Process Mechanisms for Academic Entrepreneurial Ecosystems –Insights from a Case Study in China

Gaofeng Yi1,2,* Elvira Uyarra 2

1 Educational science research institute of Hunan University, Changsha City, P.R. China. 224051.2 Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, United Kingdom. M15 6PB.

* Corresponding author: Gaofeng Yi.

E-mail address: gfupt@outlook.com; Mobile Phone: +86 13921800165

Abstract This research explores how a research university develops its academic

entrepreneurial ecosystem (AEE) through building up process mechanisms, thereby

improving the academic entrepreneurship efficiency. We propose an individual-

organization-environment-process model, which we illustrate with the case study of

Zhejiang University. Our findings pinpoint the importance of identifying the three basic

mechanisms driving the AEE model, incentive, collaboration and capability mechanisms.

The incentive mechanism is the driving force that could change the organizational

framework, as well as individual research goals through the reform of the personnel

assessment system and the entrepreneurial income distribution system. The collaboration

mechanism is the vehicle of the AEE model that enables new entrepreneurial models and

business start-up by improving university’s governance structures and building up

entrepreneurial networks. The capability mechanism is the element for sustainable

academic entrepreneurship through a combination of different entrepreneurial capabilities

in a university.

Keywords Academic entrepreneurship; Process mechanisms; Research university;

Entrepreneurial ecosystem

1

1 Introduction

In recent decades, some universities have shifted towards a more entrepreneurial direction through undertaking the ‘third mission’ as a key actor promoting regional and national economic development (Etzkowitz et al. 2000; O’Shea et al. 2007; Guerrero et al. 2014; Schmitz et al. 2016). For example, in China, the central government is implementing the national innovation development strategy which emphasizes the building up and commercialization of intellectual capital in universities in order to create value and jobs (Fisch et al. 2014). Many universities, but more so research universities, now actively promote knowledge commercialization and try to inject an entrepreneurial mind-set among their staff and graduates. By integrating entrepreneurs, enterprises, government, investors and other agencies, the universities are developing academic entrepreneurial ecosystems (AEE).

‘Academic entrepreneurship’ is a term that describes a university and its academic staff who engage in the commercialization of their research results (Doutriaux 1987; Abreu and Grinevich 2013). However, in recent years, developing an AEE has received considerable attention from academics, governments, and development agencies (Hallam et al. 2014), for example the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Bank and so on (ANDE 2013). Research also has showed specific examples of how entrepreneurial ecosystems have created significant economic value in Argentina, the United States, Israel, India, China and Mexico (Bernardez 2009). Vogel (2014) argued that an entrepreneurship ecosystem is composed of two important aspects, one of which is interdependent actors including entrepreneurs and institutions; the other includes factors such as markets, policies, support setting, and so on. Both coexist and interact to promote new venture creation. Colombo (2014) held a similar view. Greene et al. (2010) provided a definition for university-based entrepreneurial ecosystem, that is, that multidimensional enterprises support entrepreneurship development through various initiatives related to teaching, research and outreach. There are now a number of entrepreneurial ecosystems models (ANDE 2013; Mason and Brown 2014; Entezari 2015). Isenberg (2011) identifies six elements of this ecosystem, that is, policy, finance, human capital, supports, markets and culture.Yaribeigi et al. (2014) shares these views. Applying this concept and theoretical framework of entrepreneurship ecosystem to our study, our definition of an AEE, based on a synthesis of definitions found in the literature (Greene et al. 2010; Isenberg 2011; Graham 2014; Vogel 2014) is straightforward. Namely, a set of academic entrepreneurial actors(for example universities, research institutions, enterprises, venture capitalists, and so on) and factors(for example, university leadership, governance, and entrepreneurial capability, markets, support setting, and so on), which coexist and interact through academic entrepreneurial process

2

mechanisms, in order to develop a dynamic and interactive community, all to achieve the goal of knowledge commercialization.

An effective AEE is critical for academic entrepreneurial activities since it not only acts as a catalyst in accelerating the commercialization of knowledge but also as a dynamic and platform in maintaining the sustainable development of academic entrepreneurship. However, little of the literature exists, that conceptualizes the structure and function of an academic entrepreneurial ecosystem (Hayter, 2016), and few studies uncover how AEEs are changing, especially building on certain mechanisms that enable the academic entrepreneurship system to transition towards an ecosystem. In order to address this gap, this paper expands the existing approaches by examining the mechanisms among the actors in an AEE. It utilizes a qualitative case study and in-depth interviews with entrepreneurs to explore how an ecosystem evolves that would motivate academic entrepreneurship, recognizing the key factors that affect academic entrepreneurship performance, and finally construct the process mechanisms of an AEE.

This paper makes three distinct theoretical contributions to the AEE literature: First, through the systematic literature review and in-depth case study, we paint a comprehensive picture of the transition in a research university from academic entrepreneurship system to an AEE. This study also affirms that developing AEEs can provide valuable resources and collaboration for academic entrepreneurship. Second, we synthesize our empirical results into a new and adaptive theoretical framework of an “individual-organization-environment-process” model on AEE, and further recognize the process mechanisms for developing AEEs by acting on the different levels of individual, organization and environment. Third, a main contribution of the study explores how the three basic process mechanisms of “incentive, collaboration and capability” can contribute to drive a traditional academic entrepreneurship system transition to an AEE thereby improving academic entrepreneurship efficiency. And we also discuss the implications of our research results for improving academic entrepreneurship.

The remainder of this paper is outlined as follows. Section 2 discusses the conceptual framework of AEEs. Section 3 introduces the study methodology designed to identify the case, data collection and analysis. Section 4 describes in detail which are the key challenges the university in the case study faced in establishing an AEE and how these challenges were solved. Section 5 discusses the transition towards the AEE by developing process mechanisms. Section 6 provides the conclusion and policy implications.

3

2 Conceptualizing Academic Entrepreneurial Ecosystems

Our aim is to fill the research gap of process mechanisms in AEE by developing and presenting the “Incentive—Collaboration—Capability” Interactive Three Mechanisms Model (ITM) of AEE. The model is informed by the previous literature that recognizes the main influencing factors of individual, organization, environment (IOE) in shaping the ecosystem. The model is further developed and elaborated in Section 4 and Section 5 of this paper and illustrated with a case study of Zhejiang University (Section 4).

Academic entrepreneurship is not a single event, but rather a continuous process comprised of a series of events and stages (Friedman and Silberman 2003; Wood 2011). The development of academic entrepreneurship in a research university depends on a combination of factors at the individual, organizational and environmental levels. In order to gain understanding of the factors that drive or hinder academic entrepreneurship, we have used the entrepreneurial ecosystem framework model and thereby developed the following framework conditions based on two different dimensions of IOE analysis levels and ITM construction that foster academic entrepreneurship which have been applied in Chinese research universities.

The IOE analysis dimension comprises: (1) Individual level: the academic staff including teachers and researchers in a research university who are recognized by the university as entrepreneurs. Personal qualities such as gender, intelligence, work experiences, character traits are all extensively researched and generally believed to have significant influence on the individual’s decision to become an entrepreneur (Rauch and Frese 2007; Kolb and Wagner 2015). However, motivation is the key as a driver of entrepreneurial decision-making and opportunity-seeking (Shane et al. 2003). Entrepreneurial capabilities are another important factor, for example resource absorption, exploitation of commercial opportunities, development of entrepreneurial network (D’Este et al. 2009), for achieving individual entrepreneurial goals (Salamzadeh 2011), but relatively little research has addressed the motivation and capabilities effecting the specific steps in an academic entrepreneurial process. Therefore, this paper explores their entrepreneurial motivation and capability, which is different from the traditional research focused on personality traits. This is necessary because the academic staff integrated within non-commercial environments typically lack the business skills and experience which is important to establish a spinoff (Mosey & Wright 2007). (2) Organization level: a university with its institutions such as schools/colleges and departments which improves governance structure, builds up hybrid organizations and develops entrepreneurial networks going beyond the traditional university boundaries that would promote the collaboration among universities, industries, government and other actors (Hayter 2013). However, research has also found numerous barriers to effective

4

knowledge commercialization, for example organizational culture clashes, bureaucratic inflexibility, poorly designed reward systems, and ineffective management of university technology transfer offices (Siegel et al. 2003). This paper, therefore, sets out to study how to adjust the organization structure and develop entrepreneurial network in order to incorporate internal and external resources and develop a strong entrepreneurial foundation. (3) Environmental level: there is increasing evidence to suggest that environmental factors also play a contributing role in promoting entrepreneurship (Suresh and Ramraj 2012). These include government policies and procedures in assisting research results pilot studies, start-ups and other academic entrepreneurial activities. They also refer to financial support from external sources, such as angel and venture funds, and the development of entrepreneurial network supporting academic entrepreneurship.

The ITM construction dimension comprises: (1) Incentive mechanism: using the personnel assessment system and income distribution system methods, thereby encouraging academic staff to embark on applied research and commercialization of knowledge, collaborate with various organizations and seek external support from the entrepreneurial environment. (2) Collaboration mechanism: the development of collaboration between university and industry through improving governance structure and developing entrepreneurial networks. Academic entrepreneurial success relies upon academic and non-academic contacts through collaboration mechanism for developing the connection of academic staff to other social networks (Hayter 2016). (3) Capability mechanism: the development of academic staff entrepreneurship abilities and university entrepreneurial management abilities. University entrepreneurial management abilities refer to the abilities of schools or colleges in a university to develop academic entrepreneurial activities and enhance entrepreneurial efficiency. They also refer to the abilities of the academic entrepreneurial management team from similar institutions of technology transfer office to provide professional services for improving entrepreneurial performance. (4) Outcomes: The dynamic AEE leads to some outcomes of academic entrepreneurship with the process mechanisms, such as the creation of start-up companies, patent production, publications, research funding provided by enterprise, income from academic entrepreneurship, etc, which are usually used as the performance indicators of academic entrepreneurship(Kroll & Liefner 2008; Swamidass 2013; Teixeira & Nogueira 2016). The theoretical model in Table 1 comprises various determinants as mentioned above, which can facilitate and support the development of an AEE and thus influence entrepreneurial performance. Within each of the two main dimensions (ITM and IOE) of this model, several sub-variables are identified in the overall framework. They tend towards interaction with each other and achieve the transition towards an AEE. While this framework is presented below (Table 1), it is

5

explicitly recognized that the process mechanisms for developing AEE act on the different levels of IOE.

Table 1 A process-based theoretical model for AEE mechanisms

“Individual-organization-environment-process” model

Process mechanisms (ITM)Levels of analysis (IOE)

Individual Organization EnvironmentIncentive mechanism

Personnel evaluation incentiveEntrepreneurship income incentive

Collaboration mechanism

Improving organizational structure and governanceDeveloping entrepreneurial networks

Capability mechanism

Developing academic staff’s entrepreneurship abilitiesDeveloping university entrepreneurial management abilitiesDeveloping hybrid organizational support abilities

Outcomes Creation of start-up companies, patent production, publications, research funding provided by enterprise, income from academic entrepreneurship, etc

Source: Designed by the authors

3 Methodology

3.1 Case selectionWe study the case of one of the top research universities in China by exploring the process mechanisms of AEEs. Given the aims of this study, the method of case study is chosen, which is the most appropriate way to identify the interactive processes involved in one case or specific situation in which the researcher has little or no control (Yin 1994). This is also because it allows for the in-depth investigation of a process in richer contextual and complex conditions.

As the top university in China, the university in this case is Zhejiang University (ZJU) playing an important role in developing academic entrepreneurship. The case we selected entailed a challenging academic entrepreneurship mechanisms model design task, where the academic entrepreneurship could not be developed without process mechanisms model and integrating other actors into the ecosystem. The case has prominent characteristics, which is likely to help us in developing more robust theoretical propositions. Considering the nature of the research question, corresponding author of this paper from 2011 to 2013, a post-doctoral at ZJU’s Research Centre for Science, Technology and Education Policy, was involved in research into ZJU’s academic entrepreneurship, and maintaining the research cooperation up to present time, helping to execute this in-depth research and analysis.

6

ITM actson IOE

3.2 Data collection and analysisA summary of the principal steps in the quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis are detailed below. Step1, in order to build the theoretical framework and to analyse the nature of structural with contextual relationships among the elements of actors and factors in AEE, we initially were helped by a group of 8 experts who had both a considerable academic background and knowledge-based entrepreneurship experiences. Between 2011 and 2016, four small discussion meetings were held along with other electronic communication tools to ensure correct collection of their views about the theoretical framework. Moreover, the in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 people in a variety of positions in order to capture their attitudes towards academic entrepreneurship and AEE ideals emerging within their institutions. They included professors from the disciplines of scientific and social fields, university managers, start-up founders, entrepreneurial team members, directors of hybrid organizations and others involved in commercialization support. Step 2, secondary university data concerning the analysis level of individual, organization and environment were collected from documentary sources, which include strategy plans, policies, annual reports, financial statements and web pages. Step 3, all the data collected was analysed by an interactive process. Narratives were written concerning the processes, tabulations were made describing time-line, actors, factors and critical events, and work with theory and empirical data in an interactive process. The sources of evidence were allowed for triangulation through several sources of data during the development of ZJU’s AEE, such as multiple investigation, archival data and existing literature. Using all this data, we identified critical characteristics and events that influenced how the process mechanisms emerged and evolved in the AEE context.

4 Case analysis ZJU is located in Hangzhou City, the provincial capital of Zhejiang Province in South-East China. ZJU is a dedicated research-intensive university with 7 faculties and 36 colleges/schools. Its important fields of research are related to engineering and technology, life, physics, chemistry and computer science. ZJU is ranked in top three universities in mainland China according to the 2016 Shanghai Ranking. In December 2015, there were 46,970 full-time students enrolled, of which there were 8,931 PhD candidates. Among its 3,601 standing faculty members, 1,514 faculty members have the title of Professor. In 2015, research funds amounted to 3.32 billion yuan ranked second in China1, more details are shown in Table 2. ZJU has traditionally been a research university focusing on high quality, fundamental research and academically oriented education. However, in the past few years, this focus has gradually been shifting:

1 Source: available from the website of Zhejiang University (http://www.zju.edu.cn/) and ZJU Year Book 2015.

7

policymakers at both the national and regional level tried to persuade universities, especially the research universities, to show more explicitly their contribution to the regional and national economy. In this context, ZJU made a strategic decision to develop a more entrepreneurial model in 2000 as a response to meet the social needs, and thereby, to some extent improve the university’s standing. However, in the late 1990s, ZJU had a weak entrepreneurial system. In order to develop the ‘third mission’ and embark on academic entrepreneurship, ZJU would need to construct the AEE with all its major challenges.

Table 2 The number of enrolment of students, faculty and scientific research funds in ZJU(2006~2015)

Year Undergraduatestudents

Graduate students

Doctoralstudents Faculty

Scientific research funds

(billion)2006 23715 9363 6281 3531 1.232007 22922 9591 6623 3548 1.402008 22232 9801 6799 3570 1.712009 22260 12819 7038 3489 2.052010 22557 13413 7398 3006 2.752011 22664 13868 7737 3146 2.822012 22929 13704 8241 3243 3.082013 23302 13799 8577 3350 3.092014 23633 13952 8779 3437 3.122015 23897 14142 8931 3601 3.32

Note: The scientific research funds received by ZJU between 2006 and 2015 include the funds of basic research and R&D.

Source: Zhejiang University Statistical Bulletin 2006~2015.

4.1 The key challenges in establishing academic entrepreneurial ecosystemThe key challenges in establishing an AEE in ZJU was that the existing academic entrepreneurial model was built in the traditional way. Coding the interview responses and other collected data (Eisenhardt 1989; Saldana, 2009), we further discussed these codes with 6 experts through three small meetings between 2014 and 2016. We summarized the key challenges at different levels of individual, organization and environment, which these details are as follows.

Based on the individual level analysis, the informants revealed that the academic staff preferred to engage in basic research and teaching for promotion, paying scant attention to market demand and the commercialization of their academic achievement. ZJU, like traditional academic universities in China, evaluated the academic staff’s job performance upon the number and quality of their published papers and the quality of their graduate teaching. Academic entrepreneurship, however, had not been considered in faculty recruitment and promotion procedures in the past. This situation caused some

8

researchers to be unwilling to embark on commercialization of knowledge and increase the entrepreneurial experience and the development of entrepreneurial capability through involving the academic entrepreneurship activities with the industry.

The analysis of the organisational arrangement for entrepreneurship in ZJU could be summarised as: Firstly, ZJU in the late 1990s, lacked the special organizations needed for academic entrepreneurial activities, such as technology transfer office and hybrid organization as an important bridge for transfer research results to market (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000). This lack caused few options to develop collaborations with enterprises. Secondly, the technological transfer management teams in ZJU were mainly organized by officials who lacked market exposure. As a result of their shortcomings, researchers who desired to commercialize their own research results had to spend much time educating themselves about seeking entrepreneurial opportunities and creating new business skills. Some researchers opted not to perform technology transfer because of these risks and costs involved. Thirdly, the task of developing academic entrepreneurship was also complicated by an imperfect distribution system of academic entrepreneurial income, so that the entrepreneurial impetus to the individuals and organizations was insufficient. For example, two interviewees stressed that the income they could get from their research results commercialization was influenced by the lack of an explicit system to allocate income to the inventor, college/school and university. This led to they worrying about whether they could secure an income or not, or end up with an income less than it actually should be, and unwilling to promote achievement transformation. The contribution ratio of academic entrepreneurship to evaluate a researcher’s performance was relatively low, thereby influencing motivation in academic entrepreneurship.

Based on the environmental level analysis, we firstly discovered that the major industrial base in Hangzhou City where ZJU is located was dominated by the service industry, which has increased from 41.2% in 2000 to 55.1% in 2014. However, high-tech industry had developed sluggishly and technological innovation was lacking. The high tech industry sales value growth rate has decreased from a high of 15.9% in 2005 to just 5.9% in 20142. Secondly, Hangzhou was in short supply of public technical service platforms before 2005. As a result, the science and technology intermediary service network was unable to fully develop and insufficient in information platforms, which led to the lack of their demanding information between universities and enterprises. Thirdly, a lack of funds hindered academic entrepreneurship. The government funding of scientific research in ZJU was mainly used for basic research and the initial stage of technology transfer. The small and medium-sized enterprises could only provide limited

2 Source: available from the Hangzhou Statistical Information Net, http://www.hzstats.gov.cn/.

9

funding, and ZJU could not provide substantial funds for commercialization, resulting in research results remaining in laboratories, as pilot production was not conducted.

4.2 The solutions for solving these challengesAccording to the discussion above, we summarized the key challenges, which were a lack of entrepreneurial motivation in the specific context, lack of the collaboration between university and industry and government, and a lack of entrepreneurial capability. ZJU has responded to these challenges by developing an AEE, which acts as a catalyst to speed up knowledge commercialization. However, “in the early stage of the development of academic entrepreneurship, some heads of the schools and departments in our university did not realize the construction of AEE,” a head of department said, “by the year 2005, with the increasing demand of external resources for academic entrepreneurship, the concept of AEE started to be mentioned in the university administrative meeting. But at present, the construction of AEE has become a consensus at least in the management system in our university”. In order to achieve AEE as outlined earlier, the ZJU traditional knowledge commercialization model needed to undergo significant changes. Incentive, collaboration and capability development were adopted at different levels of individual, organization and environment for academic entrepreneurship.

At the individual level, ZJU developed motivation for academic staff through an adjustment to the income distribution system to intervene and push the process of academic entrepreneurship. ZJU revised the academic staff evaluation system for stimulating them to embark on academic entrepreneurship. In the year 2000, ZJU adopted the ‘Classified Management’ method of establishing the three categories positions, namely teaching, academic research and entrepreneurship which academic staff could opt for positions that suited their own expertise and competence. The staff in ZJU are also permitted to leave their positions for full-time engagement in entrepreneurship for 3 years. ZJU has adjusted the distribution system of knowledge commercialization income. The academic staff could invest in start-ups using their research results including proprietary technology as a trade-in as converted shares, or as proportions of contribution to the investment. The university, school/college will account for between 15-50% of the share of the technological stocks, while the invention team account for 50-85%. In this way, ZJU effectively solved the problem of academic staff’s roles in academic entrepreneurship, eliminating their concerns, guaranteeing a continuous flow of talent for knowledge commercialization and service in industry. In order to develop entrepreneurial ability to commercialize research results, ZJU recruited qualified persons with an industry background to pass on entrepreneurial experiences and knowledge to academic staff. ZJU also provided opportunities for academic staff to have experiences within enterprises by establishing long-term cooperation with leading companies in various

10

industries. ZJU developed academic entrepreneurial managerial ability by building a professional management team for the purpose of providing professional services to academic entrepreneurship. ZJU has encouraged the formation of 12 professional brokering teams, of whom over 80% have acquired master degrees in the fields of technology, marketing, law, business, finance and others.

At organization level, ZJU took more strategies to promote academic entrepreneurship by strengthening the cooperation with local governments and industries. A positive entrepreneurial change has been made from top to bottom through expanding the traditional mission of university and changing schooling ideas. An important meeting, entitled ‘Shuang Dai Hui’, was firstly held at ZJU in 2000 and attended by influential staff, who agreed that the ‘third mission’ should be undertaken to meet social needs. Consequently, it was the first time that the ‘third mission’ was birthed and documented in ZJU’s Tenth Five-year Plan for 2001-2005. Since then ZJU has a significant transformation of its educational philosophy and guiding ideology and migrated towards a more entrepreneurial direction, which encouraged the academic staff to embark on academic entrepreneurship (Zhou and Liu 2015). Through improving organizational structure and governance, and building hybrid organizations to develop informal and formal entrepreneurial networks, ZJU tried to incorporate internal and external resources and develop a strong entrepreneurial foundation. For example, in 2005, ZJU set up a special institution Local Cooperation Office, in order to strengthen the cooperation with local governments and industries. However, in 2015, this situation was further improved, when ZJU established the ZJU Council for Promotion Scientific Research Achievements Transformation, and both President and Secretary of the university became the directors of this council for developing a strong governance core and forcefully striving to achieve the AEE. The key milestones in ZJU for academic entrepreneurship are shown in Table 3. Table 4 shows that the key changes of ZJU AE with the AEE development between 2006 and 2015. The funding from the enterprises entrusting ZJU to carry out research , the income of S&T achievements transfer, and other indicators(scientific paper, patent, Key laboratory and research center) related to AE have obviously increased during this period. For example, in 2001, ZJU established ZJU National Science Park. By the end of 2015, the Science Park owned 8 branches in different cities within China, employed over 20,000, incubation sites over 8.0 million square meters. Start-ups amounted to 1,200 of which about 60% of the core teams were from ZJU, of which 330 start-ups had been successfully incubated. ZJU established the Technology Transfer Center (TTC) in 2006. At present, TTC owns the headquarters in Hangzhou and 81 branches across the country. TTC has developed a rapid response service model in China based on its branches. From 2006 year to 2015 year, TTC has developed collaboration with about 1,000 enterprises,

11

220 government departments and 80 academic institutions, signed approximately 400 contracts yearly and creating total funds of the contracts over 4.0 billion Yuan3.Table 3 The key milestones in ZJU’s AEE

Date Milestone2000 Issued ZJU’s the Tenth 5-year Plan for 2001~2005 start of third mission.2001 Established ZJU National Science Park.

2005Established ZJU Yuan Zheng Holding Group Co., Ltd.Established Local Cooperation Office, ZJU.

2006 Established ZJU Technology Transfer Centre.2007 Established ZJU Innovation Institute, International.2009 Established Industrial Technology Research Institute of ZJU.

2011 Issued ZJU’s twelfth 5-year Plan for 2010~2015, “building national and regional development services framework” taken as core ability construction.

2012 Established ZJU Institute of Technology Innovation Co., Ltd.2015 Established ZJU Council for Promotion Scientific Research Achievements Transformation.

Source: Compiled by authors.

Table 4 The key changes of ZJU’s AE with the AEE development between 2006 and 2015

Year

Funding of entrustment

researchfrom

enterprises (billion yuan)

SCI papers Patents

Income of S&T

achievem-ents

transfer (million yuan)

ZJU Yuan Zheng Holding Group Co.,

Ltd2

ZJU National Science Park Key

laboratories and research

centers

TTCAnnual income (billion yuan)

Net profits (million yuan)

Start-ups

Successful incubated enterprises

2006 0.60 2894 652 - - - 40 1210 state key(specialized)laborato-ries;2 national engineering laboratories;6 national engineering(technology)research centers

One headquart-ers with 81 branches in China

2007 0.69 3146 931 39.12 - - 50 182008 0.80 3325 1019 32.07 - - 60 92009 0.81 3681 1247 67.82 0.72 93 138 212010 0.90 3872 1666 62.10 1.05 143 134 252011 1.12 3928 1914 68.97 1.21 163 108 252012 0.96 4215 2244 74.91 1.33 247 92 262013 1.06 4912 2134 71.25 1.52 210 92 252014 1.07 5349 2080 72.30 2.07 191 106 252015 1.02 5578 2614 96.62 2.33 234 138 25

Note: 1. Reference to the funding from the enterprises entrusting ZJU to carry out research.2. ZJU Yuan Zheng Holding Group Co., Ltd consists of 6 core limited companies, such as ZJU Innovation Technology Research Institute Co., Ltd., ZJU S&T Venture Capital Co., Ltd., and ZJU Logistics Service Group,and so on. Source: Science and technology statistical data of colleges and universities in China 2006~2016. Statistical Year Book of ZJU 2000~2016.

In order to improve the entrepreneurial environment, the central government and local governments introduced policies to support the commercialization of publicly

3 Source: available from the Zhejiang university's website (http://www.zju.edu.cn/). ZJU Year Book between 2006 and 2105, and the investigations in ZJU.

12

funded research at universities. The important national policies include the National Project for Promoting Technology Transfer(2007), Program for Improving University Innovation Capacity (2011), Instructions on Developing Public Maker Space to Promote Innovation and Entrepreneurship(2015), National Action Plan for Promoting Transfer of Scientific and Technological Achievements (2016). During the period 2006-2010, Hangzhou was approved by the national government as a national innovation pilot city, intellectual property rights model city, and a high-tech industrial base, all of which contributed to the stimulating of enterprises and industries technology demands of the universities. The local government reformed existing systems in order to reduce company start-up costs and asked that the approvals for licenses, permits, authorizations required to start a business should be speeded-up. Secondly, the innovative and entrepreneurial ecosystem was further developed through collaboration among universities, companies, governments and capital providers with the development of innovation and entrepreneurial elements in regional system. As shown in Table 5 the number of institutions of higher education has obviously increased from 35 colleges and universities in 2000 to 108 in 2015, and the number of graudtes, especially the postgraduates, has also increased in Zhejiang Province. Similarly, the number of R&D organizations attached to government and industrial enterprises in Zhejiang Province has dramatically increased respectively from 2000 to 2015. The annual increasing numbers of science and technology business incubator at provincial level are obvious, especially in recent years. During this same period, the R&D expenditures sustained growth with the government and enterprise investment. Significantly, the large and medium-sized industrial enterprises expenditure on entrustment also increased , which are usually used to entrust universities and research institutions to carry out R&D. With the development of R&D institutions and the increased investment on academic entrepreneurship, the innovative and entrepreneurial network in this region has further improvement. For example, in 2007, ZJU joined the first batch of China industrial technology innovation alliances to develop innovative and entrepreneurial network and enhance the industrial technology innovation. At present, ZJU owns about 100 innovative and entrepreneurial platforms through the collaboration with government and industries. Thirdly, financial support came from outside sources, such as venture capitalists, government bodies and banks, which are becoming more and more available because of the incentive and support policies. For example, Hangzhou Municipal Government issued the policy Encourage and Support University Teachers (experts) Team-based Entrepreneurship for each individual project start-up capital from 0.2 to 1 million yuan.

13

Table 5 The key indicators of AEE in Zhejiang Province (2000~2015)

YearHigher

Education Institutions

Graduate(master

and doctor degree)

R&D organizations attached to government at county

level and above

R&D organizations in large and medium-sized industrial enterprises

Increasing numbers of

S&T business

incubator at provincial

level1

R&D expenditures

Institutions

Expenditures on S&T activities

(billion yuan)

Institutions

Expenditure on R&D(million yuan）

Expenditure on

Entrustment(billion yuan)

Expenditures(billion yuan)

% of GDP

Enterprises investment

(billion yuan)

2000 35 1600 146 1.08 442 0.34 - 0 3.66 0.60 2.69

2001 38 1882 127 0.82 436 0.42 - 0 4.47 0.65 3.27

2002 60 2645 110 0.81 394 0.38 0.61 0 5.77 0.72 4.22

2003 64 3514 104 0.98 660 0.37 1.02 10 7.78 0.80 5.77

2004 68 4858 92 1.03 947 0.62 0.95 4 11.56 0.99 9.74

2005 67 5558 99 1.21 1261 0.92 1.88 4 16.33 1.22 13.47

2006 68 8731 99 1.43 1603 1.26 1.44 5 22.40 1.43 19.03

2007 77 7387 100 1.67 1861 1.62 2.07 5 28.63 1.53 24.64

2008 77 8944 98 2.04 2102 1.93 2.59 5 34.58 1.61 29.65

2009 78 7941 97 2.17 2247 2.16 2.44 9 39.88 1.73 35.42

2010 80 11156 95 2.50 2733 2.72 2.85 3 49.42 1.78 43.55

2011 104 13046 94 2.90 2583 3.21 3.20 6 61.29 1.90 53.94

2012 105 15112 97 3.37 2689 3.90 3.53 8 72.26 2.08 64.44

2013 106 15592 97 3.69 2844 4.41 2.75 5 81.73 2.18 73.36

2014 108 16535 97 4.08 2890 4.85 3.87 7 90.79 2.26 81.74

201 108 17117 96 4.14 2929 5.43 4.56 10 101.12 2.36 91.13

14

5

Source： Statistical Year Book of Zhejiang Province, 2000 ~ 2016.

15

This is a typical case of how the research university academic entrepreneurial process mechanisms are developed in order to create greater value at the ecosystem level. The value is created mainly from improved efficiency in the process mechanisms of incentive, collaboration and capability development. Total value creation of academic entrepreneurship, although it operates with different actors and various factors, is increased through the ecosystem transition because of the action of the process mechanisms as depicted in Figure 1. In order to meet the challenges detailed in Section 4.1 and achieve ecosystem transition, ZJU has undergone significant changes at individual, organizations and environment level since the year 2000. An overview of this transition is shown in Table 6.

AE, i.e. academic entrepreneurship.Fig.1 Academic entrepreneurial ecosystem transition in ZJU case.

Table 6 Academic entrepreneurship system changes of ZJU in the AEE.

Process mechanisms

Level of analysisIndividual Organization Environment

Incentive mechanism

Drive academic entrepreneurship through the revised personnel evaluation system and entrepreneurial income distribution system.

Undertake the third mission and develop a common goal to stimulate entrepreneurial motivation. Clarify knowledge commercialization income distribution system to protect the benefits of individuals and organizations.

Incentives from national and local government support policies and programs.Benefit-sharing.

Collaboration mechanism

Create open academic team, using external resources, developing individual AE network.

Improve governance and rationalize the interdepartmental relations.Integrating the internal and external resources.Build hybrid organizations and develop entrepreneurial networks.

Open resources.Developing infrastructure and AE network.

16

Incentive Mechanism

OutcomeMechanisms InterventionContext

ZJUAEE

IndividualLack of applied researchLack of motivationLack of capability

EnvironmentLack of supporting policies and programsLack of infrastructure

OrganizationLack of third mission Lack of efficient management Lack of hybrid organization and collaboration

EnvironmentImprovement infrastructure

Policies and programs support

IndividualDevelop AE capability

Develop motivation

Develop AE networks

Improving governance

Actors interaction

Undertake third missionOrgani

-zationZJUAE

Trans-ition

Collaboration Mechanism

CapabilityMechanism

Capability mechanism

Develop innovative and entrepreneurship ability: access entrepreneurial resources, identify business opportunities and improve business management skills.

Develop university’s entrepreneurship management ability: Making and implementing AE strategy ability, schools’/colleges’ AE management ability, service ability of academic entrepreneurial management team.

Intermediary agencies support

Outcomes Increaseing patents, income, collaboration, start-ups as shown in Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4.

5 Discussion: Transition towards the academic entrepreneurial

ecosystem

A central aspect of the AEE model is indeed the notion of change or transformation. The idea is to improve performance by choosing a new process mechanisms model that does things better. As ZJU transformed it moved towards the AEE, which was gradually developed through the different process mechanisms, especially the incentive, collaboration and capability development mechanisms acting on the levels of individuals, organizations and environment. In the next section, we discuss how the new process mechanisms model is developed. As a basis for the discussion, we have summarized this case in Figure 1and Table 6.

5.1. Incentive mechanism

Based on the discussion in the previous section, it can be argued that incentives are needed for academic staff to embark on academic entrepreneurship when attempting to establish an AEE. However, as can be seen from the case study, there are barriers to driving their academic entrepreneurial motivation. In ZJU, the personnel assessment incentive and income adjustment measures for motivation were created and implemented to prepare the actors for action. We therefore use the concept “incentive mechanism” to signify something that both triggers and enhances academic entrepreneurship intent. There are two principle ways to develop academic entrepreneurship motivation: personnel evaluation and interests drive.

In order to encourage academic staff to embark on academic entrepreneurship, it has to change the personnel evaluation system of traditional research universities through setting up different positions of teaching, research and entrepreneurship. Therefore, academic staff has the opportunity to choose the entrepreneurial position. It is also being more and more recognized by universities’ decision-makers that the performance of commercializing research results can be used as the basis of academic staff’s position promotion. Another way is to make a clear distribution system of academic entrepreneurial income, to apportion the income among the inventors, college/school, university, because only by ensuring inventors’ interests can one enhance the trust between inventors and university (school/college), and so encourage inventors to embark on academic entrepreneurship.

17

5.2. Collaboration mechanism

Developing interaction between university and industry can contribute to achieving application of knowledge and commercialization of it. This case study mainly adopted the following strategies to integrate internal and external resources, provide cooperation platforms for the formulation of sustainable collaboration mechanism.

One strategy is to improve university governance in order to improve collaboration. This case study confirms that establishing the mixed governance structure agency at the university level, e.g. University Scientific Research Promotion Committee, is an effective way to integrate internal resources and smooth the management relationship of different departments to develop collaboration and meet the academic entrepreneurial challenges. The other strategy is to build hybrid organizations and incorporate external resources to improve the collaboration. Universities can use different strategies to build up various hybrid organizations based on their local conditions and form a network of entrepreneurship resources (Jongbloed 2015).This case study has adopted different models including University-Government cooperation, University-Industry cooperation and University-Government-Industry collaboration, in order to develop the academic entrepreneurial network across the country. However, the interviewees generally thought that the hybrid organizations should be substantive as far as possible which would contribute to ensuring that the academic entrepreneurial programs can be effectively implemented.

5.3. Capability mechanism

Having an entrepreneurial motivation and platform, yet lacking entrepreneurial ability, would restrict the completion of academic entrepreneurship, and would be difficult to achieve the transition of university academic entrepreneurial systems to AEEs. Therefore, the capability mechanism also plays an important role in the process of academic entrepreneurship.

According to the case study, universities could hire outside venture capitalists, successful entrepreneurs to steer the academic staff, to give them business sense and entrepreneurial awareness in the process of research. Universities also should support academic researchers to practise in industries to get entrepreneurial experiences and improve the success rate of entrepreneurship. One of the successful academic entrepreneurs told us that the academic staff who possess industry experience and consulting experience are more likely to commercialization success. Secondly, developing the academic entrepreneurship management abilities of schools/colleges can become the management foundation of a university. Taking academic entrepreneurship performance as the performance evaluation basis of schools/colleges and one resource allocation principle of university can encourage the schools/colleges to pay more attention to academic entrepreneurial management. It is important to enhance the professional service abilities of the academic entrepreneurial management team. Universities attract talents to join the team by using the incentive mechanisms, which provides incentive salaries and regular training opportunities in order to improve the service abilities gradually.

18

In general, an AEE does not emerge like a natural ecosystem, but needs to be constructed. The corresponding entrepreneurial model needs to be built collectively around the underlying value drivers, their incentive, collaboration and capability mechanisms which are all important although there are some additional mechanisms in the AEE. In this regard, we attempt to show how ecosystem transition can be achieved through the development of the three basic mechanisms which are presented in Figure 2. Through this framework we aim to provide a better understanding of the mechanisms of AEE design and the role of the three basic mechanisms in this process.

Fig.2 Framework for academic entrepreneurship model innovation in ecosystem transition context.

6 Conclusion and policy implications

The dynamism in the ZJU’s AEE has led to important outcomes, and ZJU has achieved the following benefits: Acceleration of knowledge commercialization, adequate fund support for science and technology research, more opportunities for student practical training, enrichment of the university’s experiences in technology management and the development of the entrepreneurial culture. Of all China’s universities, since 2006, the number of patents granted to ZJU by the Chinese government ranked first with 652 authorized patents in 2006 and 2641 authorized patents in 2015, but this figure was a mere 69 authorized in 2001. ZJU’s technology transfer income in 2001 was 0.30 billion yuan coming from 132 technology transfer contracts, which increased annually over the years to 2015 when income grew to 0.80 billion yuan with 167 technology transfer contracts completed. Through knowledge commercialization, ZJU income obtained from Zhejiang University Yuanzheng Holding Group from 0.93 billion yuan in 2009 to 2.34

19

University

Other actors

Academicinstitutions

Government

Enterprises

Improve governance

Entrepreneurial income incentive

Personnel evaluationincentive

Develop entrepreneurial

networks

Universityentrepreneurship

management ability

Individualentrepreneurship

ability

Collaboration mechanism

Capabilitymechanism

Incentive mechanism

Environment

Organizations

Individuals

University

Other actors

Academic institutionsGovernment

Enterprises

Establish AEE: Incentive mechanism: motivation through new personnel assessment system, income distribution system.Collaboration mechanism: improve governance and develop entrepreneurial networks.Capability mechanism: Target to the development of various entrepreneurship abilities, and they mutual support.

Design of process mechanisms based on different levels: Incentive actors to entrepreneurship Enhance actors to interaction Developing actors entrepreneurial abilities

Ecosystem transition context: Lack of motivation Lack of platform and collaboration Lack of capability

billion yuan in 2015, while the enterprises accepted about 5,000 student internships each year, in turn sustaining the development of ZJU and local technological innovation and transfer system4.

Our study constitutes an attempt to connect the research streams on AEEs. We have argued that academic entrepreneurship in research universities may benefit from a system perspective with its focus on the process mechanisms (that is, the incentive mechanism, collaboration mechanism and capability mechanism) for increased total value creation, which includes not only economic factors but also re-feeding higher education and, potentially, social value. The three basic mechanisms focus on aspects of different academic entrepreneurial process and logic. The incentive mechanism is the driving force that could change the organizational framework, as well as individual research goals through the reform of the personnel assessment system and the entrepreneurial income distribution system. The collaboration mechanism is the vehicle of the AEE model that enables new entrepreneurial models and business start-up by improving university’s governance structures and building up entrepreneurial networks. The capability mechanism is the element for sustainable academic entrepreneurship through a combination of different entrepreneurial capabilities of academic staff’s entrepreneurial ability and university’s entrepreneurial management ability.

The results of this research have implications for university academic entrepreneurship that could change the traditional academic entrepreneurial system into an AEE. A university could develop several improved strategies to strengthen (1) Better strategic management: The university should strengthen top level management and develop a powerful governing structure in order to smooth the management relationship, optimize resource allocation and improve efficiency. The university should also make a strategic plan according to its situation to develop a common goal for academic staff incentive, and set up special institutions responsible for managing internal and external cooperation. (2) Better strategies for incentives: While we applaud the research universities with their innovative strength, they are, however, found to be weak in entrepreneurship. Therefore, we should reform the most important systems, that is the personnel evaluation system and entrepreneurial income apportioning system relating to academic entrepreneurship for academic staff incentive. (3) Better strategies for collaboration: The study suggest universities can take a variety of models, such as University-Government, University-Industry, University-Industry-Government amongst others, to build up flexible hybrid organizations, to develop collaboration between university, industry and government, to extend channels of cooperation and provide greater entrepreneurial opportunities.(4) Better strategies for developing entrepreneurial capability: From this case study, we can target the development of entrepreneurial capabilities based on capabilities elements, emphasizing the individual entrepreneurial abilities, the schools’ or colleges’ entrepreneurial management abilities and the academic entrepreneurial management team abilities of.

4 Source: Zhejiang University Year Book 2001 and Zhejiang University Year Book 2015.http://www.zju.edu.cn/c2021535/catalog.html

20

This research has several limitations that create future research priorities, which would lead to a better understanding of how process mechanisms promote academic entrepreneurial system transition. First, there are other mechanisms that need to be considered in the conceptual model proposed. Although the incentive, collaboration and capability mechanisms are the basic and important mechanisms, in-depth analysis needs to be focused on the influence from other factors such as entrepreneurial opportunity seeking and entrepreneurial risk prevention. Second, AEE is a dynamic development process, usually experiencing different stages of development. It would be worth researching the different characteristic types at the different development stages.

References

Abreu, M., & Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK: Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy, 42(2), 408–422. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.10.005

ANDE (Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs). (2013). Entrepreneurial ecosystem diagnostic toolkit. Retrieved from http://www.aspeninstitute.org/publications/entrepreneurial-ecosystem-diagnostic-toolkit. Accessed 10 July 2015.

Bernardez, M. (2009). The power of entrepreneurial ecosystems:extracting booms from busts (Working Paper). Retrieved from http://www.expert2business.com/itson/Articles/Ecosystems.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2015.

Colombo, S. (2014). “Entrepreneurship & new venture creation” key elements of the entrepreneurial ecosystem facilitating the growth of ICT entrepreneurs in Italy. European Scientific Journal, 2(10), 330–345.

D’Este, P., Mahdi, S., & Neely, A. (2009). Academic entrepreneurship: What are the factors shaping the capacity of academic researchers to identify and exploit entrepreneurial opportunities? DRUID Working Papers. Retrieved from http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewpaper.php?id=5510&cf=32. Accessed 10 June 2015.

Doutriaux, J. (1987). Growth pattern of academic entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(4), 285–297.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Journal, 14(4), 532–550. http://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1989.4308385

Entezari, Y. (2015). Building knowledge-based entrepreneurship ecosystems: Case of Iran. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 195, 1206–1215. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.242

Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4

Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to

21

entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330. http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00069-4

Fisch, C. O., Block, J. H., & Sandner, P. G. (2014). Chinese university patents: quantity, quality, and the role of subsidy programs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(1), 60–84. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9383-6

Friedman, J., & Silberman, J. (2003). University technology transfer: Do incentives, management, and location matter? Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 17–30. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021674618658

Graham, D. R. (2014). Creating university-based entrepreneurial ecosystems: evidence from emerging world leaders. MIT-Skoltech Entrepreneurial Ecosystems Report 2014, 1–154. Retrieved from http://www.rhgraham.org/RHG/Recent_publications_files/MIT:Skoltech entrepreneurial ecosystems report 2014 _1.pdf. Accessed 1 June 2015.

Greene, P. G., Rice, M. P., Fetters, M. L. (2010). University-based entrepreneurship ecosystems: framing the discussion. In M. P. R. and J. S. ible. B. Michael L. Fetters, Patricia G. Greene (Ed.), The development of university-based entrepreneurship ecosystems. Global practices (pp. 1–11). Cheltenham, UK: Elga.

Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Fayolle, A. (2014). Entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness: evidence from European entrepreneurial universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(1), 105–131. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9377-4

Hallam, C., de la Vina, L., Leffel, A., & Agrawal, M. (2014). Accelerating collegiate entrepreneurship (ACE): The architecture of a university entrepreneurial ecosystem encompassing an intercollegiate venture experience. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 26(2), 95–116.

Hayter, C. S. (2013). Conceptualizing knowledge-based entrepreneurship networks: perspectives from the literature. Small Business Economics, 41(4), 899–911. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-013-9512-x

Hayter, C. S. (2015). Public or private entrepreneurship? Revisiting motivations and definitions of success among academic entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(6), 1003–1015. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9426-7

Hayter, C. S. (2016). A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success : the role of knowledge intermediaries within an entrepreneurial university ecosystem. Small Business Economics, 47(3), 633–656. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-016-9756-3

Isenberg, D. J. (2011). The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a new paradigm for economic policy: Principles for cultivating entrepreneurships. Paper presented at the Institute of International and European Affairs.Dublin, Ireland.

Jongbloed, B. (2015). Universities as hybrid organizations:Trends,drivers, and challenges for the European university. International Studies of Management & Organization, 45(3), 207–225. http://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.2015.1006027

Kolb, C., & Wagner, M. (2015). Crowding in or crowding out: the link between academic entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial traits. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(3), 387–408. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9346-y

Kroll, H., & Liefner, I. (2008). Spin-off enterprises as a means of technology commercialisation in a transforming economy—Evidence from three universities in China. Technovation, 28(5), 298–313. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.05.002

22

Leydesdorff, L., Etzkowitz, H., & Kushnir, D. (2015). The Globalization of Academic Entrepreneurship? The Recent Growth (2009-2014) in University Patenting Decomposed, 1–22. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.04214

Mason, Colin; Brown, R. (2014). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth oriented entrepreneurship. Oecd, 1–38.

Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2007). From Human Capital to Social Capital: A Longitudinal Study of Technology‐Based Academic Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(6), 909–935.

O’Shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Morse, K. P., O’Gorman, C., & Roche, F. (2007). Delineating the anatomy of an entrepreneurial university: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology experience. R & D Management, 37(1), 1–16.

Rauch, A., & Frese, M. (2007). Let’s put the person back into entrepreneurship research: A meta-analysis on the relationship between business owners’ personality traits, business creation, and success. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16(4), 353–385. http://doi.org/10.1080/13594320701595438

Salamzadeh1, A., Salamzadeh, Y., & Daraei, M. R. (2011). Toward a systematic framework for an entrepreneurial university: A Study in Iranian context with an IPOO Model. Global Business and Management Research, 3(1), 30–37.

Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles,CA: SAGE.

Schmitz, A., Urbano, D., & Dandolini, G. A. (2016). Innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting : a systematic literature review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-016-0401-z

Shane, S., Locke, E. A., & Collins, C. J. (2003). Entrepreneurial motivation. Human Resource Management Review, 13(2), 257–279. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(03)00017-2

Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university-industry collaboration. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111–133. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-8310(03)00007-5

Suresh, J., & Ramraj, R. (2012). Entrepreneurial ecosystem : Case study on the influence of environmental factors on entrepreneurial success. European Journal of Business and Management, 4(16), 95–102.

Teixeira, A. A. C., & Nogueira, J. (2016). Academic Entrepreneurship in Life Sciences: the Case of a Moderate Innovator Country. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 21(1), 1650004. http://doi.org/10.1142/S1084946716500047

Vogel, P. (2014). Building and assessing entrepreneurship ecosystems (Working Paper). Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Growth-Oriented Entrepreneurship. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/OECDLEED/6-vogel-building-and-assessing-entrepreneurial-ecosystems?qid=3aa6acf9-2776-496f-91dd-5e89de6b4370&v=qf1&b=&from_search=1. Accessed 12 February 2016.

Wood, M. S. (2011). A process model of academic entrepreneurship. Business Horizons, 54(2), 153–161. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2010.11.004

Yaribeigi, E., Hosseini, S. J., Lashgarara, F., Mirdamadi, S. M., & Najafabadi, M. O. (2014). Development of entrepreneurship ecosystem. International Journal of Advanced Biological and Biomedical Research, 2(12), 2905–2908.

23

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.Zhou, X., & Liu, Y. (2015). Towards an “entrepreneurial university model”-The Chinese

way-evidence from three top research universities in China. Hélice, 4(1). Retrieved from https://www.triplehelixassociation.org/helice/volume-4-2015/helice-issue-12. Accessed 19 August 2015.

24