PDF Entrepreneurial universities exploring the academic and innovative dimensions of entrepreneurshi
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/entrepreneurial-universities-exploring-the-academic-a nd-innovative-dimensions-of-entrepreneurship-in-higher-education-1st-edition-martaperis-ortiz/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Education Tools for Entrepreneurship Creating an Action Learning Environment through Educational Learning Tools 1st Edition Marta Peris-Ortiz
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature
The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Series Foreword
The Springer book series Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management was launched in March 2008 as a forum and intellectual, scholarly “podium” for global/ local, transdisciplinary, transsectoral, public–private, and leading/“bleeding”-edge ideas, theories, and perspectives on these topics.
The book series is accompanied by the Springer Journal of the Knowledge Economy, which was launched in 2009 with the same editorial leadership.
The series showcases provocative views that diverge from the current “conventional wisdom,” that are properly grounded in theory and practice, and that consider the concepts of robust competitiveness, 1 sustainable entrepreneurship, 2 and democratic capitalism, 3 central to its philosophy and objectives. More specifically, the aim of this series is to highlight emerging research and practice at the dynamic intersection of these fields, where individuals, organizations, industries, regions, and nations are harnessing creativity and invention to achieve and sustain growth.
1 We define sustainable entrepreneurship as the creation of viable, profitable, and scalable firms. Such firms engender the formation of self-replicating and mutually enhancing innovation networks and knowledge clusters (innovation ecosystems), leading toward robust competitiveness (E.G. Carayannis, International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development 1(3), 235–254, 2009).
2 We understand robust competitiveness to be a state of economic being and becoming that avails systematic and defensible “unfair advantages” to the entities that are pail of the economy. Such competitiveness is built on mutually complementary and reinforcing low-, medium-, and hightechnology and public and private sector entities (government agencies, private firms, universities, and nongovernmental organizations) (E.G. Carayannis, International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development 1(3), 235–254, 2009).
3 The concepts of robust competitiveness and sustainable entrepreneurship are pillars of a regime that we call democratic capitalism (as opposed to “popular or casino capitalism”), in which real opportunities for education and economic prosperity are available to all. especially—but not only—younger people. These are the direct derivative of a collection of top-down policies as well as bottom-up initiatives (including strong research and development policies and funding, but going beyond these to include the development of innovation networks and knowledge clusters across regions and sectors) (E.G. Carayannis and A. Kaloudis. Japan Economic Currents, p. 6–10 January 2009).
v
Books that are part of the series explore the impact of innovation at the “macro” (economies, markets), “meso” (industries, firms), and “micro” levels (teams, individuals), drawing from such related disciplines as finance, organizational psychology, research and development, science policy, information systems, and strategy, with the underlying theme that for innovation to be useful it must involve the sharing and application of knowledge.
Some of the key anchoring concepts of the series are outlined in the figure below and the definitions that follow (all definitions are from E.G. Carayannis and D.F.J. Campbell, International Journal of Technology Management, 46, 3–4, 2009).
Conceptual profile of the series Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management.
• The “Mode 3” Systems Approach for Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use: “Mode 3” is a multilateral, multinodal, multimodal, and multilevel systems approach to the conceptualization, design, and management of real and virtual, “knowledge-stock” and “knowledge-flow,” modalities that catalyze, accelerate, and support the creation, diffusion, sharing, absorption, and use of cospecialized knowledge assets. “Mode 3” is based on a system-theoretic perspective of socioeconomic, political, technological, and cultural trends and conditions that shape the coevolution of knowledge with the “knowledge-based and knowledge-driven, global/local economy and society.”
• Quadruple Helix: Quadruple helix, in this context, means to add to the triple helix of government, university, and industry a “fourth helix” that we identify as the “media-based and culture-based public.” This fourth helix associates with “media,” “creative industries,” “culture,” “values,” “lifestyles,” “art,” and perhaps also the notion of the “creative class.”
• Innovation Networks: Innovation networks are real and virtual infrastructures and infratechnologies that serve to nurture creativity, trigger invention, and catalyze innovation in a public and/or private domain context (for instance, government–university–industry public–private research and technology development cooperative partnerships).
• Knowledge Clusters: Knowledge clusters are agglomerations of cospecialized, mutually complementary, and reinforcing knowledge assets in the form of “knowledge stocks” and “knowledge flows” that exhibit self-organizing, learning-driven, dynamically adaptive competences and trends in the context of an open systems perspective.
• Twenty-First Century Innovation Ecosystem: A twenty-first century innovation ecosystem is a multilevel, multimodal, multinodal, and multiagent system of systems. The constituent systems consist of innovation metanetworks (networks of innovation networks and knowledge clusters) and knowledge metaclusters (clusters of innovation networks and knowledge clusters) as building blocks and organized in a self-referential or chaotic fractal knowledge and innovation architecture (Carayannis, 2001), which in turn constitute agglomerations of human, social, intellectual, and financial capital stocks and flows as well as cultural and technological artifacts and modalities, continually coevolving, cospecializing, and cooperating. These innovation networks and knowledge clusters also form, reform, and dissolve within diverse institutional, political, technological, and socioeconomic domains, including government, university, industry, and nongovernmental organizations and involving information and communication technologies, biotechnologies, advanced materials, nanotechnologies, and next-generation energy technologies.
Who is this book series published for? The book series addresses a diversity of audiences in different settings:
1. Academic communities: Academic communities worldwide represent a core group of readers. This follows from the theoretical/conceptual interest of the book series to influence academic discourses in the fields of knowledge, also carried by the claim of a certain saturation of academia with the current concepts and the postulate of a window of opportunity for new or at least additional concepts. Thus, it represents a key challenge for the series to exercise a certain impact on discourses in academia. In principle, all academic communities that are interested in knowledge (knowledge and innovation) could be tackled by the book series. The interdisciplinary (transdisciplinary) nature of the book series underscores that the scope of the book series is not limited a priori to a specific basket of disciplines. From a radical viewpoint, one could create the hypothesis that there is no discipline where knowledge is of no importance.
2. Decision makers—private/academic entrepreneurs and public (governmental, subgovernmental) actors: Two different groups of decision makers are being addressed simultaneously: (1) private entrepreneurs (firms, commercial firms, academic firms) and academic entrepreneurs (universities) interested in optimizing knowledge management and in developing heterogeneously composed
knowledge-based research networks; and (2) public (governmental, subgovernmental) actors that are interested in optimizing and further developing their policies and policy strategies that target knowledge and innovation. One purpose of public knowledge and innovation policy is to enhance the performance and competitiveness of advanced economies.
3. Decision makers in general: Decision makers are systematically being supplied with crucial information, for how to optimize knowledge-referring and knowledge-enhancing decision-making. The nature of this “crucial information” is conceptual as well as empirical (case study-based). Empirical information highlights practical examples and points toward practical solutions (perhaps remedies); conceptual information offers the advantage of further-driving and further-carrying tools of understanding. Different groups of addressed decision makers could be decision makers in private firms and multinational corporations, responsible for the knowledge portfolio of companies; knowledge and knowledge management consultants; globalization experts, focusing on the internationalization of research and development, science and technology, and innovation; experts in university/business research networks; and political scientists, economists, and business professionals.
4. Interested global readership: Finally, the Springer book series addresses a whole global readership, composed of members who are generally interested in knowledge and innovation. The global readership could partially coincide with the communities as described above (“academic communities,” “decision makers”), but could also refer to other constituencies and groups.
Elias G. Carayannis
Preface
Entrepreneurship is an expression of the talent of human creation, and as such it manifests in different areas of individual life, the business world, society, and institutions: from different aspects of management thinking, as expressed by Schumpeter (1934, 1950), in reference to the skill for the discovery and exploitation of opportunities; Penrose (1959), when he refers to the executive’s mind as one of the essential resources of the company; or Baumol (1968) when he emphasizes the importance of creativity as an essential element, which combines different factors and achieves economic growth.
Based on the individual consideration of entrepreneurship, the received education and the influence of society (Nga & Shamuganathan, 2010), or the existence of innate characteristics (Chell, 2008), they explain the features or characteristics of the entrepreneur which lead them to the discovery of opportunities (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000) or to create them by means of new combinations of factors (Schumpeter, 1934). In this sense, the field of entrepreneurship essentially corresponds to “the study of sources of opportunities; the processes of discovery, evaluation, and exploitation of opportunities; and the set of individuals who discover, evaluate, and exploit them” (Shane y Venkataraman, Ibid, 218); nothing can substitute ingenuity and individual intuition to discover new opportunities or create them by means of new factors or new combinations of factors.
However without neglecting the importance of the characteristics and individual initiatives of the entrepreneur, this book investigates the institutional dimension of entrepreneurship to establish Entrepreneurial Universities as an object of study. This institutional dimension of concept (Clark, 1998), in turn, has two aspects: one which enhances the individual aspect of future entrepreneurs, since these universities establish learning methods for their students which facilitate a greater inclination for innovation and entrepreneurship; and the aspect which involves the direct entrepreneurial action of the university, which by means of professional advice to companies or business incubators, and the creation of spin-offs, inaugurates a major path so that universities—their different professors and departments—fully intervene in the discovery of opportunities or in their creation as well as technology transfer. In this framework, they also increase the resources and the incentives for research and their subsequent application to innovation (Ross, 1976).
In the plurality of topics which characterize the examination of entrepreneurship in universities, the majority of the chapters in this book can be grouped into the following three main sections: the ones which deal with the entrepreneurial education of their students, with different variations; the sections which examine the entrepreneurial universities which are characterized by directly contributing to innovation and technology transfer; and those which deal with entrepreneurial research in universities such as the case study, in which they either focus on an aspect of entrepreneurial education or cover the study of educational aspects jointly with those of innovation and technology transfer.
Accordingly, Chaps. 2, 5, 12, 13, 14, and 20 deal with entrepreneurial education, with different variations. The heterogeneity of the approaches and topics which these six chapters feature permits the exploration of the wealth of contents required to carry out the academic training in entrepreneurship and experience its complexity. Chapter 2 studies the theoretical and practical consequences of entrepreneurial education, from the theoretical perspective of planned behavior. Chapter 5 examines the influence of formal and informal factors of the university institution on the entrepreneurial intention of the students. Chapters 12, 13, and 14 analyze different training contents which the students must include, ranging from collaboration and autonomous learning skills to their availability for motivation and commitment, as the basis which will facilitate the incorporation of specifically entrepreneurial skills. Finally, Chap. 20 examines the impact of entrepreneurship education programs on student entrepreneurial orientations, comparing data from Portugal, Spain, and Brazil.
Chapters 3, 4, 9, and 11 review the university’s direct action as an entrepreneurial institution, contributing to innovation, technology transfer, and the development of society. Chapter 3, by means of a questionnaire to collect information from 206 department heads of Italian and Spanish universities, aims to measure the entrepreneurial orientation of these departments and how this will lead to the generation of patents and spin-offs which permit capitalizing their own researcher effort. Chapter 4 highlights that higher education institutions play a key role in the entrepreneurial field and this also consists in complying with the students’ training and expectations, to maximize the potential for the commercialization of their ideas and their investigation and create value in society, without being a threat to academic values. The university, as an institution, forms part of a triple helix model and stimulates the development of society jointly with public administrations and companies. Chapter 9, in the same way as the two previous chapters, is based on the increasingly greater interest of universities to capitalize their own researcher effort. In the authors’ own words, “Using a review of the literature, this paper identifies a number of variables that determine the characteristics of support programs for setting up academic spinoffs: the origin of the initiative; area of activity; objectives; funding for the program; type of spin-off to which support is provided; organization of the support activities; degree of integration and degree of autonomy.” The results of the study provide a guide so that the academic authorities involved in the programs to create spin-offs can create or improve these programs. Finally, Chap. 11 conducts an exploratory study about the business incubators in Spain and the United Kingdom and, as the
authors explain, the chapter’s contribution consists in confirming “that effectiveness assessment of incubators is so far un-systematic. (…) [T]he lack of rigorous assessment tools and methodologies feeds the uncertainty surrounding business incubator effectiveness and ultimately threatens their ability to make meaningful contributions to the success of the companies they nurture.”
Chapters 6, 7, and 10 study three cases of entrepreneurial universities, which cover the educational aspects of entrepreneurship jointly with innovation and technology transfer. Chapter 6 illustrates, by means of the case of the University of Southern Santa Catarina in Brazil, the contribution of university institutions to innovation and entrepreneurship as well as economic development and sustainability. This chapter shows that the added value which the university contributes will depend on the knowledge transferred through the research, in addition to the contribution by means of the teaching work. In reference to Chap. 7, as perfectly summarized by its authors, “The objective of this paper (based on the entrepreneurial activity of the University of the Basque Country) is to show how educational innovation in entrepreneurship and technology transfer consolidates the third mission and transforms higher education institutions into entrepreneurial universities. The results obtained suggest that public investment to promote entrepreneurship in universities is efficient. To improve these results, it is necessary to determine standards in entrepreneurial education to introduce them into the academic curriculum and strengthen incubators focused on the creation of academic spin-offs from university R&D results.” Chapter 10, concerning entrepreneurial initiatives in Colombian universities, in line with the previous two chapters, features the case of the Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Business Center of Sergio Arboleda University—Sergio i+E in Bogota, Colombia, which reveals the growing importance of the university in its contribution to creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship, both in the students’ training and the technology transfer.
Chapters 15, 16, and 17 correspond to different case studies and they respectively cover the entrepreneurship relation with the University of Valencia, the Polytechnical University of Valencia, and the CETIS University de Mexico. Both the analysis of the University of Valencia and the Polytechnical University of Valencia cover all the entrepreneurial aspects, from the training up to those related to innovation and technology transfer; and in reference to the study from CETYS University, the latter is especially focused on the preliminary training aspects, which the students must include in order to achieve good training in entrepreneurship.
In reference to Chaps. 1 and 8, Chap. 1 is about innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting and provides a general review of the literature about the universities’ relation with entrepreneurship and innovation; and Chap. 8, “A Quest for the Research Centres about Entrepreneurship in Spanish Universities,” pays special attention to the literature about entrepreneurship however with a different purpose: to verify, based on the literature, where the main research centers about entrepreneurship are in Spain.
Finally, Chaps. 18 and 19 have singular features which could not be included in any of the above groups. Chapter 18 deals with the introduction or improvement of
virtual business internships in higher education institutions and in the own words of the chapter’s authors, “recent changes in the Spanish laws and in the regulations of universities, such as the Universitat Politècnica de València, which allow business internships to take place abroad. These conditions could provide an opportunity for innovation and growth, especially by combining internationalization with virtualization of traineeships.” Finally, Chap. 19 compares the attitudes of Spanish and Portuguese students in Tourism Degree programs and how they perceive the assistance which these studies provide to improve their entrepreneur profile. The employed methodology consists of a descriptive analysis of the data obtained through a questionnaire, using statistical tests of comparison of means, T-Student and Contingency tables that allow checking the hypotheses and analyzing the differences between the two countries.
Thus as a whole, the chapters of the book which we present here shall contribute to communicate the main ideas about entrepreneurship in relation to the university institution. This relation is founded on three essential missions of the university: research, teaching, and the contribution to innovation and technology transfer. Readers may read this book based on the group of presented topics or according to the sequence of chapters organized in the book, depending on whether they are more interested in homogeneity or in the variety of the presented topics. We believe that the book as a whole makes a significant contribution to the important topic of Entrepreneurial Universities. Jointly with companies and public administrations, they depend on the presence of a triple incentive—a triple helix—towards improvement in the culture of innovation and entrepreneurship as well as innovation and economic development.
Baja California, Mexico Marta Peris-Ortiz
San Diego, CA, USA Jaime Alonso Gómez Santiago, Chile José M. Merigó Valencia, Spain Carlos Rueda-Armengot
References
Baumol, W. J. (1968). Entrepreneurship in economic theory. The American Economic Review, 58(2), 64–71.
Chell, E. (2008). The nascent entrepreneur, business development and the role of human resources. In R. Barret & S. Mayson (Eds.), International handbook of entrepreneurship and HRM (pp. 21–46). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford: Pergamon-Elsevier Science.
Nga, J. K. H., & Shamuganathan, G. (2010). The influence of personality traits and demographic factors on social entrepreneurship start up intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 259–282.
Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Basil Blackwell and New York: Wiley.
Ross, R. D. (1976). Institutionalization of academic innovations: 2 models. Sociology of Education, 49(2), 146–155.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1950). Capitalism, socialism and democracy (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217–226.
1 Activities Related to Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the Academic Setting: A Literature Review 1 Ademar Schmitz, David Urbano, Maribel Guerrero, and Gertrudes Aparecida Dandolini
2 The Influence of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Intentions 19 João J. Ferreira, Cristina I. Fernandes, and Vanessa Ratten
3 Assessing the Entrepreneurial Orientation of University Departments. A Comparative Study Between Italy and Spain 35 Angelo Riviezzo, Francisco Liñán, and Maria Rosaria Napolitano
4 Entrepreneurship and University: How to Create Entrepreneurs from University Institutions 47 Alberto Vaquero-García, Francisco Jesús Ferreiro-Seoane, and José Álvarez-García
5 The Influence of University Context on Entrepreneurial Intentions 65 Juan Carlos Díaz-Casero, Antonio Fernández-Portillo, Mari-Cruz Sánchez-Escobedo, and Ricardo Hernández-Mogollón
6 Universities in the Context of the Knowledge-Based Society According to Systemism: Evidences from a Brazilian Community University ........................................................................... 83
Ademar Schmitz, David Urbano, Gertrudes Aparecida Dandolini, and João Artur de Souza
7 Entrepreneurial University: Educational Innovation and Technology Transfer ........................................................................ 105 María Saiz-Santos, Andrés Araujo-De la Mata, and Jon Hoyos-Iruarrizaga
8 A Quest for the Research Centres About Entrepreneurship in Spanish Universities ........................................................................... 123
Alicia Blanco-González, Camilo Prado-Roman, and Juan-Gabriel Martínez-Navalón
9 Title Variables that Determine the Characteristics of University Spin-Off Support Programs ............................................
José María Beraza-Garmendia and Arturo Rodríguez-Castellanos
10 Entrepreneurial Initiatives in Colombian Universities: The Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Business Center of Sergio Arboleda University ................................................................ 151
Antonio Alonso-Gonzalez, Diego Plata-Rugeles, Marta Peris-Ortiz and Carlos Rueda-Armengot
11 University Incubators May Be Socially Valuable, but How Effective Are They? A Case Study on Business Incubators at Universities 165 Dag Bennett, Diana Pérez-Bustamante Yábar, and José Ramón Saura
12 Transversal Competences Acquisition by Assigning Collaborative Work Group Roles 179 Eugenia Babiloni, Ester Guijarro, Lourdes Canós-Darós, and Cristina Santandreu-Mascarell
13 Assessment of Autonomous Learning Skill Through Multi-criteria Analysis for Online ADE Students in Moodle 197 Mónica de Castro, Concepción de la Fuente-Cabrero, and Ma del Pilar Laguna Sánchez
14 Development Motivation of Student Abilities and Skills Through a Business Activity 215 Raúl Gómez Martínez, Alberto Prado Román, and Paola Plaza Casado
15 A Study on Entrepreneurship at the University of Valencia 229
Elisabeth Bustos-Contell, Gregorio Labatut-Serer, and Salvador Climent-Serrano
16 Entrepreneurship at the Universitat Politècnica de València 239
Carlos Rueda-Armengot, Sofía Estelles-Miguel, Marta Elena Palmer Gato, José Miguel Albarracín Guillem, and Jose M. Merigó Lindahl
17 CETYS University: Teaching in a Proactive and Entrepreneurial University ................................................................................................. 249
Marta Peris-Ortiz, Monica Acosta-Alvarado, and Mariella C. Remund
18 Intrapreneuring Within a Higher Education Institution: Introducing Virtual Business Internships .............................................
Gisela Sanahuja Vélez, Gabriela Ribes Giner, and Ismael Moya Clemente
María de la Cruz del Río Rama, José Álvarez García, Carlos Rueda-Armengot, and Marta Peris-Ortiz
The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education Programs on Student Entrepreneurial Orientations: Three International Experiences ..............................................................................................
João J. Ferreira and Cristina I. Fernandes
Chapter 1 Activities Related to Innovation and Entrepreneurship in the Academic Setting: A Literature Review
Ademar Schmitz, David Urbano, Maribel Guerrero, and Gertrudes Aparecida Dandolini
Abstract In the knowledge-based society, universities have assumed new missions and relations in order to contribute to economic and social development, normally discussed under innovation and entrepreneurship concepts. This chapter aims to explore relevant scientific literature in what concerns the activities related to innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting. It reports early results of a systematic literature review considering articles published on Web of Science, in which both bibliometric and content analysis are being conducted. Content analysis of a set of articles aimed to identify characteristics of universities that endure into innovation and entrepreneurship, and the activities related to innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting. Turns out that characteristics are mainly associated to the concept of the entrepreneurial university, in with changes occurring within universities and on their relations within the knowledge-based society are discussed. Both the internal changes and relations are related to the need of universities to contribute to regional socioeconomic development throw the creation, dissemination and application of knowledge, and to the need to support its own sustainability. More than 20 different activities related to innovation and entrepreneurship within universities were identify. They are related to regional socioeconomic development, and to the sustainability of universities; to individuals within universities, to the university itself, and to the relation of the university with its surroundings; to the process and results of knowledge creation, knowledge dissemination and knowledge application; to profit-gain of the university or its partners,
A. Schmitz (*)
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florianópolis, Brazil
Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina (UNISUL), Tubarão, Brazil e-mail: ademarschmitz77@gmail.com
D. Urbano
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain
M. Guerrero
University of Deusto, San Sebastian, Spain
G.A. Dandolini
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC), Florianópolis, Brazil
M. Peris-Ortiz et al. (eds.), Entrepreneurial Universities, Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-47949-1_1
1
A. Schmitz et al.
and to social development of the communities surrounding the university; and to fulfilling the universities missions and to their relations within the knowledge based society. Empirical studies should be conducted in order to verify if all these activities in fact contribute to innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting, and if there are other activities eventually not listed by the analyzed literature.
Keywords Economic development • Entrepreneurship • Innovation • Research • Social development • Sustainability • Universities
1.1 Introduction
In the knowledge-based society, universities are increasingly challenged to become more socially and economically relevant organizations (Nelles & Vorley, 2011). To do so, universities have gone through academic revolutions. The first revolution added the mission of generating knowledge through research to the traditional mission of preserving and transmitting knowledge (teaching), with which universities were established. Then the second revolution made economic and social development a third mission of universities in addition to teaching and research (Etzkowitz, 2003a). This means that the university, as a medial institution, originated for the conservation and transmission of knowledge, but evolved over the centuries into an institution in which knowledge is also created and put to use (Etzkowitz, 2013).
In addition, in order to contribute to socioeconomic development, universities need to closely interact with industry and government, known as triple helix of innovation (Etzkowitz, 2003a, 2003b). The triple helix of innovation refers to the interweaving of university, industry and government with a spiral pattern of linkages to advance economic and social development through the strategy of innovation (Etzkowitz, Webster, Gebhardt, & Terra, 2000). It implies the breaking down of traditional organizational, cultural, and normative barriers that in the past have separated these spheres to the detriment of economic competitiveness and technological progress (Etzkowitz et al., 2000).
Concerning the universities missions, the incorporation of new ones does not mean the replacement of the old ones. On the contrary, universities need to incorporate new activities in order to fulfill the new missions, while continuing doing those activities fulfilling the original missions. The need to fulfill the three missions simultaneously and the need to closely interact with industry and government, implies and requires changes in the function and structure of universities (Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Goldstein, 2010). Realignments include new understandings and metrics for the traditional teaching and research missions, internal organizational changes that are more conducive to interdisciplinarity and collaborations with government and industry, new modes of governance and management, and new institutional capacities (Goldstein, 2010).
These changes in universities have gained substantial importance in recent literature and they are usually discussed from the perspectives of innovation (Clark, 1996;
Strier, 2011; van Vught, 1999) and entrepreneurship (Clark, 1998; Etzkowitz, 2003a, 2003b, 2013; Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Urbano & Guerrero, 2013). Studies claim that the changes taking place within universities somehow manifest themselves in the form of innovation and entrepreneurship activities. These activities include both traditional activities of innovation and entrepreneurship, more related to economic development, and those related to social development (Abreu & Grinevich, 2013). They also claim that these activities, beside contributing to economic and social development, should contribute to the sustainability of the university (Etzkowitz, 1998; Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Philpott, Dooley, O’Reilly, & Lupton, 2011).
Despite the extensive and increasing literature, and although the terms innovation and entrepreneurship are commonly used together within universities, not many studies have explicitly address them together at theoretical and practical levels. Furthermore, authors argue that literature is still fragmented and broadly conceptualized (Mars & Rios-Aguilar, 2010; Nelles & Vorley, 2011; Rothaermel, Agung, & Jiang, 2007; Urbano & Guerrero, 2013; Wood, 2011), requiring more systematic and holistic studies (Guenther & Wagner, 2008; Mazdeh, Razavi, Hesamamiri, Zahedi, & Elahi, 2013; Urbano & Guerrero, 2013; Wood, 2011), considering both the economic and the social aspects of innovation and entrepreneurship within universities (Abreu & Grinevich, 2013; Mars & Rios-Aguilar, 2010; Mazdeh et al., 2013; Wood, 2011).
This chapter aims to contribute to reduce this gap, by exploring relevant scientific literature in what concerns the innovation and entrepreneurship activities in the academic setting. To do so, it tries to answer, based on a literature review, the following questions: (a) what are the characteristics of universities that endure into innovation and entrepreneurship? and (b) what are the activities of innovation and entrepreneurship within universities? Characteristics were explicitly identified and analyzed because in some cases, they may indicate activities, and in other cases, they justify them. Characteristics also allow to analyze if the activities being considered by literature encompass the entire extension of innovation and entrepreneurship within universities.
This exploratory study was accomplished throw a literature review. A systematic approach was used which uses a rigorous protocol and steps to execute the literature research and analysis (Crossan & Apaydin, 2010). The literature review is based on relevant scientific articles, published on Web of Science. Articles were identified using keywords, including but not restricted to academic innovation, university innovation, academic entrepreneurship, university entrepreneurship, innovative university, and entrepreneurial university. After the application of some restrictions on database, document type, and language, 372 articles where considered for literature review. These 372 articles where submitted to a bibliometric analysis (results to be reported in an oncoming article), and then a set of 36 articles, classified as best fitting the objective of the study, had their content analyzed. Both characteristics and activities were identified during the article’s content analysis.
The article brings both theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretical contributions include an extensive and detailed literature review on the characteristics of universities that endure into innovation and entrepreneurship, on the activities related to innovation and entrepreneurship within universities, and a unique study considering
explicitly and systematically innovation and entrepreneurship together within universities. Practical contributions include the possibility of the use of the results by university managers, policy makers, and other researchers. As the article brings a unique list of activities related to innovation and entrepreneurship within universities, it subsidies the development of more adequate internal and external policies to foster universities contribution to regional socioeconomic development and the universities’ sustainability. This article is organized in five sections. Present section introduces the article, contextualizing the research problem, presenting the research objective and methodology, and its theoretical and practical contributions. In the second section, some early results of the overall systematic literature review being conducted on innovation and entrepreneurship within universities is presented. The third section brings the main characteristics identified for universities that endure into innovation and entrepreneurship activities. In the fourth section, the list of innovation and entrepreneurship activities of universities identified by this study are presented. Finally, the fifth section summarizes the most important findings and indicates potential further studies.
1.2 Innovation and Entrepreneurship Within Universities
Initial results of the overall systematic literature review show that innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting have being studied under concepts such as innovative universities (Clark, 1996; Strier, 2011; van Vught, 1999), university innovation (Chen et al., 2013; O’Shea, Chugh, & Allen, 2008), academic innovation (Chang, Chen, Hua, & Yang, 2006; Chen et al., 2013; Conklin, 1978; Lindquist, 1974; Ross, 1976; Schachter, 1986), entrepreneurial universities (Audretsch, 2014; Etzkowitz, 1984, 1998, 2003a, 2003b, 2013; Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Guenther & Wagner, 2008; Guerrero, Urbano, Cunningham, & Organ, 2014, Guerrero, Cunningham, & Urbano, 2015; Guerrero & Urbano, 2012; Jacob, Lundqvist, & Hellsmark, 2003; Kirby, Guerrero, & Urbano, 2011; Mainardes, Alves, & Raposo, 2011; Nelles & Vorley, 2011; Philpott et al., 2011; Sam & van der Sijde, 2014; Urbano & Guerrero, 2013; Yokoyama, 2006), university entrepreneurship (Nelles & Vorley, 2011; Rothaermel et al., 2007; Todorovic, McNaughton, & Guild, 2011), and academic entrepreneurship (Abreu & Grinevich, 2013; Doutriaux, 1987; Etzkowitz, 2003a, 2013; Goldstein, 2010; Guerrero et al., 2014, 2015; Guerrero & Urbano, 2012; Klofsten & Jones-Evans, 2000; Mars & Rios-Aguilar, 2010; Mazdeh et al., 2013; Tijssen, 2006; Urbano & Guerrero, 2013; Wood, 2011; Wright, 2014).
The term “academic innovation” is used by some of the earliest articles, but not explored further. Lindquist (1974) used the term as the need for change in the university. Ross (1976) considered academic innovation as the involvement of the university in innovative disciplines and programs. Conklin (1978) considered academic innovation as the creation of new teaching techniques. Schachter (1986) considered academic innovation as the creation of new curriculums. The term “university innovation”, also termed as “academic innovation”, is also used a few times, but no definition was given. Finally, the term “innovative university” is used a few times, but defined only once, as those universities that explore new ways of
A. Schmitz et al.
organizing knowledge and/or more effectively exploiting the fields in which they are already engaged (Clark, 1996).
On the other hand, terms related to entrepreneurship are discussed more often. “Academic entrepreneurship”, also discussed as “university entrepreneurship” (Jacob et al., 2003; Mazdeh et al., 2013), is used and defined several times. Definitions vary from the creation of new business ventures by someone related to the university (Doutriaux, 1987; Mazdeh et al., 2013) to all activities outside of the normal university duties of basic research and teaching (Abreu & Grinevich, 2013; Klofsten & Jones-Evans, 2000), including the commercialization of knowledge produced within universities (Jacob et al., 2003; Klofsten & Jones-Evans, 2000; Mazdeh et al., 2013), and other activities such as custom-made educational courses, consultancy, training, and extension activities which bring rewards for the individual academic or his/her institution (Abreu & Grinevich, 2013; Jacob et al., 2003; Mazdeh et al., 2013).
The term “entrepreneurial university” is the most frequently defined one in literature. Its main definitions include partnerships with industry (Etzkowitz, 1984, 2003a; Kirby et al., 2011), creation of new ventures (Etzkowitz, 2003b, 2013; Guenther & Wagner, 2008; Jacob et al., 2003), knowledge capitalization through new services (Jacob et al., 2003) and knowledge commercialization (Etzkowitz, 2003a, 2013; Guenther & Wagner, 2008; Jacob et al., 2003), search for new sources of funds (Etzkowitz, 1984; Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Kirby et al., 2011; Mainardes et al., 2011), knowledge production and application (Etzkowitz, 2003a, 2003b, 2013; Guerrero et al., 2014), and contribution to regional social and economic development (Etzkowitz, 2003b; Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Guerrero et al., 2014; Kirby et al., 2011).
According to Audretsch (2014), universities need to become more entrepreneurial in order to facilitate knowledge spillovers and the commercialization of their knowledge. As a conduit of knowledge spillovers, entrepreneurial universities contribute to economic and social development through its multiple missions (Guerrero et al., 2014). It is seen as an important catalyst for regional economic and social development because it generates and exploits knowledge as entrepreneurial opportunities (Urbano & Guerrero, 2013). Therefore, the concept of the entrepreneurial university is seen as the most well-articulated in the evolution of the university towards the requirements of the knowledge-based society (Goldstein, 2010), in which the role of the university for socioeconomic development and the collaboration between university and external stakeholders is emphasized (Sam & van der Sijde, 2014).
While the studies on innovative universities and entrepreneurial universities have focused on characteristics and activities that make universities being more innovative and entrepreneurial as organizations, the studies related to the other terms have focused as well on activities inside or related to universities that increase innovation and entrepreneurship in the context of knowledge based society. This does not mean that there are crispy boundaries between or among the studies. On the contrary, literature is fuzzy in what concerns activities and more precisely definitions of innovation and entrepreneurship within universities.
In this sense, innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting can be seen as continuous and complementary processes that allow current production systems and social standards be improved or replaced in order to bring economic and social development of regions, states and countries. This idea widens (Schumpeter’s 1934)
concept of creative destruction (more related to economic development), in which science and creativity are used to develop new and novel knowledge (innovation), applicable to economic and social demands or opportunities, and the application of this knowledge to stimulate economic and social development (entrepreneurship).
From an economic perspective, this represents a process in which new products, processes, organizational and marketing methods are created and put to use in order to generate economic value (Mortensen & Bloch, 2005; Neves & Neves, 2011).
From a social perspective, it represents a process in with knowledge is transformed in products, services, and models that attend social needs and create new social relationships and collaborations, increasing the ability of society to act (Murray, Caulier-Grice, & Mulgan, 2010), creating social value. In his creative destruction process, (Schumpeter 1934) stresses the importance of both innovation and entrepreneurship in economy and society, by precisely articulating the entrepreneurial activities, based on innovation, to the need to change. Under this perspective, academic entrepreneurship tries to create [social and] market value toward the generation and transfer of knowledge through innovation (Urbano & Guerrero, 2013).
Concerning the knowledge required in this creative destruction process, innovative knowledge provides the understanding of a particular subject or technology that serves as the basis of a commercial opportunity (Shah & Pahnke, 2014) or a social demand. Entrepreneurial knowledge, on de other hand, provides an understanding of the entrepreneurial process and networks from which to draw resources and expertise (Shah & Pahnke, 2014) in order to apply the innovative knowledge for regional socioeconomic development and for the sustainability of the universities.
1.3 Characteristics of Entrepreneurial Universities
According to The Free Dictionary, a characteristic is a feature that helps to identify, tell apart, or describe recognizably. According to the Longman Dictionary of American English, a characteristic is a special quality or feature that someone or something has. Therefore, characteristics of universities that endure into innovation and entrepreneurship activities might also be indicated as features or qualities. Furthermore, as the concept of the entrepreneurial university is seen as the most well articulated in the evolution of the university towards the requirements of the knowledge-based society (Goldstein, 2010), literature tends to indicate characteristics of such universities. Table 1.1 presents the characteristics indicated or cited in the analyzed articles.
The characteristics indicated in the literature confirm the changes occurring within universities and on their relation within the knowledge based society. In particular, the work developed by Clark (1998) and Etzkowitz (2003b, 2004, 2013) expands the idea of academic entrepreneurship to encompass both the individual with entrepreneurial inclinations and the academic organization with a requirement to demonstrate engagement with entrepreneurship (Brennan, McGovern, & McGowan, 2007). In this new format, the university tends to be
A. Schmitz et al.
Table 1.1 Characteristics of entrepreneurial universities
Authors Characteristics
Clark (1998)
Neal (1998))
• A strengthened steering core: universities cannot depend on traditional control or steering; they need to become quicker, more flexible, more focused in reacting to demands from their environments
• An expanded developmental periphery: universities need to have mechanisms to relate to the outside world; they have to reach across their traditional boundaries; they need to set up special organizational units
• A diversified funding base: universities need to have diversified resources of funds; they have to widen their financial base and become less dependent of government
• A stimulated academic heartland: universities need academic units that act as entrepreneurial units; these units have to be stimulated to react positively to change
• An integrated entrepreneurial culture: universities need a culture that embraces change; a set of beliefs that is university-wide and that become the very basis of the institution’s identity
• A focus on environmental changes in technology, economy, social values, and regulations that would open windows of opportunity
• An action orientation within narrow decision windows utilizing input from a limited number of constituencies, based on an acceptance of reasonable risks
• A realization of the lack of predictable resources, combined with an emphasis on efficient and appropriate use of resources
• A distinction between the use and the acquisition of required resources (capital and human) based on considerations of specialization, flexibility, potential for obsolescence, and resource life
• An ability to organize and reorganize decision-making structures based on external and internal opportunities
Subotzky (1999)))
Etzkowitz et al. (2000)
Etzkowitz (2003b)
• A closer university-business partnership
• A greater faculty responsibility for accessing external sources of funding
• A managerial ethos in governance, leadership and planning
• Internal transformation
• Trans-institutional impact
• Interface processes
• Recursive effects
• The organization of group research
• The creation of a research base with commercial potential
• The development of organizational mechanisms to move research out of the university as protected intellectual property
• The capacity to organize firms within the university
• The integration of academic and business elements into new formats such as university–industry research centres;
(continued)
Table 1.1 (continued)
Authors Characteristics
Etzkowitz (2004)
Goldstein (2010)
Kirby et al. (2011)
Mainardes et al. (2011)
• The capitalization of knowledge becomes the basis for economic and social development and, thus, of an enhanced role for the university in society
• The interaction with the government and industry
• The university independence from other institutional spheres
• The creation of hybrid organizational formats that incorporate business sector practices and those of traditional universities
• The continuing renovation of the university’s internal structure as its relationship to the industry and government changes
• The active involvement of universities in the development and commercialization of technology stemming from university-based research
• The changing of internal regulations, rewards and incentives, norms of behavior, and governance of universities to remove barriers to individual faculty, other researchers
• Research centers/institutes engaging in behavior that leads to the commercialization of university-generated knowledge
• They strive to be more entrepreneurial in transforming their organizational structures to better respond and adapt to the external environment
• They seek to encourage collective entrepreneurial action at all levels by using various mechanisms to promote entrepreneurial culture
• The capacity to adapt to demands from the surrounding environment
• They are to develop and set out clear mission declarations and objectives
• A business focused culture and an internal university structure that is differentiated by sub-units and by professional university management
• Shared models of governance for implementing adaptive strategies
• A committed leadership to represent an essential factor for successful adaptation
Etzkowitz (2013)
• Interaction: the entrepreneurial university interacts closely with industry and government
• Independence: the entrepreneurial university is a relatively independent institution
• Hybridization: the resolution of the tensions between the principles of interaction and independence are an impetus to the creation of hybrid organizational formats to realize both objectives simultaneously
• Reciprocity: there is a continuing renovation of the internal structure of the university as its relation to industry and government changes, and of industry and government as their relationship to the university is revised
Source: Author’s
increasingly independent of the government and at the same time more highly interactive with other social spheres. Entrepreneurial universities seek to be as free of state control as possible and seeking to interact closely with the market with the objective of acquiring resources as well as meeting the needs of society in terms of knowledge, both in terms of creation and dissemination thereby contributing to social development whether on the local, regional or national scale (Mainardes et al., 2011).
A. Schmitz et
According to Ropke (1998), an entrepreneurial university can mean three things: the members of the university (faculty, students, and employees) are turning themselves somehow into entrepreneurs; the university itself, as an organization, becomes entrepreneurial; and, the interaction of the university with the environment follows an entrepreneurial pattern. This means that entrepreneurial university needs to become an entrepreneurial organization, its members need to become entrepreneurs, and its interaction with the environment needs to follow an entrepreneurial pattern (Guerrero & Urbano, 2012; Urbano & Guerrero, 2013).
1.4 Activities Related to Innovation and Entrepreneurship Within Universities
According to Audy (2006), institutional policies (related to technology transfer, conflicts of interest, research projects with companies, etc.) and the development of innovative environments (such as technology transfer offices, ethics in research offices, technology parks, incubators, innovation networks, etc.) are important to create the conditions for the development of an environment geared to innovation and entrepreneurship. This means that in order to become more innovative and entrepreneurial, universities need to incorporate several activities that were not always in their scope. Table 1.2 brings a synthesis of the identified activities according to the analyzed articles, together with respective authors and denomination, such as entrepreneurial university, academic entrepreneurship, and so on.
By considering the common indicated activities, it was possible to create a list of the different activities related to innovation and entrepreneurship within universities. Table 1.3 brings the identified activities with the respective meanings and authors. Meanings where extracted from original text and combined in order to represent the view of the different authors that indicated the activities.
Table 1.2 Indication of activities related to innovation and entrepreneurship within universities
Authors Denomination Activities
Etzkowitz (1984) Entrepreneurial University Commercial utilization of research results; creation of firms from research results; external funding; creation of research groups as quasifirms; contracts and grants; joint ventures
Engaging in large-scale science, with externally funded research projects; earning supplemental income from outside the university, mainly through consulting; gaining industry support for university research; obtaining patents or generating trade secrets; forming companies based on the results of research
(continued)
Table 1.2 (continued)
Authors Denomination Activities
Klofsten and Jones-Evans (2000)
Academic Entrepreneurship
Etzkowitz (2001) Entrepreneurial University
Chang et al. (2006)
Academic Innovation
Yokoyama (2006) Entrepreneurial University
Rothaermel et al. (2007)
Academic Entrepreneurship
Guenther and Wagner (2008) Entrepreneurial University
Kirby et al. (2011)
Entrepreneurial University
Philpott et al. (2011)
Entrepreneurial University
Abreu and Grinevich (2013) Academic Entrepreneurship
Business corporations; overheads; consultancy; service to the community; scholarships
Patenting and licensing; creating incubators; science parks; university spinouts; investing equity in start-ups
Incubators; science parks; technology transfer offices; entrepreneurship education
Involvement in large-scale science projects; contracted research; consulting; patenting/ licensing; generation of business spin-offs; external teaching; collaboration; new product development and distribution
Creation of a technology park; spinoff firm formation; patenting and licensing; contract research; industry training courses; consulting; grantsmanship; publishing academic results; producing high qualified graduates
New companies exploiting intellectual property created in universities considering university spin-offs; companies started on the side of university employment; consulting, specialized research and training, science projects, patenting/ licensing, sales, and testing
According to the analyses literature, Etzkowitz (1984) was the first author explicitly stating the activities of an entrepreneurial university, which includes commercial utilization of research results, creation of firms from research results, external funding, creation of research groups as quasi-firms, contracts and grants,
A. Schmitz et al.
Table 1.3 Activities related to innovation and entrepreneurship in the academic setting
Activity
Meaning
Teaching Production of high quality students, establishing relationships with practice
Training courses
Entrepreneurship education
Publishing
Patenting
Licensing
Consulting services
Courses offered outside traditional programs, especially to industry and community members
Training top-level workforce, producing entrepreneurs and not only workers
Dissemination of knowledge through scientific articles, books, etc., after intellectual property preservation
Obtaining patents or generating trade secrets in order to preserve intellectual property university creations
Transferring knowledge and technology to existing or new created companies
Authors
Klofsten and Jones-Evans (2000), Kirby et al. (2011), Mazdeh et al. (2013), Philpott et al. (2011)
Mazdeh et al. (2013), Philpott et al. (2011)
Abreu and Grinevich (2013), Guenther and Wagner (2008)
Etzkowitz (2001), Philpott et al. (2011)
Chang et al. (2006), Kirby et al. (2011), Klofsten and Jones-Evans (2000), Louis et al. (1989), Mazdeh et al. (2013), Philpott et al. (2011), Rothaermel et al. (2007)
Abreu and Grinevich (2013), Chang et al. (2006), Kirby et al. (2011), Klofsten and Jones-Evans (2000), Mazdeh et al. (2013), Philpott et al. (2011), Rothaermel et al. (2007)
Consulting services to businesses in order to improve their operations, promoting existing businesses
Technical services
Community services
Businesses creation
Laboratory services to businesses such as testing, homologation, etc.
Services to communities in order to improve their acting through appointments, informal advising, public lectures
Establishment of new companies such as spinoff and spinous through technology transfer and consulting; new companies exploiting intellectual property created in universities; companies started on the side of university employment; creation of firms from research results
Abreu and Grinevich (2013), Doutriaux (1987), Kirby et al. (2011), Klofsten and Jones-Evans (2000), Louis et al. (1989), Mazdeh et al. (2013), Philpott et al. (2011), Yokoyama (2006)
Doutriaux (1987), Klofsten and Jones-Evans (2000), Mazdeh et al. (2013)
Abreu and Grinevich (2013), Yokoyama (2006)
Abreu and Grinevich (2013), Chang et al. (2006), Doutriaux (1987), Etzkowitz (1984, 2001), Kirby et al. (2011), Klofsten and Jones-Evans (2000), Louis et al. (1989), Mazdeh et al. (2013), Philpott et al. (2011), Rothaermel et al. (2007), Yokoyama (2006) (continued)
Table 1.3 (continued)
Activity
Venture funding
Contract research
Source: Author’s A.
Meaning
University based venture funds; investing equity in startups; joint ventures
Development of research under public and private contracts
Collaborative research
Incubator facilities
Science/Technology parks
Development of research in partnership with industry and community
Maintenance or participation in social and business incubator facilities in order to create new ventures
Maintenance or participation in science and technology parks in order to do research and development and the creation of new ventures
Authors
Etzkowitz (1984), Rothaermel et al. (2007)
Abreu and Grinevich (2013), Klofsten and Jones-Evans (2000), Kirby et al. (2011), Philpott et al. (2011)
Kirby et al. (2011), Klofsten and Jones-Evans (2000)
Chang et al. (2006), Etzkowitz (2001), Guenther and Wagner (2008), Rothaermel et al. (2007)
Guenther and Wagner (2008), Philpott et al. (2011), Rothaermel et al. (2007)
Technology transfer offices
External funding
Large scale science
Knowledge commercialization
Research groups
Liason programs
Maintenance of technology transfer offices, technology licensing offices, etc. in order to transfer knowledge and technology to new or existing companies
Obtaining external funds for research development, scholarships, and special training courses
Engaging in large-scale science, with externally funded research projects and specialized research
Commercial utilization of research results
Creation and maintenance of research groups as business units
Liason programmes and offices to increase partnerships with industry, government and communities
Chang et al. (2006), Etzkowitz (2001), Guenther and Wagner (2008)
Etzkowitz (1984), Louis et al. (1989), Philpott et al. (2011), Yokoyama (2006)
Kirby et al. (2011), Louis et al. (1989), Mazdeh et al. (2013)
Etzkowitz (1984), Klofsten and Jones-Evans (2000), Mazdeh et al. (2013)
Etzkowitz (1984)
Etzkowitz (2001), Kirby et al. (2011)
and joint ventures. This author further developed these activities by himself (see Etzkowitz, 2001) or with other authors (see Etzkowitz & Zhou, 2008).
The work of Louis et al. (1989) is many times cited in the literature. The authors distinguish several types of university entrepreneurial activities, including engaging in large-scale science, with externally funded research projects; earning supplemental income from outside the university, mainly through consulting; gaining industry support for university research; obtaining patents or generating trade secrets; and, forming companies based on the results of research.
For Guenther and Wagner (2008), the entrepreneurial universities facilitate entrepreneurial activity through various instruments such as infrastructure, consulting services and further support schemes: incubators, science parks and technology transfer offices have been established in order to facilitate technology diffusion to business related activities; and entrepreneurship education which calls for the responsibility of the universities to address the need for entrepreneurial competence recently has emerged as part of the academic curricula of such organizations (Guenther & Wagner, 2008).
In Philpott et al. (2011), a spectrum of entrepreneurial activities of universities are defined, from “soft” activities (closer to the traditional paradigm) to “hard” activities (closer to the entrepreneurial paradigm), including: producing highly qualified graduates, publishing academic results, grantsmanship, consulting, industry training courses, contract research, patenting and licensing, spin-off firm formation and creation of technology parks. This seems to be one of the most complete studies, and considers almost all activities cited by other authors.
By analyzing the indicated activities and the characteristics of entrepreneurial universities discussed in the previous section, it is possible to say that innovation and entrepreneurship activities:
(a) Are related to regional socioeconomic development (Etzkowitz, 2003a, 2003b, 2004) and the universities’ sustainability (Etzkowitz, 1998; Etzkowitz et al., 2000; Philpott et al., 2011).
(b) Are related to individuals within universities, to the university itself, and to the relation of the university with its surroundings (Guerrero & Urbano, 2012; Ropke, 1998; Urbano & Guerrero, 2013).
(c) Are related to the process and results of knowledge creation, knowledge dissemination and knowledge application (Etzkowitz, 2003a, 2003b, 2004, 2013).
(d) Are related to profit-gain of the university or its partners, and to social development of the communities surrounding the university (Abreu & Grinevich, 2013; Yokoyama, 2006).
(e) Are related to the fulfilling the universities missions and to their relations within the knowledge based society (Goldstein, 2010; Mainardes et al., 2011).
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
tons, was launched in December of 1907, and is one of the most notable productions of recent years. She is spar-decked throughout, with magnificent lines and a handsome appearance, whilst retaining the more conventional stem-plus-bowsprit. She has exceptional accommodation, all connected by corridors and vestibules with no fewer than a dozen state-rooms for guests. She is driven by two sets of triple-expansion engines actuating twin-screws, which, to minimise vibration, are at a different pitch, and run at varying speeds. She can carry sufficient coal to allow her to cruise for 6,000 miles, and both in internal and external appearance is as handsome as she is capable.
From a Photograph By permission of Messrs Camper & Nicholson, Ltd
THE S Y “SAGITTA ”
With the capabilities of which the motor has shown itself to be possessed, the future of the steam yacht is perhaps a little uncertain. Economy would seem to indicate that the former has numerous merits in that it enables sail power to be utilised more readily, and thus may arrest the fashion which is advancing in the direction of steam. For long passages the extreme comfort which is now obtainable in the modern liner leaves no choice in the matter. To keep up a steam yacht for the usual summer season of four months is a very serious item of expenditure. If we reckon £10 per ton as the average cost—and this is the accepted estimate—it will be seen that such a yacht as the Wakiva, for instance, leaves but little change out of £10,000 per year, and for this expenditure most men would expect to get a very large return in the way of sport and travel. Whether or not a like proportionate return is made, at least in giving employment to thousands of shipbuilding and yacht-hands, this special branch of sea sport is deserving of the high interest with which it is regarded.
THE S Y “TRIAD ”
From a Photograph By permission of the Caledon Shipbuilding Co , Ltd
CHAPTER XI
THE BUILDING OF THE STEAMSHIP
W propose in the present chapter, now that we have seen the evolution of the steamship through all its various vicissitudes and in its special ways, to set forth within the limited space that is now left to us some general idea of the means adopted to create the great steamship from a mass of material into a sentient, moving being.
Around the building of a ship there is encircling it perhaps far more sentiment than in the activity of almost any other industry. Poets and painters have found in this a theme for their imagination not once, but many times. Making a ship is something less prosaic, a million times more romantic, than making a house, for the reason that whilst the ship, as long as she remains on the stocks, is just so many thousand tons of material, yet from the very moment when she first kisses the water she becomes a living thing, intelligent, with a character of her own, distinct and recognisable. In the whole category of man-made things there is nothing comparable to this.
Fig. 1. FLUSH-DECKED TYPE.
Fig 2 “THREE ISLAND,” TYPE
Fig. 3. TOP-GALLANT FORECASTLE TYPE.
Fig 4 TOP-GALLANT FORECASTLE TYPE, WITH RAISED QUARTER-DECK
Fig. 5. EARLY “WELL-DECK” TYPE.
Her genesis begins when the future owners resolve to have her built. Before any plans are drawn out there must first be decided the dimensions, the displacement and the general features which she is to possess, whether she is to be a slow ship, a fast ship, engaged in passenger work, cargo-carrying, on the North Atlantic route, for the
East through the Suez Canal, and so on; for all these factors combine to determine the lines on which she is to be built. Before we progress any farther, let us get into our minds the nine different types which separate the generic class of steamships. If the reader will follow the accompanying illustrations, we shall not run the risk of being obscure in our argument. Fig. 1, shows the steamship in its elementary form, just a flush-decked craft, with casings for the protection of the engines as explained on an earlier page. This represents the type of which the coasting steamer illustrated opposite page 134 is an example. This casing in the diagram before us is, so to speak, an island on the deck, but presently it was so developed that it extended to the sides of the ship, and, rising up as a continuation of the hull, became a bridge. At the same time a monkey forecastle and a short poop were added to make her the better protected against the seas. This will be seen in Fig. 2. This is known as the “three-island” type for obvious reasons. It must be understood that on either side a passage leads beneath the bridgedeck so as to allow the crew to get about the ship. But from being merely a protection for the bows of the ship, the monkey forecastle became several feet higher, so that it could accommodate the quarters of the crew, and this “top-gallant” forecastle, as it is known, will be seen in Fig. 3. At the same time, the short poop or hood at the stern has now become lengthened into something longer. But in Fig. 4 we find the lengthened poop becoming a raised quarter-deck—that is, not a mere structure raised over the deck, but literally a deck raised at the quarter. This raised quarter-deck was the better able to withstand the violent force of the sea when it broke over the ship. In Fig. 5 we have a still further development in which the topgallant forecastle is retained as before, but the long poop and the after end of the bridge are lengthened until they meet and form one long combination. This is one of the “well-deck” types, the “well” being between the after end of the forecastle and the forward end of the bridge-deck. This well was left for the reason that it was not required for carrying cargo, because it was not desirable to load the ship forward lest she might be down at the head (which in itself would be bad), whilst at the same time it would raise the stern so that the propeller was the more likely to race. But in the modern evolution of
the steamship it is not only a question of trim and seaworthiness that have been taken into consideration, but also there are the rules and regulations which have been made with regard to the steam vessel. Now, this well-space not being reckoned in the tonnage of the ship (on which she has to pay costly dues) if kept open, it was good and serviceable in another way. Considered from the view of seaworthiness, this well, it was claimed, would allow the prevention of the sweeping of the whole length of the ship by whatever water that broke aboard the bows (which would be the case if the well were covered up). If left open, the water could easily be allowed to run out through the scuppers. But this type in Fig. 5 is rather midway in the transition between the “three-island” type and the shelter-deck type. The diagram in Fig. 6 is more truly a well-decker, and differs from the ship in Fig. 5, in that the one we are now considering has a raised quarter-deck instead of a poop. She has a top-gallant forecastle, a raised quarter-deck and bridge combined, and this type was largely used in the cargo ships employed in crossing the Atlantic Ocean. It is now especially popular in ships engaged in the coal trade. The advantages of this raised quarter-deck are that it increases the cubic capacity of the ship, and makes up for the space wasted by the shaft tunnel. By enabling more cargo to be placed aft, it takes away the chance of the ship being trimmed by the head.
Fig 6 —“WELL-DECK” TYPE
Fig. 7 shows a “spar-decker,” which is the first of the threedeckers that we shall now mention. This was evolved for the purpose of carrying passengers between decks. It has a continuous upper deck of fairly heavy construction, the bridge deck, of course, being above the spar deck. In Fig. 8 we have the “awning-decker,” which has a continuous deck lighter in character than the last-mentioned type, and like the latter, the sides are completely enclosed above the main deck. Because of this lightness of construction, it is not customary to add further erections above that are of any weight. Its origin was due to the desire to provide a shelter for the ships employed in carrying Oriental pilgrims. Later on this type was retained in cargo-carriers. Finally, we have the “shade-decker” as in Fig. 9, which is provided with openings at the side for ventilation. This type is so well known to the reader from posters and
Fig 7 “SPAR-DECK” TYPE
Fig. 8. “AWNING-DECK” TYPE.
Fig 9 “SHADE-DECK” TYPE
photographs, that it is scarcely essential to say much. But we may remark that the lightly constructed deck fitted between the poop and forecastle is supported by round stanchions, open at the sides (as shown herewith), but sometimes closed by light plates. It is built just of sufficient strength to provide a promenade for passengers, or shelter for cattle, on the upper deck. This is still a very popular type for intermediate and large cargo steamers.
THE BUILDING OF THE “MAURETANIA.”
Showing Floor and part of Frames. From a Photograph. By permission of the Cunard Steamship Co.
With these different types before us, we may now go on with our main subject. Having settled the question as to the type and character of the steamship to be built, the next thing is to design the
midship section, which shows the general structural arrangements and scantlings of the various parts. In the drawing-office the plans are prepared, and the various sections of the ship worked out by expert draughtsmen attached to the shipbuilding yard. This necessitates the very greatest accuracy, and the building is usually specially guarded against those who might like to have an opportunity of obtaining valuable secrets. The plans having been worked out on paper, there follows the “laying off” on the floor of an immense loft, called the “mould floor,” where the plans are transferred according to the exact dimensions that are to be embodied in the ship. In many cases the future owner insists on a wooden model being submitted in the first instance, by the builder, so that a fair idea may be obtained of the hull of the proposed ship.
Each vessel is known at the shipbuilder’s by a number and not by her name. The keel is the first part of her to be laid, which consists of heavy bars of iron laid on to blocks of wood called “stocks,” and the line of these slants gently down to the water’s edge, so that when, after many months, the time arrives for the launching of the great ship, she may slide down easily into the sea that is, for the future, to be her support. After these bars have been fastened together, then the frames or ribs are erected, the ship being built with her stern nearest to the water, and her bow inland, except in the few cases (as, for example, that of the Great Eastern), where a vessel, owing to her length in proportion to the width of the waterspace available, has to be launched sideways. These ribs are bent pieces of steel, which have been specially curved according to the pattern already worked out. Let us now turn to the accompanying illustrations which show the steamship in course of construction. These have been specially selected in order that the reader might be able to have before him only those which are of recent date, and show ships whose names, at least, are familiar to him.
THE “GEORGE WASHINGTON” IN COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Showing Framing from the Stern
From a Photograph By permission of the Norddeutscher Lloyd Co
The photograph opposite page 286 represents the Mauretania being built on the Tyne. This striking photograph shows the floor and the double cellular bottom of the leviathan in the foreground; whilst in the background the frames of the ship have been already set up. Some idea of the enormous proportions may be obtained from the smallness of the men even in the foreground. The next illustration represents the Norddeutscher Lloyd liner, George Washington, and exhibits the framing of the ship and bulkheads before the steelplating had been put on. The photograph was taken from the stern, looking forward, and one can see already the “bulge” which is left on either side to allow for the propeller shafts. Opposite page 290 is
shown the bow end of the Berlin (belonging to the same company) in frame, and on examining her starboard side it will be seen that already some of her lower plates have been affixed. Finally, opposite page 292 is shown one of the two mammoth White Star liners in course of construction. This picture represents the stern frame of the Titanic as it appeared on February 9th, 1910. No one can look at these pictures without being interested in the numerous overhead cranes, gantries and scaffolding which have to be employed in the building of the ship. The gantries, for instance, now being used at Harland and Wolff’s Belfast yard are much larger than were used even for the Celtic and Cedric, and have electric cranes, for handling weights at any part of the berths where the ships are being built. Cantilever and other enormous cranes are also employed. Cranes are also now used in Germany fitted with very strong electromagnets which hold the plates by the power of their attraction, and contribute considerably to the saving of labour.
Whilst the hull of the ship is being built, the engines are being made and put together in the erecting-shop—which also must needs have its powerful cranes—and after being duly tested, the various parts of the engines are taken to pieces again and erected eventually in the ship after she has been launched. After the frames and beams are “faired” the deck-plating is got in hand. Besides affording many advantages, such as promenades and supports for state-rooms, the deck of a ship is like the top of a box, and gives additional strength to a ship. The illustration opposite page 292 shows the shelter deck of the Orient liner Orsova The photograph was taken looking aft, on August 1st, 1908, whilst the ship was being built at Messrs. John Brown & Co.’s yard, Clydebank. The photograph is especially interesting as showing the enormous amount of material which has to go to the making of the steamship. But even still more significant is the next illustration, which shows one of the decks of the Lusitania whilst in course of construction. To the average man it seems to be well-nigh impossible ever to get such masses into the water.
BOWS OF THE
“BERLIN”
IN COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION.
From a Photograph By permission of the Norddeutscher Lloyd Co.
THE “BERLIN” JUST BEFORE HER LAUNCH.
From a Photograph By permission of the Norddeutscher Lloyd Co.
After the plates have been all fastened by rivets to the frames, and the outside of the ship has been given a paint of conventional salmon pink, the time approaches for her to be launched. During her building the ship has been resting on the keel blocks where her centre touches, but her bilges have been supported by blocks and shores. These latter will be seen in the illustration of the Mauretania already considered. As the day for launching approaches, so also does the anxiety of the builders increase, for at no time in her career is the ship so seriously endangered. On the day of the launch the weight of the vessel is gradually transferred from the stocks on which she has been built, to the cradle, being lifted bodily from the keelblocks by means of an army of men driving wedges underneath her bottom. This cradle is constructed on the launching ways, and the
ship herself, being now “cradle-borne,” is held in place only by a number of props called “dog-shores.” At the right moment the signal is given for these to be knocked aside, and at the first symptoms of the ship in her cradle showing an inclination to glide, the bottle of wine is broken against her bows by the lady entrusted with so pleasant an honour. With a deep roar the ship goes down the ways, and as soon as the vessel becomes waterborne the cradle floats. The ship herself is taken in charge by a tug, whilst numerous small boats collect the various pieces of timber which are scattered over the surface of the water Two or three days before the launch, the cradle which has been fitted temporarily in place, is taken away and smeared with Russian tallow and soft soap. The ways themselves are covered with this preparation after they have been well scraped clean. In case, however, the ship should fail to start at the critical moment after the dog-shores have been removed, it is usual now to have a hydraulic starting ram (worked by a hand-pump) under the forefoot of the ship. This will give a push sufficiently powerful to start the great creature down her short, perilous journey into the world of water which is to be her future abiding-place.
But it can readily be imagined that such a ponderous weight as this carries a good deal of impetus with it, and since in most cases the width of the water is confined, precautions have to be taken to prevent the ship running ashore the other side and doing damage to herself—perhaps smashing her rudder and propellers, or worse. Therefore, heavy anchors have been buried deep into the ground, and cables or hawsers are led from the bows and quarters and attached thereto, or else to heavy-weights composed of coils of chain, whose friction over the ground gradually stops the vessel. Not infrequently the cables break through the sudden jerk which the great ship puts on them, and the anchors tear up the slip-way. Perhaps as many as eight cables may be thus employed, each being made fast to two or three separate masses of about five to fifteen tons, but with slack chain between so that only one at a time is started. As soon as the ship has left the ways, all the cables become taut, and they put in motion the first lot of drags. Further on, the next lot of drags receive their strain, then the third, so that no serious jerk may have been given, and the ship gradually brings up owing to the
powerful friction. Lest the force of the ship going into the water should damage the rudder or the propeller, these, if they have been placed in position, are locked so as to prevent free play. After this the ship is towed round to another part of the yard where her engines are slung into her by means of powerful cranes. The upper structures are completed, masts stepped and an army of men work away to get her ready for her builders’ trials. Carpenters are busy erecting her cabins, painters and decorators enliven her internal appearance, and upholsterers add the final touches of luxury to her saloons and lounges.
STERN FRAME OF THE “TITANIC,” FEB 9, 1910
From a Photograph By permission of Messrs Ismay, Imrie & Co
Turning now to the illustration facing page 290, we see the Norddeutscher Lloyd Berlin just before she was launched. The anchors and cables which will be dropped as soon as she has floated will be seen along her port side, and the platform for her christening is already in place. In the illustration facing page 294,
which shows the launch of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Company’s Araguaya, we have a good view afforded of the ship as she is just leaving the ways and becoming water-borne. The other illustration on the same page shows the launch of one of those turret-ships to which reference was made in an earlier chapter. In the picture of the Berlin will be seen the system of arranging the steel plates in the construction of the ship, and the rivets which hold them in place.
From a Photograph By permission of Messrs Anderson, Anderson & Co
THE SHELTER DECK OF THE “ORSOVA” IN COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION
ONE OF THE DECKS OF THE “LUSITANIA” IN COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION
One of the most important events of the ship’s life is her trial trip. Before this occurs the ship’s bottom must be cleaned, for a foul underwater skin will deaden the speed, and give altogether erroneous data. The weather should be favourable also, the sea calm, and the water not too shallow to cause resistance to ships of high speed, while a good steersman must be at the helm so as to keep the ship on a perfectly straight course. Around our coasts at various localities are noticeable posts erected in the ground to indicate the measured mile. To obtain the correct data as to the speed of the ship, she may be given successive runs in opposite directions over this measured mile; a continuous run at sea, the number of revolutions being counted during that period, and a continuous run past a series of stations of known distances apart, the times at which these are passed being recorded as the ship is abreast with them. For obtaining a “mean” speed over the measured mile, one run with the tide and one against the tide supply what is
From a Photograph By permission of the Cunard Steamship Co
required. During these trials, the displacement and trim of the ship should be as nearly as possible those for which she has been designed. But besides affording the data which can only show whether or not the ship comes up to her contract, these trials are highly valuable as affording information to the builder for subsequent use, in regard both to the design of the ship herself and the amount of horsepower essential for sending her along at a required speed. The amount of coal consumption required is also an important item that is discovered. This is found as follows: Let there be used two bunkers. The first one is not to be sealed, but the latter is. The former is to be drawn upon for getting up steam, taking the ship out of the harbour, and generally until such time as she enters upon her trial proper. This first bunker is then sealed up, and the other one unsealed, and its contents alone used during the trial. After the trial is ended, the fires being left in ordinary condition, the second bunker is again sealed up, and the first bunker drawn upon. By reckoning up the separate amounts it is quite easy afterwards to determine the exact quantity which the ship has consumed during a given number of knots in a given time. Finally, after every detail has been completed, the ship is handed over to her owners and steams away from the neighbourhood of her birth. Presently she arrives at her port, whence she will run for the next ten or twenty years, and before long she sets forth with her first load of passengers, mails and cargo on her maiden trip across the ocean. To begin with, she may not establish any new records for speed; for a ship takes time to find herself, and her officers to understand her individualities. “Know your ship” is one of the mottoes which an ambitious officer keeps ever before him, and if this is true on the navigation bridge, it is even still more true down below, where the engines will not show their full capabilities for several passages at least.
LAUNCH OF THE “ARAGUAYA ”
From a Photograph By permission of the Royal Mail Steam Packet Co
LAUNCH OF A TURRET-SHIP.
From a Photograph By permission of Messrs Doxford & Sons, Sunderland
