英国创业型大学

Creating Entrepreneurial Universities in the UK:Applying Entrepreneurship Theory to PracticeDavid A.Kirby 1ABSTRACT.In the modern knowledge economy higher educational institutions are being required to operate more entrepreneurially,commercialising the results of their research and spinning out new,knowledge-based enterprises.Like most large organisations,particularly those operating in the public sector,they are not traditionally suited to this role and often face the same sort of barriers to intrapreneurial activity as their counterparts in the private sector.In this note,the theories of entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship development are used to identify what needs to be done and a case example is provided.Keywords:entrepreneurship,intrapreneurship,universities JEL Classification:M130–Entrepreneurship (New Firms:Startups),I280–Education:Government Policy,L200–Firm Objectives,Organisation,and Behaviour:General,L330–Comparison of Public and Private Enterprises1.IntroductionEarly evidence of the growth of technology-based firms around universities such as Cambridge (Segal,1986)and Stanford and MIT (Roberts,1991)suggested that the spin-out of new ventures could be easily replicated.This is not necessarily the case.As Birley (2002)has recognised the pro-cess is more complicated than it might have been assumed,initially.In the context of the UK,Wright (2004)stresses the need for Universities to focus on how they can overcome their existing cultural values,a point recognised in the US by Kenney and Goe (2004).Hence,this practitioner note uses entrepreneurship theory to explore the changes required to take place if universities are to create a culture that supports enterprise creationand the spin-out and start-up of new ventures.A case example is provided.2.Barriers to entrepreneurship development Universities are not the most entrepreneurial of institutions.There are numerous reasons for this,largely relating to the inherent nature of large or-ganisations,in particular:–The impersonal nature of relationships.–The hierarchical structure and many levels of approval.–The need for control and the resultant adher-ence to rules and procedures.–The conservatism of the corporate culture.–The time dimension and the need for immedi-ate results.–The lack of entrepreneurial talent.–Inappropriate compensation methods.Universities face all of these traditional barriers,and several more.Unlike many large private sector corporations,most have never had to be entre-preneurial and are not based on a tradition of enterprise.Accordingly,many staffbelieve that being entrepreneurial ‘‘will drive out their other more fundamental university qualities,such as intellectual integrity,critical inquiry and commit-ment to learning and understanding’’(Williams,2002,19).Also,most academics see their roles as teachers and researchers and not as entrepreneurs,and many university managers are concerned about the likely negative impact on their institu-tion’s research performance if their leading aca-demics become involved in entrepreneurial activity.Thus although some of the leading research universities are among the most successful1School of Management,University of Surrey Guildford,Surrey,GU25XH,UK E-mail:D.Kirby@Journal of Technology Transfer,31,599–603,2006.ÓSpringer Science+Business Media,LLC2006.entrepreneurially,in terms of spin-outs(Etzko-witz,2003),for many in higher education the concept provokes‘‘an image of shady villainy,a fifth column gnawing away at the basic values that define a university,a wolf masquerading as a milch-cow’’(McNay,2002,20).The issues do seem,therefore,to be‘‘more complicated and difficult to solve in a university than anywhere else’’(Birley,2002,134).However, as Laukkanen(2003,380)has recognised,‘‘faculty do not necessarily categorically oppose corporate co-operation or academic entrepreneurship per se, as is sometimes assumed’’and‘‘academics should never be under-estimated’’(Birley,2002,152). Indeed,research at the University of Surrey(Hay et al.,2002)suggests that academics are perhaps more similar to entrepreneurs than might befirst expected.Where they differ most is in their pro-pensity to take risks,suggesting the need to create a secure environment in which risk is perceived to be minimized.3.Overcoming the barriersTraditionally,efforts to create more entrepre-neurial universities in the UK have focused on funding‘‘initiatives’’(the offering offiscal inducements)and in recent years British universi-ties have seen the introduction of a number of targeted initiatives,namely:–The Higher Education Innovation Fund(HEIF) intended to encourage universities to build links with the business community and form partnerships to develop innovation centres,for example.–The Science Enterprise Challenge Fund intended to encourage the teaching of entrepre-neurship to science and engineering students.–University Challenge Fund intended to provide university staffwith access to seed funds in order to assist the successful transformation of good research into good business.While the importance of these cannot be denied there are doubts about their long-term effective-ness and their ability to transform the modus operandi of the country’s universities,especially as not all universities have received such funding.To effect such a change lessons can be learned,per-haps,from entrepreneurship theory,in particular the Cognitive Models of Entrepreneurial Devel-opment and the Theory of Intrapreneurship Development(i.e.corporate entrepreneurship or entrepreneurship in the large organisation). Cognitive models of entrepreneurship development Cognitive theory explores the situations that lead to entrepreneurial behaviour and are based on Ajzen’s (1991)theory of planned behaviour.According to this,individuals will activate their entrepreneurial potential if they believe they have the ability,there are environmental possibilities and there is social support.Thus,it is necessary–For society in general and the institutions in particular to have favourable attitudes towards such an objective.–For academics to believe they have the ability to do it.–For the academic staffto believe it is intrinsi-cally rewarding.This is beginning to happen in the UK.Since 2000,business and entrepreneurial development have been listed as one of four strategic goals for the country’s universities(Universities UK,2000),the universities are beginning to develop programmes that equip their staffand students with the knowl-edge and skills to commercialise their intellectual property through new venture creation(Brooks-bank and Thomas,2001),and policies are being developed with respect to the ownership of intel-lectual property and the rewarding of staff.Nota-bly,the level of spin-out activity has increased considerably(UNICO,2003).The theory of intrapreneurship development Intrapreneurship theory(Pinchot,1985)suggests that if established organisations are to re-discover their entrepreneurial drive,there needs to be:–Senior Management Commitment to Entrepre-neurship.–A Corporate Model for Entrepreneurship.–The development of an Intrapreneurial Culture.–The identification of Intrapreneurial Talent.600David A.Kirby–The Monetary and Non-monetary Rewarding of Intrapreneurs.–An identifiable system for administering and evaluating projects.What the theory suggests is that it is necessary not just‘‘to have clear and fair policies and pro-cedures,and to communicate them positively and enthusiastically’’as Birley(2002,152)contends, but to address the barriers that are preventing entrepreneurship within the organization and to create an environment that is supportive of,and conducive to,its development.In order to effect this,theory proposes the formulation of a high-level strategy that demonstrates the university’s intent,makes it clear that the university encour-ages this form of behaviour,provides the univer-sity’s staffwith the knowledge and support to start their own businesses and creates an environment that reduces the risk involved.The sort of actions involved in such a strategy is shown in Table I.4.A case exampleBased in the South East of England,30miles south of London,the University of Surrey has a long tradition for promoting innovation and new ventures.In1986it opened a£70million SciencePark(The Surrey Research Park)which houses its incubator(the Surrey Technology Centre).Since its inception the Park has contributed significantly to the economic development of the region and to technology transfer,as well as fostering innova-tion.Tenant companies employ over2,500staffand many feed technology into local companies with which they have partnering arrangements. Approximately two-thirds have links with the University.Not only is the Research Park itself a successful venture in its own right,but numerous other enterprises have been developed,including Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd,the world’s leading provider of small satellites.In the aca-demic year2000–2001,the University created six spin-outs and signed14licence deals,providing £120,000of revenue and the potential for future royalties.To strengthen its activities in this area,the University has utilised recent Government support in a number of ways.First,it secured funding from the Higher Education Innovation Fund and appointed three‘‘Innovation Network Managers’’(technology transfer officers)to identify commer-cially exploitable intellectual property within the University and the region.Also,it has appointed an intellectual property adviser and devised a sliding scale for sharing net revenues with the academic inventor,giving the inventor70per cent of the net revenues up to£50,000down to35per cent on net revenues in excess of£500,000.Additionally,it has developed links and part-nerships with similar institutions in its region and has been successful in obtaining collaborative funding under the University Challenge and Higher Education Innovation Funds.The former has resulted in a Venture Capital Fund(Cascade) that complements the University’s own£1million seed fund and provides‘‘stimulus funding’’of up to £30,000for proof of concept,market studies,etc., as well as a‘‘growth fund’’providing investments of up to£250,000for growing a promising venture.Table IStrategic actions intended to promote enterprise Action ActivityEndorsement At the highest level.Senior staffactas role modelsIncorporation Into University,Faculty/Departmental and personalplansImplementation Setting targets that are monitored Communication Publication&dissemination of thestrategy and consultation on it Encouragementand supportHard support—enterpriselaboratories,pre-incubators,incubators,science parks,meetingrooms,computing support,office support services and seed cornfundingSoft support—training,mentoringand advice,signposting to sources ofexternal support,ongoing technicaland management support once theventure is launchedRecognitionand rewardEquity sharing,promotion,etc Organisation Cross-disciplinary research andteaching groups,educationalpartnerships,a multi-disciplinaryEntrepreneurship Centre Promotion Business plan competitions,entrepreneurship‘‘halls of fame’’.Cases,role models601Applying Entrepreneurship Theory to PracticeFurther funding is being made available through the regional and national business angel and ven-ture capital networks.Finally,a collaborative bid to the Higher Education Innovation Fund resulted in the crea-tion of the Southern England Technology Triangle (SETsquared)under which a pre-incubator (SETsquared Centre)has been established on the Research Park to facilitate the commercialisation of research from both within and outside the University.Like its partners at the Universities of Bath,Bristol and Southampton,the Surrey SETsquared Centre is intended for nascent entre-preneurs with a sound business idea that shows high-growth potential and links into the knowledge (technology)base of the four universities.It offers managed workspace and,importantly,business and technological mentoring,training and net-working opportunities.These are provided both locally and through the consortium.An important and integral part of the service is a regular 3-monthly monitoring and review process that charts their development and advises on what skills need to be acquired and what needs to be done, including guidance on exit strategies.As the advice is provided by experienced entrepreneurial mentors and representatives of a panel of specialists from the public support sector and local professional service organisations(accountants,banks,solici-tors,etc),the members are networked into the local business community.Having put in place a complete incubation process,the University is now raising awareness of the opportunities for new venture creation amongst its staffand students.Apart from Entrepreneurship modules on its Bachelor and Masters programmes in the Management School,the University has an innovative undergraduate degree(BSc in Entre-preneurship,IT,technology and Business)in the School of Engineering and a level1(30credit) business start-up module available on-line.Addi-tionally,non-accredited extra curricular courses (FUSE-Future University of Surrey Entrepre-neurs)are offered through the Students’Union, while there is a Summer School for those wishing to start their own businesses on graduation.This complements short courses and‘‘boot camps’’intended for academics and the employees of technology companies who wish to commercialise their research and/or start their own business.Finally,three‘‘user-friendly’’CD-ROMs enable users to work at their own pace in order to develop the plans to Start,Grow and Market their busi-nesses.In doing this,the University is attempting to create a completely integrated incubation pro-cess in which its pre-incubator,incubator and science park become‘‘the entrepreneurial schools of tomorrow’’(Albert and Gaynor,2003,20).In order to continue this process the University has bid for,and obtained,a further£3.2million of funding under the second round of the Higher Education Innovation Fund(HEIF2).This will enable it to create enterprise laboratories for its students and a Centre for Entrepreneurship Development that will co-ordinate and integrate the academic and practitioner approaches to entrepreneurship across the University.All of these activities are integral components of the University’s strategic plan and are endorsed by the Vice Chancellor and Chief Executive who, apart from being an eminent Professor of Elec-tronic Engineering,was the joint CEO of what is probably the UK’s most successful university spin-out company,Filtronic plc.He sees them as major strategic developments for both the Uni-versity and the UK and in this he is supported by the University’s Governing body.5.ConclusionMuch has been achieved at Surrey and there is more still to be done.The case demonstrates what can be achieved,however,and how entrepreneurship the-ory can inform practice.Creating entrepreneurial universities is not easy as,even in the US,‘‘within our organisations,we have spent years learning how to routinize and control things,how to build equilibrium[but]we are very unskilled at altering organisational structures that have outlived their usefulness....’’(Quinn,1996,5,quoted in Guskin and Marcy,2002,35).To succeed universities must do precisely that and those mandated to effect the changes will need to understand and embrace the principles of entrepreneurship development.It is not simply a case of incentivising institutions through the introduction of short-term funding initiatives nor of putting in place the requisite infrastructure.A culture of enterprise is required that both encourages and enables academics and602David A.Kirbystudents to commercialise their intellectual prop-erty and inventions.Universities need to recognise that entrepreneurial behaviour should pervade the whole organisation and be recognised as an integral part of their missions.The note has shown how, theoretically,this might be achieved and how one UK institution is responding.ReferencesAjzen,I.,1991,ÔThe Theory of Planned Behaviour,ÕOrganisa-tional Behaviour and Human Decision Processes50,179–211. Albert,P.and L.Gaynor,2003,National Contexts,Incubator Families and Trends in Incubation–Views from Four Coun-tries.Paper presented at the48th ICSB World Conference, Belfast.Birley,S.,2002,ÔUniversities,Academics,and Spinout Com-panies:Lessons from Imperial,ÕInternational Journal of Entrepreneurship Education1(1),133–153. Brooksbank, D.and B.Thomas,2001,ÔAn Assessment of Higher Education Spin-offEnterprise in Wales,ÕIndustry and Higher Education15,415–420.Etzkowitz,H.,2003,ÔResearch Groups as‘Quasi-firms’:The Invention of the Entrepreneurial University,ÕResearch Pol-icy32(1),109–121.Guskin,A.E.and M.B.Marcy,2002,ÔFacing the Future in the United States.Faculty work,Student Learning and Fun-damental Reform,Õin G.Williams(eds.),The Enterprising University:Reform,Excellence and Equity,Buckingham: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press,.Hay,D.B.,F.Butt,and D.A.Kirby,2002,ÔAcademics as Entrepreneurs in a UK University,Õin G.Williams(eds.), The Enterprising University:Reform,Excellence and Equity,Buckingham:The Society for Research into Higher Edu-cation and Open University Press,.Kenney,M.and W.R.Goe,2004,ÔThe Role of Social Em-bededness in Professorial Entrepreneurship:A Comparison of Electrical Engineering and Computer science at UC Berkeley and Stanford,ÕResearch Policy33(5),691–705. Laukkanen,M.,2003,ÔExploring Academic Entrepreneurship: Drivers and Tensions of University-based Business,ÕJournal of Small Business and Enterprise Development10(4),372–382.McNay,I.,2002,ÔThe E-factors and Organisation Cultures in British Universities,Õin G.Williams(eds.),The Enterprising University:Reform,Excellence and Equity,Buckingham: The Society for research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Pinchot,G.,1985,Intrapreneuring,New York:Harper and Row.Quinn,R.,1996,Deep Change:Disovering the Leader Within, San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.Roberts,E.B.,1991,Entrepreneurs in High technology:Lessons from MIT and Beyond,New York:Oxford University. Segal,N.S.,1986,ÔUniversities and Technological Entrepre-neurship in Britain:Some Implications of the Cambridge Phenomenon,ÕTechnovation4(3),189–205.UNICO,2003,Annual Survey on University Technology Transfer Activities,Lichfield:The University Companies Association.Universities UK,2000,A forward Look–Highlights of our Corporate Plan2001–2004,vol.9.London:Universities UK. Williams,G.,2002,The Enterprising University:Reform, Excellence and Equity,Buckingham:The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press. Wright,M.,2004,Spin-outs from Universities:Strategy, Financing and Monitoring,Nottingham:Centre for Man-agement Buy-Out research,Nottingham University Business School.603Applying Entrepreneurship Theory to Practice。