University's 2020 strategy has four key areas:

1. Excellent learning in partnership with students.2. World-class research and innovation.3. Raising aspirations and driving engagement.4. Achieving resilience, sustainability and effectiveness.

With 13 Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s) which are:

1. Student satisfaction2. First Choice Students3. Graduate employability4. Widening participation5. International students6. Research Excellence Framework7. Research income8. Influencing policy and practice9. Innovation10. Financial Health11. Sustainability12. Staff Satisfaction13. Partnerships and collaborations

Stakeholder Engagement:In 2014 the University hosted the International Enterprise Educators Conference. The University continued its commitment to the local community through its Community Research Awards to the total value of £50,000 to be spent on the research ideas put forward by the community and developed into projects alongside University researchers (Plymouth University annual report, 2012).

Knowledge transfer/exchange and support:Each year, more than 600 undergraduates from Plymouth University take part in a work-based, experiential learning programme called ‘Inspiring Futures’, which requires teams of five to undertake three-month consultancy work with businesses and organisations, ranging from multinationals to small charities and community groups. The project produced 116 consultancy projects for 38 organisations, contributing £174,000 to the local economy and is now being rolled out across the University (NCEE, 2012).

Hundreds of students have been working with the Entrepreneurs in Residence to develop the skills needed to run their own business, and have launched an Entrepreneurship Society to organise relevant activities and events, and influence curriculum development. Last year, they worked with over 5,000 businesses and supported over 150 new business ideas and start-ups. They generated over £100million worth of physical assets under a single innovation umbrella – the Growth Acceleration and Investment Network (GAIN), which promotes support of SMEs in the region. It has since received a further £3.9 million in the third round of funding – one of only two universities in the country to have done so. The University recently launched a partnership with online crowd-funding platform peoplefund.it to help stimulate enterprise in the South West (Wilson, 2012).

The University’s activities support 4,000 jobs and account for £250 million of output across the local economy. It has invested £300m in infrastructure projects in the local community, and through the Growth Acceleration and Investment Network (GAIN) operates more than £100 million worth of incubation, innovation, and science park assets, and supports 1,000 businesses and 5,000 people. Since 2011, the University has successfully bid for three rounds of Regional Growth Fund money – more than any other higher education institution – amounting to

RAMI MUSA 19


£9 million, and this is projected to create around 550 jobs and boost GVA by £20m by 2015 (Universities Alliance, 2011).

The University holds a 50% share of Tamar Science Park Limited, a company limited by guarantee. This is a joint venture company owned equally by the University and Plymouth City Council (Plymouth University annual report, 2012).

Internalisation:There is a growing partnership between Plymouth and Hong Kong University of Professional and Continuing Education, through the University’s Business School and Institute for Sustainability Solutions Research; a number of staff played a leading role in the Nigerian government’s YouWiN youth entrepreneurship programme, training 6,000 young people in entrepreneurialism (NCEE, 2012).

Enterprise and entrepreneurship pedagogy:There are also some 60 Enterprise Enablers, who voluntarily work to embed enterprise across the institution and act as catalysts for change. Plymouth University provides over 12,000 placements a year for students and actively encourages them to engage with national and international entrepreneurship competitions, ensuring over 12,000 students gain industry experience every year (UUK, 2011).

University of TeessideShortlisted for 2010 and 2013 for the THE Entrepreneurial University of the year.

Mission, Governance and Strategy:The Board of Governors of Teesside University has been transparent about their strategy which is reflected in their mission statement and institutional plan for the period of 2012-2015, as it is shaped into three primary strategies, namely:

1) Academic strategy, 2) Business engagement strategy and 3) Research strategy.

Stakeholder Engagement:UT appointed a social entrepreneur in residence to work proactively with staff and students; to deliver a social enterprise awareness and development programme targeted at 68 students and staff, leading to the award of 19 new social enterprises UnLted fund (TU annual report, 2013).

A significant number of entrepreneurial staff were able to generate and manage their own income while contributing to research and curriculum development, and involving academic colleagues in consultancy and knowledge transfer. In 2010, there were 9 major enterprise initiatives – all focused on business innovation or creation NCEE (2012).

Knowledge transfer/exchange and support:Throughout 2012-13, a strong record in the delivery of Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTPs) was maintained, with a Grade A – Outstanding award for a KTP with Northumbrian Water, and a Very Good rating for a KTP with Coast and Country Housing (Wilson, 2012).

72 graduate businesses were started up with support from the University’s new Business Team and innovative DigitalCity Fellowship programme. DigitalCity Fellows alone were creating one business per week, providing a range of opportunities to boost career prospects from Knowledge Transfer Partnerships to start-up business support and DigitalCity Fellowships worth £4,000, plus business Support.

In January 2013, the University partnered with internet start-up accelerator Searchcamp to run a unique intensive 13-week programme on campus for digital start-ups. Six companies were formed as a result of this first programme, which saw entrepreneurial experts from across the globe providing mentoring and coaching. All six have remained in the Tees Valley and are now securing investment (TU annual report, 2013).

RAMI MUSA 20


Internalisation:13 the University operated from ten centres worldwide with 1,500 students actively engaged on their programmes. As a result, they will be holding seven graduation ceremonies outside the UK this year in Europe, Africa and Asia (NCEE, 2012).

Enterprise and entrepreneurship pedagogy:‘entrepreneurs@tees’ initiative is led by the union and supported by the Universit , enrolling over 280 initial members. This initiative develops entrepreneurial skills and attitudes with students, and currently offers support to the 700 potential entrepreneurs recruited in 2011-12 (and which has now been complemented by the Teesside Entrepreneurs Society launched by their Students’ Union). Enterprise Alumni Network reached 170 members (NCEE, 2012)

University HertfordshireThe university won the 2010 Entrepreneurial University of the Year and was shortlisted for the following year.

Mission, Governance and Strategy:Strategic focus:

1. Student experience2. Learning and teaching3. Employability and entrepreneurship4. Research, innovation and enterprise5. International engagement

The majority of the funding at University of Hertfordshire (UH) comes from commercial companies and HEFCE funding is responsible for only a quarter of its total revenue. As UH engages with over 250,000 SMEs, they are the UK’s largest provider of government funded support to businesses and working with innovation council to promote entrepreneurship in the community, with pan-European partnerships, launching a Social Enterprise unit that provides consultancy, research and business support to over 45 NGOs, and it is considered the number 1 in KTP in the UK eastern region exceeding £ 1M in awards (UH annual report, 2013).

Stakeholder Engagement:UH established a bus venture in 1992 named UNO which is considered one of the UK’s largest bus operators and the profit is reinvested into the university to enhance student experience. Additionally, UH established the Hertford Sports Village which is a health, fitness and sports facility open to students, staff and the public to host informal and formal sports programmes and events. Funded by Sport England funding, the sports Village has partnerships with major sports and athletics organisations including England Women’s FA and England Golf as well hosting high standard events such as the World Championship in Tae Kwon Do and Great Britain Wheelchair Basketball competitions. (NCEE, 2012)

There is an Entrepreneur in residence who promotes entrepreneurial education development through action learning, developing an innovative game-like software application that provides students with real life cases while enjoying the learning experience. This game is now available to all students and staff and will be presented to external users commercially (UH annual report, 2013).

UH received funding from the Heritage Lottery to provide students with the social and cultural entrepreneurial experience engage in heritage related activities and take formal credit for work placement in the heritage project. There is also a university based consultancy unit that provides students and graduates with small consultancy contracts with SMEs and NGOs with an attractive price to give the graduates a good, paid consultancy experience opportunity (Wilson, 2012).

Knowledge transfer/exchange and support:The Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) funds are used to set up an incubator for medium size businesses in Hertfordshire and the Office of Low Emission Vehicles (OLEV) and European Regional Development Fund

RAMI MUSA 21


(ERDF) have funded EValu8 transport innovation limited which is a UH venture to install a recharging network across East of England to accelerate the uptake of electric vehicles aiming to reduce CO2 emissions and promote the growth of low carbon economy. And many other ventures including UH Venture Limited (NCGE, 2009).

The UH has set up a project named De Havilland Airfield Reminiscence Project which was a centre of British aviation industry, now it’s a cluster and a housing area which has university campuses, open spaces for business and a science park creating an entrepreneurial environment for the students and staff investing over £ 10M in incubation facilities and labs for chemical R&D activities in partnership with the commercial sector.

Huddersfield UniversityWinner of THE 2012 Entrepreneurial University of the Year, and received two Queen’s Awards for Enterprise in the same year.

Mission, Governance and Strategy:The university integrates enterprise in its strategy on the highest level providing the support to enterprises and business development. In 2012, the university launched an intensive support package for the best students businesses named Activ8 Your Business, which helped with the establishment of the 3M Buckley Innovation Centre; a £12M cross-sector hub for innovation, right next to the £8M EPSRC Centre for Advanced Manufacturing and many SMEs settled around these two hubs, leading to a strong industrial relations and environment that helps students and businesses grow and develop (Wilson, 2012).

Strategy for the next five years: Innovation, Inspiration and Internationalisation.

Research has showed that the university is responsible for providing over £300M benefit to the local economy through students, alumni and business support. This has been done by providing funds to students and new businesses through regional funding and commercial partnerships, including £3.5m for Enterprising Barnsley and £9.5m in Regional Growth Funds and forming partnerships with major business such as the Borgwarner Turbo Systems plant in a £26 million research partnership to work on green technology engines (UUK, 2011).

Stakeholder Engagement:With a new partnership with Funding Circle, which the UK’s largest online marketplace for direct lending and loans, the aim is to lend £100,000 to small businesses which helps the business and develops future business leaders. The income from the investment will fund Enterprise Development Course students scholarships over the next five years, and this could help over 200 entrepreneurial students (HU annual report, 2013).

Knowledge transfer/exchange and supportOffering enterprise- specific degrees mostly taught by entrepreneurs as well as enterprise research masters and doctorates for students to develop new business ideas and service innovation. In 2013, a session on enterprise research was delivered and 400 students, staff and start-ups attended leading to 35 new students and graduates start-ups, and support was provided from microfinance to market testing. These lectures and sessions are delivered by entrepreneurial professors in Entrepreneurship, Social Enterprise and Collaboration, and this has helped in embedding innovation and entrepreneurship into the curriculum (HU annual report, 2013).

Internalisation:Huddersfield has students from 130 countries, of which 100 are close connections through alumni and direct partnership, having over 40 international students' societies that welcome students from all nationalities and backgrounds and gives students the chance to learn about other cultures.

The university just opened its overseas representation office in Vietnam after China and Nigeria. As well as that, the university offers international placements for students to enrich their learning experience, and more partnerships are being made to secure more work placements and study trips for students as well as recruiting international staff to join the university, and to offer joint research and exchange academic visits between Chinese universities and Huddersfield NCEE (2012).

RAMI MUSA 22


Enterprise and entrepreneurship pedagogy100% of the students take professional work experience during their degrees. 70% of the graduates receive a professional qualification alongside their academic degrees; the University of Huddersfield has over 40 professional accreditations associated with its degree (NCGE, 2009).

CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATIONSUniversities have to be competitive as they are being challenged by funding and government agencies to develop their enterprise and entrepreneurial aspects, and many universities have already given serious consideration to embed entrepreneurship as a part of their strategic plan. In an attempt to drive the entrepreneurial spirit across the institution, senior management would be engaged and supervise the performance of the faculty as a whole and as separate faculties and departments, encouraging such activities and trends within the university, identifying the potential and areas of possible development by focusing on the following areas:

1- Raising awareness across the institution of an entrepreneurial development agenda. This includes engaging students and staff in the aim of developing an entrepreneurial environment to promote competent enterprising students and staff. Additionally, to develop the capacity to deliver entrepreneurial education by including enterprise and entrepreneurial material in the curriculum a nd to develop courses that are designated to this area as well as research to match the agenda.

2- Encouraging students to start business and promote self-employment by neutering confident, self-aware, entrepreneurial and efficient graduates.

3- Concentrating incubation efforts to develop current start-ups and tenants as well as searching for ideas and opportunities and attracting and headhunting students and staff who wish to pursue this career and developing their capacity.

4- Engaging students with entrepreneurs and SME’s in order to give them a real life experience rather than just an academic perspective; perhaps through attending events and networking with entrepreneurs or placement opportunities, so they can get a sense of what the SME’s and entrepreneurship are (learning by doing / exposure), and provide mentorship and apprenticeship programmes to support students in the transition and give them a soft landing in the real world.

Furthermore, the entrepreneurial university agenda should not be separated from the other conventional HEI agendas such as teaching, learning, employability, and research and stakeholders engagement.

HEIs are required to make strategic decisions and adopt new ideas in order to reflect their commitment to become entrepreneurial institutions, and these decision could vary; e.g. organisational design and entrepreneurial autonomy as well as shared responsibilities across all departments, to increase ownership and support entrepreneurial individuals initiatives. However, this must be backed with senior leadership support and encouragement for risk taking, and a centralised unit (not in a particular department) to promote the entrepreneurial activities and engage in partnerships with internal and external stakeholders.

It is usual for an HEI to concentrate its resources on research since its considered the second mission of HEI’s, but to carry out the research activities with an entrepreneurial agenda, identifying any possible opportunities to capitalise on research products and develop research capabilities with the intent to produce commercialised research, seek KTP activities, focus on programmes designs and pedagogy activities including delivery, and engage with alumni and entrepreneurial student associations as well as external partners with an international outlook,.

Entrepreneurial education should match market needs and careers agenda to tackle the issue of employability of students and provide more career relevance to students . Building more partnerships for more placement opportunities for students and graduates on both national and international level means strengthening the local,

RAMI MUSA 23


regional, national and international academic and industrial networks and partnerships as well as engaging with other entrepreneurial HEI to learn best practice and benefit from their knowledge and experiences.

Developing staff to be able to deliver an innovative pedagogy and through engagement with entrepreneurs, the staff can really become entrepreneurial through these close engagements. By developing entrepreneurial material for students, and entrepreneurs can be offered a status and entrepreneurial professorship as an incentive to engage with the university.

Figure (2) shows the different entrepreneurial activities that could be carried out by institutions, and these can be translated into key objectives and would serve as a scale of how entrepreneurial the university is, in terms of how much it focuses on exploring the potential of such activities and conduct them to certain extent. It was clear in the data analyses section that many of the entrepreneurial universities have carried out similar activities and this highlights the importance of enhancing innovation, strengthening partnership, enhancing student employability, improving research and teaching quality, engaging with entrepreneurs. These are the general agenda and key strategic objectives combined with the activities leading to the universities best potential of becoming an entrepreneurial university which means increasing universities revenue and the enhancement of an institution’s image and profile , not to mention increasing students' satisfaction.

Fig(2) source: Fayolle, A,. (2007) Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Volume (1) A General Perspective, Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.

Word count: 10,029 words

RAMI MUSA 24


REFERENCES LISTAbreu, M., Grinevich, V., Hughes, A., Kitson, M.,Ternouth, P., (2008). Universities, business and knowledge exchange. Council for Industry and Higher Education and Centre for Business Research, London/Cambridge.

Acs, Z. J., and Naude, W. (2011). Entrepreneurship , stages of development , and industrialization.

Arnold, E and Thuriaux, B. (1997) Developing firms’ technological capabilities, mimeo

Atwood, T. (2012). Enterprise education. 1st ed. Corby: First and Best in Education Ltd.

Audretsch, D. et al. (2006). Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

Bailey, A. J. (2000). industrialization and economic development in advanced placement human geography. Journal of geography, 99(3-4), 142–152.

Baldini, N. (2010). University spin-offs and their environment. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 22.

Bercovitz, J., and Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science

Blackmore, P., and Blackwell, P. (2006). Strategic leadership in academic development. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3),

Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society. 2nd ed. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers.

Chandra, A. (2007). Business Incubation in Brazil: Creating an Environment for Entrepreneurship (October 1, 2007). Networks Financial Institute Working Paper No. 2007 WP-25.

Chandra, A. and Silva, M. M. A. (2012). Business Incubation in Chile: Development, Financing and Financial Services. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 7(2).

Chang, Y. (2002). Advanced Manufacturing Technologies and Changes in Work Organization. Science, Technology and Policy Institute

Chesbrough, H. (2008). Open innovation. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chesbrough, H. (2003). The Era of Open Innovation, MIT Sloan Management Review; Spring, Vol. 44 Issue 3, p35-41.

Clark, B.R., (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities-organizational pathways of transformation. Elsevier, Oxford.

Collis, J. And Hussey, R. (2003) Business Research: a practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Cottrell, S. (2014) Dissertations and Project Reports: a step-by-step guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan

RAMI MUSA 25


D’Este P. and Patel, P. (2007) University–industry linkages in the UK: what are the factors determining the variety of interactions with industry?. Research Policy, 36 9: 1295–1313

D’Este, P. and Perkmann, M., (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer 36,316–339.

Eisenmann, T. (2014). Entrepreneurship: A Working Definition. [Blog] HBR. Available at: http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/01/what-is-entrepreneurship/ [Accessed 8 Aug. 2014].

Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkage. Research Policy, 27(8), 823—833.

Etzkowitz, H., W. Webster, C. Gebhardt, and B.R. Cantisano Terra. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy 29: 313–330.

Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in Innovation: The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337.

Fayolle, A,. (2007) Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education, Volume (1) A General Perspective, Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.

Fini R., Grimaldi R., Santoni S., Sobrero M. (2011), Complements Or Substitutes? The Role Of Universities And Local Context In Supporting The Growth Of Academic Spin-offs. Research Policy, 40: 1113-1127.

Finkle, T. A. (2011). Corporate Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Silicon Valley: The Case of Google, Inc.Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 863-884

Gibb, A.A., Haskins, G., Hannon, P., and Robertson, I. (2013) the entrepreneurial university: from concept to action - National Council for Entrepreneurship in Education (NCEE) Policy Paper.

Gibb, A. A. (2012) “Exploring the synergistic potential in entrepreneurial university development: towards the building of a strategic framework”. Annals of Innovation and Entrepreneurship 2012

Hagen, R., 2002. Globalization, university transformation and economic regeneration: a UK case study of public/private sector partnership. International Journal of Public Sector Management 15 (3), 204–218.

Harrison, R., Leitch, C., 2005. Entrepreneurial learning: researching the interface between learning and the entrepreneurial context. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29 (4), 351-371.

Herrmann, K. (2008) Developing Entrepreneurial Graduates: Putting entrepreneurship at the centre of higher education, NESTA

HE-BCI, (2007). The Higher Education – Business and Community Interaction Survey 2007/08. Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).

Hicks, D., Breitzman Sr., A., et al., (2000). Research excellence and patented innovation. Science and Public Policy 27.

RAMI MUSA 26


Hodge, G. and Greve, C. (2005). The Challenge of Public Private Partnerships: Learning from international experience, (G. Hodge and C. Greve, Eds.) (First, p. 357). Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham.

Hughes, A. (2003). Knowledge transfer, entrepreneurship and economic growth (ESRC Centre for Business Research Working Paper No. 273), University Of Cambridge Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Centre Cambridge, UK.

Hussain, I., Farooq, Z. and Akhtar, W. (2012). SMEs development and failure avoidance in developing countries through public private partnership. African Journal of Business Management, 6(4),

Kauffman Foundation (2010) available at http://www.kauffmann.org/research-and-policy/entrepreneurship-inamerican-higher-education.aspx)

Lall, S. (2004). Reinventing Industrial Strategy: The Role of Government Policy in Building Industrial Competitiveness. Available at http://unctad.org/en/docs/gdsmdpbg2420044_en.pdf

Lam, A, (2011) What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? ResearchPolicy 40, Elsevier B.V.

Leydesdorff, L. and H. Etzkowitz (2000), “The Dynamics of Innovation: from National Systems and Mode 2 to a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations”, Research Policy, No. 29, No. 2, Elsevier, pp. 109-123. Cheltenham.

Lonsdale, C. (2007). The Challenge of Public–Private Partnerships. Local Government Studies, 33(2), 311–319.

Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., von Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(3), 259-283.

McCormick, 1999). McCormick, D. (1999). African enterprise clusters and industrialization: Theory and reality, World development. Vol. 27, No.9, pp. 1531 – 1551. Available on www.elsevier.com

Meyer, M, (2003). Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Researchbased ventures and public support mechanisms. R&D Management.

Mian, S. (1996) THE UNIVERSITY BUSINESS INCUBATOR: A STRATEGY FOR DEVELOPING NEW RESEARCH/TECHNOLOGY-BASED FIRMS The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Volume 7, Number 2, pages 191-208

NBIA (2014), National Business Incubation Association online: http://nbia.org/resource_library/what_is/index.php

Naudé, W. (2010). Promoting Entrepreneurship in Developing Countries: Policy Challenge

NCEE (2012), ENTERPRISE AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN HIGHER EDUCATION England 2012 Survey, The National Centre for Entrepreneurship in Education

NCGE (2009) Leading the entrepreneurial university, The National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship.

RAMI MUSA 27

http://www.kauffmann.org/research-and-policy/entrepreneurship-inamerican-higher-education.aspx


Pénin, J. (2009). Open source innovation: Rethinking the concept of openness in innovation Studies. Submitted to Revue Économique

Porter, M. E. (1998). Clusters and the New Economics of Competition. Harvard Business Review November - December 1998, 76(6), 77–90

Review Preliminary Findings, (2013) Encouraging a British Invention Revolution: Sir Andrew Witty’s Review of Universities and Growth - available at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/universities-and-growth-the-witty-review-callfor-evidence

Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S., Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.

Schmitz, H. (1999), "Collective Efficiency and Increasing Returns", Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23(4), 465-83, available on www.ideas.repec.org

Schmitz, H., and Nadvi, K. (1999), "Clustering and Industrialization: Introduction", World Development, 27(9), 1503-1514.

Schofield, T,. (2014), Critical Success Factors for Knowledge Transfer Collaborations between University and Industry, Imperial College Consultants

Shane, S. A. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.

Shattock, M. (2009). Entrepreneurialism in universities and the knowledge economy. Diversification and organisational change in European higher education. UK: Society for Research in Higher Education and the Open University Press.

Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., Wright, M. (2003). Science parks and the performance of new technology-based firms: a review of recent U.K. evidence and an agenda for future research. Small Business Economics, 23(1), 177-184.

Siegel, D. S., Wright, M., Lockett, A. (2007). The rise of entrepreneurial activity at universities: Organizational and societal implications. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 489-504.

Smith, H.L. (2007). Universities, innovation, and territorial development: A review of the evidence. Environment and Planning: Government and Policy, 25, (pages 98 – 114).

Solvell, O., Lindqvist, G., and Ketels, C. (2003). The Cluster Initiative Greenbook

Todorovic, Z. W., McNaughton, R. B., and Guild, P. (2011). ENTRE-U: An entrepreneurial orientation scale for universities Technovation, 31(2/3), 128.

Todorovic, Z. W., and Schlosser, F. K. (2007). An Entrepreneur and a Leader!: A Framework Conceptualizing the Influence of Leadership Style on a Firm's Entrepreneurial Orientation Performance Relationship. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 20(3), 289-308.

Universities Alliance (2011) Growing the Future: Universities leading, changing and creating the regional economy, London

UUK (2009) The impact of universities on the UK economy, London

RAMI MUSA 28


UUK (2011) Driving Economic Growth: Higher education – a core strategic asset to the UK, London

Weyer, J., Schulz-schaeffer, I., Werle, R.(2010). Interaction of Science and Society. Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, North America, 6, Nov.. Available at: <http://www.sti-studies.de/ojs/index.php/sti/article/view/34/17>. Date accessed: 09 Aug. 2014.

Wilson, T. A. (2012) A Review of Business–University Collaboration. The Wilson review

Wong, S.K.S. (2013), Environmental Requirements, Knowledge Sharing and Green Innovation: Empirical Evidence from the Electronics Industry in China, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 22, No. 5, pp. 321–338.

Unabridged, D. (2014). the definition of industrialization. [online] Dictionary.com. Available at: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/industrialization [Accessed 8 Aug. 2014].

Yin, R, K. (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 5th ed., Sage

Zhao, F. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: Case study of Australian universities. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 5(2), 91—97.

Annual reports:

(UH annual report, 2011) University of Huddersfield Annual Review



(LMU annual report, 2010) London Metropolitan University Annual Review




(HU annual report, 2012) Hertfordshire University Annual Review

(HU annual report, 2013) Hertfordshire University Annual Review

(TU annual report, 2012) Teesside University Annual Review

(TU annual report, 2013) Teesside University Annual Review

(Plymouth University annual report, 2012) Plymouth University Annual Review

(Plymouth University annual report, 2013) Plymouth University Annual Review

(Northampton University annual report, 2012) Northampton University Annual Review

(Northampton University annual report, 2013) Northampton University Annual Review

RAMI MUSA 29


APPENDICES

Chronicle planTask Name Start Date End Date Period Completion %

Selecting topic 06/02/14 06/20/14 15 Days 100%

Brainstorming ideas for project ideas 06/02/14 06/06/14 5 100%

Reading and investigating 06/09/14 06/13/14 5 100%

Selecting topic 06/13/14 06/13/14 1 100%

Familiarizes myself with the nature of the problem

06/13/14 06/20/14 6 100%

Proposal 06/21/14 07/31/14 30 100%

Draft a proposal 06/21/14 06/23/14 2 100%

Present/feedback on proposal draft 06/25/14 100%

Revise draft 06/26/14 07/31/14 26 100%

Submit proposal 07/02/14 07/02/14 1 100%

Feedback on proposal 07/03/14 07/07/14 3 100%

Data collection 07/05/14 07/25/14 16 100%

Consulate with supervisor on questions 07/13/14 07/18/14 6 100%

Collect data 07/21/14 07/25/14 5 100%

Analysing findings 07/28/14 08/01/14 5 100%

Gather data and findings 07/28/14 07/28/14 1 100%

Analyze finding and observations 07/30/14 08/01/14 3 100%

Writing up 08/04/14 08/22/14 15 100%

Draft a research report 08/04/14 08/15/14 10 100%

Revision proofreading 08/25/14 08/30/14 5 100%

Revise draft 08/25/14 08/29/14 5 100%

Proofread 1 Grammar and punctuality 08/28/14 08/30/14 2 100%

Submission 09/04/14 09/04/14 1 100%

RAMI MUSA 30


Ethics Review Checklist (please read the guidelines on the previous page before completing this form) This form should be completed by the member of staff responsible for the proposed activity (and, in the case of student projects, in consultation with the student concerned).

1. Please provide a brief description of the proposed research or training activity for which ethics clearance is requested (maximum 50 words): A case study on Entrepreneurial university development and a comparison between London Metropolitan university and five UK entrepreneurial universities (University of Huddersfield, University of Northampton, Plymouth University, Teesside University, and University of Hertfordshire)

We will be looking at published reports and documented data from annual reports and news articles.

2. If the proposed activity is an undergraduate, postgraduate or short-course module, please give the relevant Module course code:

EC7P75MBA - Business Analysis Report

3. Name of the staff member responsible for the proposed activity (who must be a salaried or honorary member of staff at London Metropolitan University):

Module leader: Dr Hazel Messenger

4. Email address of the staff member responsible for the proposed activity:

[email protected]

5. If the proposed activity is an undergraduate, postgraduate or short-course project, please give the name and email address of the student involved (who must be a student enroled at London Metropolitan University): Background information (please type in your responses in the boxes provided)

Rami Musa

[email protected]

Potential ethical concerns (No)

RAMI MUSA 31

mailto:[email protected]


6. Are any of the people involved in collecting or analysing data for the proposed activity not employed (on formal or honorary contracts) or enrolled as (undergraduate, postgraduate or short-course) students by London Metropolitan University? Yes, I will be interviewing senior staff but there names and titles will not be disclosed. 7. Does the proposed activity involve any foreseeable legal risks or risk of physical, psychological or social distress to staff, students or participants? No

8. Does the proposed activity only involve library-based work or work based only on the analysis and scrutiny of publicly available documents? Yes

9. Does the proposed activity involve the collection or use of body tissues or body fluids (including excreta) from humans or animals? No

10. Does the proposed activity involve the collection of data from human or animal participants? No

11. Does the proposed activity involve the collection of data through the direct or indirect observation of human subjects? No

12. Does the proposed activity involve the administration of any drug, food substance or placebos to human or animal subjects? No

13. Does the proposed activity involve exposing human or animal participants to any abnormal or painful physical or sensory stimuli (including auditory, visual and olfactory stimuli)? No

14. Does the proposed activity require human or animal participants undergoing abnormal physical, psychological or emotional stress (including dehydration, exercise, sensory deprivation, confinement or sleeplessness)? No

15. Does the proposed activity involve exposure to topics or issues that might cause offence (including exposure to controversial, offensive or illegal material or ideologies)? No

16. Does the proposed activity involve deceiving participants? No

17. Does the proposed activity require the disclosure of private or confidential information without the informed consent of participants? No

18. Is the proposed activity likely to lead to the potential disclosure of illegal activity or incriminating information from participants? No

19. Does the proposed activity involve staff, clients, premises, facilities, material or data derived from NHS, Social Care or Local Authority Education Services? No

20. Does the proposed activity involve participants who are potentially vulnerable or unable to give informed consent (including children under the age of 16, people with learning difficulties, people with cognitive disorders and people with debilitating illnesses)? No

21. Does the proposed activity require the staff and/or students involved to have undergone a Criminal Records Bureau check? No

RAMI MUSA 32


If you have answered ‘No’ to all of the Questions 6 through 21 it is unlikely that you will be required to submit a formal application for ethical clearance from one of the University’s Ethics Review Panels or from an external Research Ethics Committee. If you have answered ‘Yes’ to any of Questions 6 through 21 you will need to consult with the Chair/vice-Chair of the Ethics Review Panel dealing with research and training for your Faculty, Department or Research Institute to provide further clarification and thereby assess whether you will be required to submit a formal application for ethical clearance from their Ethics Review Panels or from an external Research Ethics Committee. The member of staff responsible for the proposed activity (and, in the case of student projects, consultation, the student concerned) should sign a hard copy of this form and send it to the Chair/vice-Chair of the Ethics Review Panel dealing with research and training for your Faculty, Department or Research Institute (see overleaf).

Staff signature: ___________________________________ Date: _________________ Student signature: __________Rami Musa____________ Date: _01/09/2014________________

RAMI MUSA 33


SUPERVISOR MEETINGS - LOG SHEET 1To be completed at each meeting and agreed by the student and supervisor

Student’s Name:

Rami Musa

Date of Meeting:

Monday 7th July

Supervisor’s Name:

Overall objective of the meeting (e.g. review of research practice, literature review, dissertation writing, any problems to be addressed)

Discuss availability and preferred means of contact.

Develop an appropriate timetable for researchrefine research objectives.

Agreeing on literature review topics and direction

Progress Review from previous meeting N/AObjectives met: Objectives remaining:

New objectives from the outcome of this meeting

Objectives agreed: Dates for completion:

Complete literature review before the next meeting.

Any other issues

Student’s signature:Rami Musa

Date:09/07/2014

Supervisor’s signature: Date:

RAMI MUSA 34



Student’s Name:

Rami Musa

Date of Meeting:

21/07/2014


Barry Dwyer


Discuss the structure of the research and guidelines

Progress Review from previous meeting

Objectives met: Objectives remaining:



Any other issues


Date: 25/07/2014


RAMI MUSA 35



Student’s Name:

Rami Musa

Date of Meeting:

14/08/2014


Barry Dwyer


Discussion of literature reviewResearch design and data collectionDiscuss the methodology

Progress Review from previous meeting

N/AObjectives met: Objectives remaining:

Agreed on the methodology and research design

None



Any other issues

RAMI MUSA 36



Date: 17/08/2014



Student’s Name:

Rami Musa

Date of Meeting:

20/08/2014

Supervisor’s Name: Hazel Messenger


Discuss the ethical issuesDiscuss the conceptual development and frameworkProgress Review from previous meeting N/AObjectives met: Objectives remaining:

None



Any other issues


Date: 22/08/2014


RAMI MUSA 37


RAMI MUSA 38

Documents

How to make university more entrepreneurial