Entrepreneurship Encouragement & Business Development Support ...

XXIV IASP World Conference, Barcelona 2007

Title: Entrepreneurship Encouragement & Business Development Support at Universities and Science Parks: a Proposal for a New Conceptualization Author: Monica Arroyo-Vazquez (Spain) Co-author: Peter van der Sijde Organisation: Instituto IDEAS - UPV

Entrepreneurship Encouragement & Business Development Support at Universities and Science Parks: a Proposal for a New Conceptualization Mónica Arroyo-Vázquez* Peter van der Sijde** *

Instituto IDEAS - Universidad Politécnica de Valencia; Camino de Vera, s/n. E-46022, Valencia, Spain. ** Nikos (Dutch Institute for Knowledge Intensive Entrepreneurship) University of Twente, Building Capitool 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands Corresponding address: [email protected]

Executive Summary In the context of the Entrepreneurial Universities, new stakeholders and new roles for the old ones have emerged. This means that a common framework is necessary that includes the different stakeholders and goals, which gives a clear picture of the entrepreneurship encouragement and business development support (EE&BDS) process. We propose a model for knowledge transfer and companies’ growth within the context of entrepreneurial universities and science parks. This alternative integrating approach of the different stakeholders, actors, activities, tools, goals and needs, help us to arrange and manage them in a better way. We introduce and analyse the EE&BDS model presenting the case of the Polytechnic University of Valencia (UPV) and the linked science park, the Polytechnic City of Innovation (CPI). Our analysis allows us to show the role and relationships among the different UPV-CPI stakeholders and how this integrating approach contributes to enhance the EE&BDS process for this institution. Introduction In the present society the role of universities is not just restricted to teaching and research activities (Etzkowitz, 1998). Even more, it demands a major involvement of universities in the economic and social development process. This has resulted in the rise of a new type of university: the entrepreneurial university, which combines and integrates the traditional activities of teaching and research with the contribution to the economic and social development (Etzkowitz, 1998; Goddard, 1998). Therefore, an entrepreneurial university, in order to attend successfully to the society’s demands (and be recognised as such), must behave according to this new role. This entrepreneurial behaviour was studied by Clark in five European (Clark, 1998) and other universities around the world (Clark, 2004). He identified five common elements that favour the transformation of the traditional university into an entrepreneurial one. In this context, one of the aims of the entrepreneurial universities is the entrepreneurship encouragement and the business development support (EE&BDS) process. Related to this fact we find new stakeholders and new roles for the old ones that must be taken into account. This means on the one hand the need to put their specific objectives into connection and on the other, to relate them to the whole university goal within an entrepreneurial context. To make this possible, it is necessary to develop a systemic framework (Clark, 1996; Etzkowitz, 2003) that incorporates the different stakeholders and their goals, to have a clear picture of the EE&BDS process at universities and related science parks. In this paper we present a model for the EE&BDS process in entrepreneurial universities in which science parks can play a key role. This model builds on the Nikos1 experience and conceptualization of entrepreneurial process (e.g. Kirwan, 2006) and shows arrangements of stakeholders and actors in such a way that allows the optimization of the EE&BDS process (see e.g. Van der Sijde, 2002). The proposal model focuses in four key areas that universities and science parks will need to foster: (1) entrepreneurship culture, (2) entrepreneurship support, (3) new business launch support and (4)

1

business growth support. The model helps us to clearly identify a mechanism and the optimal timing to satisfy entrepreneurs and business needs, leading us to offer a new and helpful model analysis tool. In this respect, our research question can be posed as follows: To what extent is our model analysis a helpful tool to implement our EE&BDS model in Universities and Science Parks? In this context, we present a methodological approach that first analyses which stakeholders are involved and how they satisfy the entrepreneurs and businesses’ needs and second is used to recognise whether all the needs can be satisfied with the application of our EE&BDS model. The translation of the model from the theoretical perspective to the empirical field will provide us with accurate data that will allow us to identify the strengths and weakness of any EE&BDS process undertaken and therefore help us to better design the different tools and activities that have to be carried out to actively support the process. In order to test how the model works, we introduce and analyse the EE&BDS model and apply it to the case of the Polytechnic University of Valencia (UPV) and its related science park, the Polytechnic City of Innovation (CPI) both located in the Valencian Region (Spain). We show how the different stakeholders are able to work together using networks and with entrepreneurial behaviour in order to better achieve their respective objectives. In this respect, the proposed model is based on communication, collaboration and a shared framework among the different stakeholders; therefore it will succeed if the stakeholders work in networks and with entrepreneurial behaviour. Additionally, there are several aspects that we have to bear in mind in applying the model. We also want to highlight these challenges in the model’s application at Valencian Region universities and science parks and at the same time propose some mechanisms to give them answers. In the next section we will see the theoretical approaches to the issue of the EE&BDS at entrepreneurial universities and will present the aim, logic and development of our integrated approach model. Next we will tackle the methodological proposal using the case of the UPV-CPI. Finally some outcomes and conclusions are drawn. The Entrepreneurship Encouragement & Business Development Support Process: an Integrating Approach In this section we introduce our integrating approach of the EE&BDS process within entrepreneurial universities (including science parks). Before, we must frame the context where it will be developed for a better understanding of our proposal and its usefulness. The framework and context The university contribution to society is an old issue that nowadays again receives attention from researchers and policymakers. In this respect the entrepreneurial university idea (first identified by Davies, 1987) is recognised as a powerful concept to frame this contribution in clear opposition to the classical university concept and social contribution2. According to the new role assigned to them we find a common and widely accepted belief: the higher the amount of spin-off companies a university is able to create, the “more entrepreneurial” this university will be considered. In this respect we agree with Clark (2004) when he asserts that “entrepreneurialism in universities should not be seen as synonymous with commercialization”. Additionally, the study of the most successful entrepreneurial universities in the world has resulted in a wide literature production related to their characteristics as well as the way how they can successfully turn into one of them: although most are based on n=1 analyses. We find several studies dealing with these issues such as O’Shea et al. (2007); Clark (1998, 2004); Etzkowitz (1983, 2004) among others. According to these authors, the entrepreneurial university can be understood as a flexible organization that interacts with its social and economical environment adapting itself to the changes and looks for additional sources of funds for research, teaching, technology transfer, commercialisation, etc. Entrepreneurial universities have in common a strengthened steering core, an expanded developmental periphery, a stimulated academic heartland, a diversified funding base and an integrated entrepreneurial culture as Clark (1998) describes but without formulating the dependency between these five characteristics.

2

The entrepreneurial university, as defined above, must attend to a wide number of activities related to its three basic roles as it is stated in the university third mission literature (Molas-Gallart et al, 2002): teaching, research and socio-economic development contribution (“outreach”), and at the same time, they have to be managed jointly. All these activities as well as their respective management must be carried out in an entrepreneurial way. This, in the end, means that a large variety of stakeholders are involved. In this respect we consider that one of the most relevant stakeholders in the new university third mission are Science Parks. According to our Entrepreneurial University conceptualization, we consider that Science Parks are closely linked to the university3 “extended developmental periphery”, therefore from now on we will use the concept Entrepreneurial University considering both the university and the Science Park together. The entrepreneurial culture is defined by Gibb (1999) as the “sets of values, beliefs and attitudes commonly shared in a society which underpin the notion of an entrepreneurial ‘way of life’ as being desirable and in turn support the pursuit of ‘effective’ entrepreneurial behaviour by individuals or groups”. According with this, we recognise two critical tasks related to the entrepreneurial culture within the entrepreneurial university that are closely related to its third mission. The first one is the Entrepreneurship Encouragement defined as the “dynamisation” (Castro et al, 2001) (and entrepreneurial culture building process) among the involved stakeholders (always including entrepreneurs) as well as the promotion of research and teaching activities in entrepreneurship and related fields. In this definition we want to point out that “dynamisation” is understood as the induced behavioural change that “moves someone to do something” (Castro et al, 2001). According to these authors two activities must be promoted in the “dynamisation” process: awareness and motivation activities on the one hand and the provision of facilities on the other. The second critical task is the Business Development Support. We define it as the process that encompasses the opportunity search and recognition, opportunity development, business start-up and business development and growth. We argue that these two tasks must be developed jointly, within an integrating framework since many stakeholders are involved in both and the different activities of each task can benefit from a synergic stream among them improving therefore the whole EE&BDS process. Hence, the systemic consideration of the EE&BDS process reinforces all its elements and provides the optimal framework to obtain optimal outcomes through the building of stakeholders’ networks. There is a large amount of literature produced around the EE&BDS at universities, but most of it tackles the issue separately, not as a whole process or in its wide sense. For instance, entrepreneurship encouragement is usually considered just as the promotion of knowledge transfer from universities through the creation of spin-off companies. On the other hand, the Business Development Support process at universities is just considered when is related to the spin-off companies in which universities have Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) or shares on the spin-off. Some authors consider this process to start with IP protection and ending in IP valorisation via shareholder agreements with the spin-off (e.g. Cuyvers and Zimmermann, 2002). However and in opposition to these views, Dalmau et al. (2003) considers the EE&BDS process at universities as a whole in which several activities must be developed in relation to each other to promote new business from students, graduates and university’s staff. This model is built around five phases: awareness, “Opportunity Cell building”4, pre-incubation, incubation and exploitation. It takes into account not only the opportunity recognition, the opportunity development and the opportunity exploitation, but also the awareness process previous to the opportunity identification. However this model does not consider the EE&BDS process in a way where external and internal university stakeholders are involved and work using networks to develop it. Additionally, the building process of entrepreneurial culture is just referred to as the entrepreneurs’ awareness activities, but it does not involve other stakeholders or activities. A different approach is offered by Rasmussen and Borch (2006) through the development of dynamic capabilities within the university: new paths; the past, present and future balance; the resources reconfiguration and integration and the creation of new knowledge resources. Once again attention is placed on the creation of research-based spin-off ventures, but these authors consider that stakeholders from within and outside the university are involved in the spin-off creation process who have partly conflicting objectives.

3

An alternative view that we must take into account is Nikos’ approach to entrepreneurship (Nikos, 2004) which considers the development of its activities in this domain in four main activities: research, teaching, business development support, and training and consultancy. We believe that this model offers a broader view since it takes into account additional activities to that of spin-off creation and also several stakeholders and networks for their development. The entrepreneurial process (Van der Veen and Wakkee, 2006) is divided into three phases: the opportunity recognition, the opportunity development and the opportunity exploitation. Although awareness activities are outside this process we, nevertheless, use it as departure for our purpose. Therefore, we have based our integrating approach on it and on the entrepreneurial approach of the University of Twente as a model since we consider that these two jointly and with the addition of the “dynamisation” activities, fulfil our requirements for the EE&BDS process. Towards an Integrating Approach

Business Plan Support Programmes

Business Opportunities Search

Awareness

Access to funds

So far we have shown how the Entrepreneurial University concept is now being considered as the suitable context to build the EE&BDS process. Within that context, we claim that it is necessary to put forward an integrating approach of the EE&BDS process that takes into account the different activities and stakeholders involved in it. This integrating approach is constructed around four main pillars reflecting those activities and the tools that may help carry out them. We want to highlight its generic consideration and the need to adapt and rearrange it in each case in order to make it operational. Our proposal of EE&BDS integrating model is shown in the Figure 1. It depicts on the one hand, the different areas that we have to promote in order to achieve an integrating process and, on the other, the activities that we have to carry out in each one. The objectives and description of each area and activities will be discussed in the next sections.

Business Launch Support

Entrepreneurship Encourage & Business Support

Entrepreneurship Culture

Commercial Network

R&D Development Network

Technological Services

Teaching

Business Development Support Business Monitoring

Research

Incubator & Facilities

Entrepreneurship Support

Figure 1 Illustration of the EE&BDS model

Before making the description of each area and tools we want to highlight that Entrepreneurship Culture is of paramount importance for the right model’s operation, therefore we will pay special attention to this area in its description. Many models in the literature do not deal with this issue since they take for granted the existence of the accurate entrepreneurship culture within the surrounding

4

context. However we consider it necessary to explain it in detail and emphasize the need for its existence and appropriate development, otherwise the whole model might fail in its very foundations.

Entrepreneurship Culture We consider that entrepreneurial behaviour among stakeholders and entrepreneurs must be encouraged to operate the model under optimal conditions. However, we claim that Entrepreneurship Culture defined as the creation of a culture around entrepreneurship is not just limited to the “entrepreneurial culture” (Gibb, 1999). It also integrates research and teaching activities related to entrepreneurship and connected issues. We show in the Figure 2 the key activities that we consider necessary to create an Entrepreneurship Culture climate as well as the objectives that we must take into account in each one. Entrepreneurs Awareness

Personnel Companies Entrepreneurship


Research

Business Support Business and Innovation Entrepreneurial Skills

Teaching

Entrepreneurship “Environment” Business Development

Figure 2 Activities and objectives to build the Entrepreneurship Culture

The construction of this area rests on the promotion of awareness, research and teaching activities. With respect to awareness, the target groups are entrepreneurs, academic and professional personnel at universities and companies. Regarding entrepreneurs, the goal is to inform them about the process and its possibilities, as well as to show them new business creation as a self-employment possibility. The second target group, personnel, might include staff, researcher, lecturers and any other person or institution involved as stakeholder in the process. The goal of the awareness activities addressed to this group is the creation and promotion of a proactive behaviour towards entrepreneurship support. For instance, researchers should be proactive and help entrepreneurs to understand technological issues or advise them about the R&D implementation in the future for the firm. Companies are also a target group of awareness activities. In this case, the goal is to promote the implementation of an entrepreneurial culture in the companies as well as the creation of a proactive attitude toward the cooperation in the entrepreneurship support. In this sense, according to Grant et al. (1996), we have to make companies aware of the activities of universities and, therefore, about the possibility to collaborate with universities and what they can expect from such collaboration. With regard to research activities they will be developed in respect to entrepreneurship in a broad sense, what allows us to have a wider knowledge on skills, entrepreneurs’ behaviour and the reasons why they decide to create a new business, among others. Another research field that we consider in this area is business support structures. The goal of this sort of research is to find new mechanisms, activities, tools, etc. to support entrepreneurship and business development. Finally, we also propose research on business and innovation. Teaching activities must be carried out both at undergraduate and post-graduate levels. The goal of this activity is not just to train entrepreneurs in business creation (entrepreneurs skills teaching), but also to train people that may support and advise entrepreneurs (entrepreneurship environment teaching) and enterprises (business development teaching) within the EE&BDS process.

5

As we can see, the activities at this stage are linked to the whole process. Therefore, they will offer and receive feedback from the rest of the stages and activities, which in the end means that the optimal model’s logic rests on an accurate Entrepreneurship Culture encouragement. This stage’s success is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the whole model’s success. The model’s logic is depicted in the Figure 3, where we illustrate how this stage influences and is influenced by the rest of the model’s elements.




Business Development Support

Figure 3 EE&BDS model’s logic

Entrepreneurship Support This area integrates the activities that must be carried out to offer entrepreneurs support through the process of business plan development, when the entrepreneur has not created the new business yet. We consider that this stage must contemplate the business opportunity search, since it is necessary, on the one hand, to know about the different sectors’ trends in order to offer a better advisement to the entrepreneurs and, on the other, to build a research results “observatory” to detect on time those results that are capable of future commercialisation and analyse whether a new spin-off will be the optimal mechanism to do so. Business plan development is a very hard and time consuming activity that entrepreneurs must carry out by themselves as a (training) activity to prepare to their future business, among other reasons. This activity involves a lot of issues referred to the new business: strategy, management, accounting, fiscal liabilities, and marketing, among others. Many of them are usually completely new for entrepreneurs. Therefore, mentoring is crucial in this stage to guide them into this long path. Once the business plan is completed, an assessment is required to determine whether it is viable to create the new business. In many cases the answer to this question appears during the business development process and are the entrepreneurs who realize themselves if the business will or will not be feasible and viable. We consider that different support programmes must be offered to attend different types of entrepreneurs and business ideas (self-employment, high-tech business, to exploit research results, etc.), since different needs have to be covered in each case. Specific training activities (different and with other goals to the teaching activities) addressed to entrepreneurs and businessmen, are necessary to complement this training period. Finally, we have to take into account that entrepreneurs have to have access to financial resources during this stage. Seed capital, banks, etc. usually do not provide financial support during the business plan development. Therefore, if we want encourage the new business creation some financial support must be offered. All the activities and objectives to be covered during this stage are depicted in the Figure 4.

6

Business Opportunity Search

New Market Foresight Research Results “Observatory” Mentoring


Business Plan

Business Plan Assessment Different Programs for Different Entrepreneurs Specific Training Activities

Specific Programs

Financial Support Programs Figure 4 Activities and objectives to support entrepreneurship

Business Launch Support This stage embraces the support activities to the new businesses during the start-up process. It departs from the legal arrangements and search of funds for the new businesses’ set up to their introduction in the market and initial commercialization process. We also want to consider within this stage the hosting and search of relationships with partners, customers and suppliers. We consider that this stage usually lasts no less than one year but no more than three. The Figure 5 illustrates these activities.

Business Angels & Venture Capital Access to Fund

Financial Entities Potential Shareholders Housing


Incubator & Facilities

Facilities Contacts / Common rooms Access to Customers

Commercial Network

Access to Suppliers Access to Commercial Partners

Figure 5 Activities and support to the Business Launch

Business Development Support We consider that entrepreneurial universities must support not only the new businesses’ creation and start-up processes, but also they should maintain and feed a fluent relationship with these new firms offering them further support and services during the business firms’ development and growth stage. Therefore we propose the business monitoring activity during the company’s early years as well as further support address to ease growth if the company might require. During this stage the company has to come into contact with several partners to develop R&D activities. The building process of this sort of networks is not an easy task and the company will need support from the university and other stakeholders. Furthermore, in this stage, the company needs technological and advanced services support in order to grow and develop R&D activities. According to our model proposal the activities carried out during this stage help both the company and the university to establish strong ties. The Figure 6 depicts the activities carried out during this final stage. The model’s optimal operation foresees the participation of entrepreneurs and stakeholders in each stage helping and contributing to the company’s growth. This, in the end results in strong ties among

7

firms and the university and related stakeholders that help close the cycle and create a cooperation climate enhancing therefore the social contribution of the entrepreneurial university.

Business Monitoring Business Development Support

R&D Development Network Technological Services

Monitoring during the earlier years Growth Support

Access to Technological Partners Access to R&D Labs Technological Facilities Technology Transfer

Figure 6 : Activities for Business Development Support

We have illustrated in this section the different activities and goals of the EE&BDS model. However we need to take into account that the specific tools in each activity must be developed according to the characteristics of each university and/or science park. Therefore some activities and/or goals can be changed or re-oriented. However we think that the four main areas (Entrepreneurship Culture, Entrepreneurship Support, Business Launch Support and Business Development Support) must be contemplated in order to keep the systemic and integrating approach contributing therefore to produce and receive the optimal synergic outcomes from the model. However, in the short run, we can obtain some outcomes (even good ones) if we just carry out some of the four main activities proposed in our EE&BDS model. But we argue that it is necessary to develop the four areas, attending to the general goals described in each one in order to obtain the optimal outcomes in the long run. We can consider an example of this situation the UPV-CPI case, where very good results in terms of new business creation from students, graduates and university staff, have been produced5, carrying out a business creation process that does not integrate all the four activities nor takes into account all the stakeholders that might be involved in it. We affirm that introducing our EE&BDS process, these good results will improve in the long run, at both quantitative as well as qualitative levels. The Case of the UPV-CPI In this section we analyse how the EE&BDS model satisfies the entrepreneurs and business needs. We also demonstrate that it only will happen with an integrating and systemic approach to the model, where stakeholders from within and outside the model are involved. We will develop our analysis in three phases: 1. Identifying stakeholders 2. Analysing the contribution of each stakeholder 3. Identifying where each stakeholder’s contribution is in the model To illustrate our approach, we present the case of the Polytechnic University of Valencia (UPV) and its linked science park, the Polytechnic City of Innovation (CPI). The UPV-CPI is located into the Autonomous Community of Valencia (see Figure 7). The regional context affects and is affected by the UPV-CPI. In implementing the EE&BDS model, new stakeholders and new roles for the old ones come into play at Valencian public universities to take part in entrepreneurship and business development support process6. These stakeholders have different and in many cases contradicting and conflicting goals. Therefore, a common framework is necessary to link all the stakeholders to pursue a common objective through the establishment of joint strategies. Also entrepreneurship and Business Development activities at Valencian Universities have traditionally been carried out separated from research and teaching, therefore to profit from synergies among them is necessary to readdress these activities toward a common direction and goal. Finally,

8

the existing networks between different actors and stakeholders inside and outside the university, from different areas are generally weak.

UPV - CPI

Figure 7 : UPV-CPI at Valencian Region, Spain and Europe

Our integrating EE&BDS process is designed to overcome these shortcomings, since its enabling offers a common framework to all the involved stakeholders and activities creating, making able and fostering synergies among them. The UPV-CPI environment: identifying the involved stakeholders The Polytechnic University of Valencia’s management rests with its Rector seconded by the vicerectors, the General Secretary and the General Economic Manager. The UPV management is structured around several government bodies: the Social Council, the Government Board, the University Assembly and the Consultancy Board. As regards teaching and research activities, the UPV has 44 departments (that carry out research and teaching) and 12 Faculties. Research activities are also carried out at both research institutes and centres. The UPV counts in 14 research institutes and 14 research centres. The UPV science park, the CPI, is managed by the INNOVA Foundation, which is owned for 50% by the Valencia Business Confederation and 50% by the UPV. Table 1 shows the stakeholders involved in EE&BDS process of the UPV-CPI. We differentiate between inside and outside UPV-CPI stakeholders, since it is necessary to make clear the relevance of the external ones in the entrepreneurial university and its third mission context as well as the relationships and networks necessary between internal and external stakeholders.

9

Table 1: Stakeholders involved at UPV-CPI EE&BDS process

Inside UPV-CPI – – – – – – – –

UPV-CPI Managers (including INNOVA Foundation) Business Creation Support Service (IDEAS Institute) Technology Transfer Office (CTT) Incubator Centre and Facilities Research Institutes and Centres Departments Faculties UPV Employment Service (SIE)

Outside UPV-CPI – – – – – –

External Consultancies Business & Associations Technology Institutes Seed Capital Networks Financial Entities Governments (European, National, Regional, Local levels)

Entrepreneurs and businesses could also be consider as stakeholder, but we do not take them into account in this stage, since we believe that they have to be involved in each and every activity within the process as well as to have relationship with all the rest of the stakeholder. Therefore, its inclusion would be redundant. Related to the UPV-CPI stakeholders from within, we have to notice that the business creation support at UPV is not carried out by the technology transfer office, but by a separated service (IDEAS Institute). This service is specially designed and addressed to support new business from students, graduates and university staff, but also to create new business to exploit the university’s IPR. Regarding the research institutes and departments, we differentiate between the institutes and departments that focus their activities on socio-economic issues, and the others with a more clear engineering orientation. The first ones should get more involved in the Entrepreneurship Culture stage, especially in research and teaching activities related to entrepreneurship and business development. The others have an active role in the EE&BDS process, especially in those activities that require from technological knowledge. On the other hand, departments and institutes (even de ‘socioeconomics’) can eventually become customers of the model when they want to create spin-offs to exploit their research results. We consider the Employment Service within the EE&BDS process because it could play an active role in recruting qualified human resources for the companies. This service is especially significant and has an active role during the first years of a new business, when firms need qualified human resources on a part-time basis since they usually cannot afford full time specialised employee contracts and in many cases the activity at the firm do not require from them on a full-time basis. Therefore, the employment service can provide a work in practice employee to the firm to overcome this situation. Afterwards the employment service takes care of these students after this training period and helps them to be contracted on a full-time basis by those firms. Related to the external stakeholders, we want to highlight the role of the technology institutes. The Valencian Region is endowed with one of the most important technology institute network in Spain. It is mainly located in Valencia and brings together 16 technology institutes and 6.700 associated companies offering services to 13.000 customers. Therefore the role of this stakeholder is potentially crucial for the EE&BDS process. Analysing the contribution of each stakeholder Once we know what stakeholders are involved in the EE&BDS process at UPV-CPI, the next step to is to analyse the contribution of each stakeholder to the process. To respond to this question we must recognise the entrepreneurs and business needs, as well as the own model’s requirements. We consider that the stakeholders’ contribution should satisfy specific needs in each stage. During the model’s first stage the stakeholders’ objective is related to their contribution to the creation, promotion and consolidation Entrepreneurship Culture. Therefore, in this stage, stakeholders are working for the model’s implementation instead of offering services to entrepreneurs and businesses. This will change for the rest of stages and the stakeholders’ contribution will then be related to the entrepreneurs and businesses’ needs satisfaction.

10

According to Kirwan et al. (2006) the entrepreneurial process take place in social systems, where four mechanisms (Groen, 2005) are embedded, related to the specific capitals needed. These capitals (see Table 2) are defined as strategic capital, economic capital, cultural capital and social network capital. We argue that entrepreneurs and business’ needs along the EE&BDS process can be grouped into these four capitals, but we also need to add an additional category: hosting and facilities, since we consider that incubation and other facilities are crucial for the process success. The satisfaction of these needs will ease the business development and growth in the earlier years. However it is not essential to consider this new category in the first model’s stage, Entrepreneurship Culture, since the activities here carried out are not related to hosting. Table 2: Capitals, scope and resources. Source: adapted from Groen, 2005

Capitals needed

Resource

Scope Definition and attainment of strategic goals Economic optimization Pattern maintenance and institutionalization of shared symbols

Strategic Capital (SC) Economic Capital (EC) Cultural Capital (CC)

Power, authority, influence, strategic intent Money and funds Values, organization, knowledge, skills, experience, technology

Social Network Capital (NC)

Interactions between actors

Host and Facilities (HF)

Location and physical identity

Contacts (multiplex, filling structural holes, cohesive, equivalent) Place and facilities

In order to analyse what the stakeholder’s contribution should be, we take into account the previous groups of topics in each stage of our EE&BDS process. Therefore we have to analyse the contribution of each stakeholder in each capital at each stage. Table 3 is the results of this exercise for the UPVCPI case with the capitals. At each stage the capitals must be dealt with by different stakeholders involved. Here we observe that all the capitals are covered only if we take into account all the stakeholders (both external and internal to the UPV-CPI). Table 3: Stakeholders’ contribution in the EE&BDS process Entrepreneurship Culture


STAKEHOLDERS

SC

EC

CC

NC

UPV-CPI Managers

■

■

■

■

Business Creation Sup

■

■

■

TT Office

■

■

■

SC

■ ■

■

■

■

■

■ ■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Research Institutes

■

■

■

■

■

■

Departments

■

■

■

■

■

■

Faculties

■

■

■

■

Technology Institutes Venture Capital

■

■

■

■ ■

■

■ ■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

Financial Entities Governments

■

■

External Consultancy Business & Association

■

■ ■

Employment Services

Business Develop Support

EC CC NC HF SC EC CC NC HF SC EC CC NC HF

■

Incubator Center


■

■ ■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

11

However, in order to implement the EE&BDS process at universities we also need to know in what activities this contribution is going to be carried out in addition to know the contribution of each stakeholder in each stage. Again we need to bear in mind the stakeholders’ characteristics and their individual goals in order to apply this analysis. The results for the UPV-CPI are shown in Table 4 where we have integrated the capitals described in Table 2 and the contribution of each stakeholder shown in Table 3. As we can see in Table 4, during the first stages, when the company has not yet started its activity, universities and science parks’ stakeholders have a more intensive contribution into the process. However, in the two last stages, when the company is already in the market, outside stakeholders’ contribution becomes more noticeable than the universities and science parks’ one. We also can observe that each activity is covered by several stakeholders from inside and outside of UPV-CPI (except for incubation tasks and related facilities which are just carried out by de incubation centre). This supports once again our thesis: to gather the optimal outcomes from the model it is necessary to consider it under an integrating and systemic approach. This analysis will allow us to identify the networks that should exist between the different stakeholders, showing in which activities they have to cooperate and the contribution of each one. This, in the end, is a helpful tool to introduce the EE&BDS model at entrepreneurial universities. However, specific tools and activities must be designed in each case attending to its own characteristics, goals and needs. Table 4: Stakeholders’ cooperation and contribution in the EE&BDS process activities Entrepreneurship Culture



Business Develop Support

STAKEHOLDERS

Awar Rese Teach. Oppor B Plan Progr Funds Incub C. Net Monit. R&D Techn.

UPV-CPI Managers

SC EC SC EC SC EC CC NC CC CC

Business Creation Sup

SC CC NC

TT Office

SC SC NC SC CC CC NC CC NC

Incubator Center

NC

Research Institutes

NC

Departments

NC

SC

SC CC SC CC SC CC SC CC SC CC EC NC EC NC EC NC NC HF HF HF

SC CC

HF

SC CC SC CC NC NC

NC

NC HF NC HF

CC

SC CC SC CC NC NC

CC

Technology Institutes

NC

CC

SC CC

Financial Entities SC EC SC EC SC EC NC

SC SC SC CC NC CC NC CC NC SC NC NC CC NC NC CC

NC

CC

SC CC

NC

NC

CC CC

CC

NC

CC NC

CC

NC

Business & Association SC NC

Governments

CC

SC CC SC CC NC

CC NC CC NC

SC CC NC CC NC CC NC CC NC SC SC CC NC CC NC CC NC CC NC CC NC

External Consultancy

Venture Capital

NC

NC HF NC HF

Faculties Employment Services

EC

SC NC

NC

CC

CC

SC SC CC SC CC CC NC NC NC SC SC CC CC NC CC NC CC NC NC SC CC SC CC SC NC NC NC

SC CC EC NC

NC

EC

EC

EC

EC

EC

EC

EC

EC

EC

EC

EC

12

Implementing the model: some challenges to overcome The introduction and development of the EE&BDS model in entrepreneurial universities implies to influence and be influenced by their respective environment. In this sense, according to O’Shea et al. (2007) the success (or failure) of an entrepreneurial university not only depends on the activities carried out, but this is also due to the environment’s evolution with respect to historic, cultural, and economic, etc. features. Therefore, we must consider some challenges, related to the Valencian Region’s characteristics. In this sense, Valencian Region has a weak innovation system (Fernández de Lucio et al, 2001) with an industrial structure mainly based on traditional SME with a lack of university graduate personnel. Also there is a profound lack of structural relationships between public research institutions and the industry and, therefore, a lack of actual and effective networks (at both formal and informal levels) between research institutions and business community (Todt et al, 2007; Fernández de Lucio et al, 1999). Related to these facts, we find that in most of the cases firms do not know how they can cooperate with universities and public research institutions and, above all universities and firms think that they have nothing to offer to each other. We also have to pay attention to the university system and its regulation characteristics. In this respect, the legal framework in Spain is not favourable for the promotion of business activities among researchers. On the other hand, there is a strict regulation and a lack of incentives for (the development of) teaching activities at universities by any professional different to university teaching personnel. In addition, the rivalry between stakeholders in developing some activities means a lack of cooperation. The creation and development of an entrepreneurial culture within universities and its further dissemination through awareness activities to the related stakeholders is a crucial mechanism to overcome these challenges. However, it is not an easy task and, what is even more important, the implementation process is long and the model do not render results in the short run, therefore we will have to wait for some years before we can check and get information on the actual model’s performance. This usually is at odds with short term results that the universities (university boards) usually expect. Therefore a strong and long term commitment from rectoral teams is needed to optimally implement the model. Outcomes and Conclusions To be an entrepreneurial university means much more than supporting new business creation to commercialise its research results. Encouragement of an entrepreneurial culture and the consequent behaviour among their stakeholders and actors is behind this new universities’ role. In this context, the EE&BDS process, is crucial at entrepreneurial universities and has to involve the different stakeholders, actors, activities and tools, by getting them together into a common framework. Therefore, it is necessary an integrating and systemic approach of this process that take into account all these elements. We have presented an EE&BDS model that contemplates a wide entrepreneurial process based on entrepreneurship culture, entrepreneurship support, new business launch support and business growth support. We have emphasised the Entrepreneurship Culture as a crucial stage to the optimal model’s logic. To illustrate our approach, we have presented our approach to the case of the Polytechnic University of Valencia (UPV) and its linked science park, the Polytechnic City of Innovation (CPI). We showed how the model can be used at UPV-CPI: identifying the involved stakeholders (from within and outside UPV-CPI); analysing what the contribution of each stakeholder is and identifying the stakeholders’ cooperation and contribution to the EE&BDS process’ activities. Finally we point out to the need of designing specific tools for each activity attending to the own characteristics, goals and needs of each university. These results demonstrate that the achievement of the optimal outcomes from the model is directly linked to its integrating and systematic consideration: only the actual involvement of all the stakeholders and the creation of networks among them to carry out the activities will satisfy the entrepreneurs, business and own model’s needs accurately. Therefore, the consideration of an integrated and systemic approach to the model is as a helpful tool to enhance the EE&BDS process at

13

universities an science parks. Further research related to our approach will provide data for an analysis in depth of the design and development of the specifics tools for each stage as well as the analysis of the different networks’ levels. Finally and with regard to the specific model’s implementation at Valencian universities we have shown how several challenges related to the weak Valencian innovation system, the lack of cooperation between stakeholders and the strict and not favourable regulations affect this implementation process. We conclude that encouragement of the entrepreneurial culture and behaviour among stakeholders as well as the long term commitment of rectoral teams is crucial to optimally implement the model.

14

References Castro, E.; Fernández de Lucio, I.; Gutiérrez, A. and Añón, M.J. (2001) “La Dinamización en la cooperación Investigación-Empresa: desarrollo conceptual y aplicaciones”. Mexico D.F.: ALTEC'2001 proceedings. Clark, B. (1998) Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Clark, B. (1996) “Creando Universidades Emprendedoras en Europa”. Revista Valenciana d’Estudis Autonomics, vol. 21, pp. 373-392. Clark, B. (2004) “Delineating the Character of the Entrepreneurial University”. Higher Education Policy, vol. 17, pp. 355-370. Cuyvers, R. and Zimmermann, E. (2002) “KUL as a virtual incubator for new, knowledge-intensive busi-nesses”, in K. Debackere and R. De Bondt (eds.) Leuven Research and Development: 30 years of break-throughs and innovations towards an entrepreneurial university. Leuven: KUL Press. Dalmau, J.I.; Alonso, J.L. and Colomer, J. (2003). Programa IDEAS. Un modelo de éxito para fomentar la creación de empresas desde las universidades. Valencia: Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. Davies, J.I. (1987) "The Entrepreneurial and adaptative university: characteristics of its organization and operation". International Journal of Institutional Management in Higher Education, vol.2, (1). Etzkowitz, H. (1983) “Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science”. Minerva, vol. 1 (2-3), pp. 198-233. Etzkowitz, H. (1998) “The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university– industry linkages”. Research Policy, vol. 27 (8), pp.823-833. Etzkowitz, H. (2003) “Research groups as ‘quasifirms’ the invention of the entrepreneurial university”. Research Policy, vol. 32 (1), pp. 109-131. Etzkowitz, H. (2004) “The evolution of entrepreneurial university”. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, vol. 1 (1), pp. 64-77. Fernández de Lucio, I.; Gutiérrez, A.; Azagra, J.M. and Jiménez-Sáez, F. (1999) El Sistema Valenciano de Innovación en el inicio del siglo XXI. Revista Valenciana d’Estudis Autonòmics, vol. 30, special issue, pp. 7-64. Fernández de Lucio, I.; Gutiérrez, A.; Jiménez-Sáez, F. and Azagra, J.M. (2001) “Las debilidades y fortalezas del Sistema Valenciano de Innovación”, in Olazarán, M. and Gómez Uranga, M. (eds.), Sistemas regionales de innovación. Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco. Gibb, A. (1999) “Creating an entrepreneurial culture in support of SMEs”. Small Enterprise Development, vol. 10 (4), pp. 27-38. Goddard, J. (1998) “The role of universities in regional development”. Working paper for CREColumbus. UNESCO: Paris. Grant, C.A.; Van der Sijde, P.C.; Henry, C.; Koswenska, I.; Scott, t. and Chassagne, G. (1996) “Routes of technology transfer to SMEs: a cross-european perspective”. Industry & Higher Education. Pp. 293-299. Grit, K. (2000) Economisering als probleem - Een studie naar de bedrijfsmatige stad en de ondernemende universiteit. Assen: Editorial Van Gorcum. Groen, A. (2005). "Knowledge intensive entrepreneurship in networks: towards a multi-level/multi dimensional approach". Journal of Enterprising Culture, vol.13 (1), pp.69-88.

15

Kirwan, P; Van der Sijde, P. and Groen, A. (2006) “Assessing the needs of new technology based firms (NTBFs): an investigation among spin-off companies from six European Universities”. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, vol. 2 (2) pp. 173-187. Molas-Gallart, J.; Salter, A.; Patel, P.; et al (2002) “Measuring third stream activities”. Internal report. Brighton, SPRU. Nikos (2004) Progress Report 2001-2004. Nikos, University of Twente. The Netherlands. http://www.utwente.nl/nikos/news/progressreport.pdf. O’Shea, R.P.; Allen, T.J.; Morse, K.P.; O’Gorman, C. and Roche, F. (2007) “Delineating the anatomy of an entrepreneurial university: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology experience”. R&D Management, vol. 37 (1), pp. 1-16. Rasmussen, E. and Borch, O.J. (2006) “The university and the spin-off process. A dynamic capability approach”, in David Urbano (Ed.) Diversity in entrepreneurship. 3rd Inter-RENT Online Publication. Turku: European Council for Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Todt, O; Gutiérrez-Gracia, A.; Fernández de Lucio, I. and Castro-Martínez, E. (2007) “The regional dimension of innovation and the globalization of science: the case of biotechnology in a peripheral region of the European Union”. R&D Management, vol. 37(1), pp. 65-74. Van der Sijde, P.C.; Ridder, A.; Van Benthem, J. and Groen, A. (2002) “Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship stimulation at the University of Twente”, in P.C. Van der Sijde, A. Ridder, J.M. Gòmez, J.T. Pastor, D. Galiano and I. Mira (eds.) Infrastructures for Academic Spin-off Companies, CEE Limencop, S.L. Van der Sijde, P.C. and Van Alsté, J.A. (1998) “Support for entrepreneurship at the University of Twente”. Industry & Higher Education, vol.12 (December) pp.367-372. Van der Sijde, P.C. and. Van Driem, G.A. (1999) “Incubation infrastructure for knowledge-intensive companies around the University of Twente”. Industry and Higher Education, vol.13 (August) pp.243247. Van der Sijde, P.C. and Van Tilburg, J. (2000) “Support of university spin-off companies”. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, vol. 1 (February) pp.13-21. Van der Veen, M. and Wakkee, I. (2006) “Understanding the entrepreneurial process” in Davidsson, P. (Ed) New Firm Startups, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 27-65

1

Nikos, located at the University of Twente in the Netherlands, is the acronym of the Dutch Institute for Knowledge Intensive Entrepreneurship. 2 Grit (2000) also recognises the “critical university” as another reaction of universities to society 3 According to our consideration, sometimes we find the Science Park as part of the university organization. However it is also frequent to find science parks separated of the university organization. Nevertheless in all cases we find very strong ties with the university: usually university’s personnel are involved in the steer committee of the Science Park as well as the other way around. 4 These authors define the “Opportunity Business Cell” as the integration of the three necessary elements to build a new business: business idea, entrepreneurial team and resources. They argue that these elements are the initial “Cell” of a new business. 5 The UPV has supported the creation of more than 300 new businesses since 1992 through the IDEAS Institute. 6 Five science parks linked to their respective public university are now being built at the Autonomous Community of Valencia. They will host research institutes, technology-based firms, incubators centers among others, and will offer facilities and services, most of them related to the EE&BDS process.

16