|
In the following section the correctness of the multiple aspects of the originating theory of knowledge entrepreneurship, based on the pioneering work of McDonald (2002), are examined for individuals and for the collective [i]. Thereby the five elements proposed to influence knowledge entrepreneurship have been classified under the general entrepreneurial activities of identifying, evaluating and realizing opportunities.
In general, the EUA report for the UPC formulates the insight of this research with regards to knowledge entrepreneurial practice: Set aside a budget for knowledge technological services innovations and define the practices. The EUA report writes: “However, in the creation of a stimulation fund - to which all parts of the institution could turn in order to launch new initiatives - would make sense to develop institutional coherence, would not an extra 2 or 3 % be accepted to feed a pool of resources that would reinforce the flexibility and adequacy of support to new teams and projects thanks to specific institutional care?” (EUA, 2005)
4.2.6.1. Identifying Opportunities
The first elements investigated to influence knowledge entrepreneurship are environmental awareness and communication.
While all interviewees reported to value and practice environmental awareness and stressed their intention to “stay up to date” nowhere was there a defined and assigned practice. Most informants reported to go to conferences and participate in some sort of community of practice, but these processes are not institutionalized and also reporting happens on an informal basis [ii].
The same situation has been observed for communication processes. Within work teams information is exchanged on a daily basis but administrative groups are reported to work separated (Anonym 8) and academic information exchange is silo-ed along discipline line (Anonym 3).
The LSE has probably the best communication environment (see chapter 3 LSE section 3.1.6.5.). They have contact information and a profile for almost all staff members on the website, so people can and are contacted online. Additionally, the relatively small size of the institution as well as its compact spatial arrangement provide for good communication, even though the communication lines generally follow practice areas.
At the FU a “communication deficit” has been assessed by the leadership (Chancellor8) but to the researchers knowledge no action has been taken or is planned to address this issue (see chapter 3 FU section 3.2.6.5.). Faculty clubs have been suggested as one measure to improve faculty communication (FU Prof 9).
At the UPC we find that, due to the similar polycentric setup, the same communication problems between the separate schools are present. Senior faculty members describe a culture of not reading the broadcast information because of information overload and because the communication style is very bureaucratic. Also, here the need for transversal communication channels has been expressed (UPC6). At the IT service provider UPCnet an interesting measure has been introduced to engage staff in a discourse about innovation. They give a small present to the employee who comes up with the best formula for innovation (see chapter 3 UPC section 3.3.8.5). This not only brings the theme on the lunch table but also communicates that innovation is wanted and facilitates that people feel and identify with the changing environment.
Also, at the UOC the stakeholders are aware of the relatively restrained communication (see chapter 3 UOC section 3.4.6.5). Most exchanges are happening based on personal contacts (UOC9) and the technical manager acknowledged that they are explaining little of what they are doing (UOC10).
4.2.6.2. Evaluating Opportunities
In this paragraph the institutions attitude and practice towards entrepreneuring and risk tolerance are reviewed.
When it comes to entrepreneuring (see chapter 3 LSE section 3.1.6.2, FU section 3.2.6.2., UPC section 3.3.8.2., UOC section 3.4.6.2.) the practice of developing and exploring visions and objectives based on the corresponding organisational/personal teleology - the interviewees generally reported very little to no practice in this area. LSE, UPC and UOC have an institutional strategy process but none of them engage in defining entrepreneurial visions for the university. Only the FU engaged in such a process due to the current Excellence Initiative which requests just such visionary outlooks from the universities. Also, at the FU one successful professor reported the practice to give visionary and possibly interesting research ideas to masters students, who then delve into the subject and assess feasibility and potential benefits (FU Prof 11). At the UPC two senior stakeholders, both with extensive experience also reported about creative visions that they implement within their institution.
Risk traditionally has quite a negative connotation and only in the context of potential opportunities has it recently been accepted in organisational practice as an intrinsic component of innovation and change management (see chapter 3 LSE section 3.1.6.4., FU section 3.2.6.4., UPC section 3.3.8.4., UOC section 3.4.6.4.). Nevertheless, none of the universities under review professed to be voluntarily engaging in taking a risk. All stressed their measures to minimize risk or claimed not to take any risk at all. It has been argued that the concept of risk is not really present in the context of knowledge production, because all results have value (UPC administration 26). Nevertheless, risk can be conceptualized in terms of ‘lost time’ in exploring tangents that do not contribute to the final result.
At the LSE a high level management team as been created to deal with risk management. Besides this specialized entity technological risk taking in particular is minimized by not pushing for innovations but rather offering them on a voluntary basis, thereby ensuring change of practice only in case of perceived benefits by the users.
The FU is probably the institution which is most openly admitting to be in a condition full of risk. While most stakeholders express optimism, the situation has been described as ‘reconstructing the boat in the sea and at full speed’ (FU administration 64). Herewith the FU’s transformation from a traditional full university to a modern full university offering all disciplines but only a highly specialized and trans-disciplinary basis is alluded to. This risk is accepted as a necessity and in conjunction with the promising vision. As is the case for the LSE, technological risk for learning and research is hedged through voluntary and coached rollout. The FU is also taking a technological risk with regards to the introduction of its Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system.
In the two Spanish universities it seems almost taboo to speak of taking risks. A UPC manager stated his understanding that “universities do not take risks” and similarly the UOC Manager did not want to acknowledge any risk taking. At the UPC technological risk is spread amongst several institutions and at the UOC the responsible vice-rector for technology stated that he is aware that the university needs to take risk in order to innovate but also expresses that this will take time to change. Another UOC techie said “we are not innovators, we are integrators” (UOC management 22)
4.2.6.3. Realizing Opportunities
The realization of opportunities naturally starts with the initiation of a project. However new project support (see chapter 3 LSE section 3.1.6.3, FU section 3.2.6.3, UPC section 3.3.8.3, UOC section 3.4.6.3.) is either (a) bureaucratic and defined but generally a bit slow process in universities (as e.g. observed at the LSE), or (b) entrepreneurial stakeholders decide or influence decision makers to decide to start a new project and (c) the bootstrapping process employs mostly the modes of bricolage as not ‘showing up on the radar’ (UPC7) and only after results can be shown and a certain routine is established is the project officially recognized. In the FU and the UOC no consistent institutional pattern could be observed as the feasibility and velocity of new project support seem to depend heavily on the personal influence and contacts.
At the LSE initiative documents have been described as conversations, which are undergoing a certain ripening process until they are supported by key-stakeholders which mostly depends on them comprising a solid “business case” and being positioned as being in tune with the official strategy.
The FU on the other hand has no financial margin to support new projects that are not perceived to be absolutely necessary for the reformation of the institution. Basically, stakeholders still enjoy the traditional freedom for which the FU has a reputation but only as long as there are no costs involved. Otherwise, new projects depend on external finance, as has been successfully conducted for the entrepreneurship support program.
The two modus operandi mentioned above are both common practice at the UPC. On the one hand exists a stringent strategy process operating on top of a defined process architecture and (most mid and large size) projects are officially started through this channel. On the other hand entrepreneurial stakeholders bootstrap and initiate projects without official support and only after the incubation time is over can success or failure be estimated. At this time these projects (in the former case) are reported to the authorities.
The former rector of the UOC is internally known to have promulgated a list of UOC employee rights, which included the right to error. Nevertheless, the readiness of UOC staff to experiment and start new projects is not very developed. Most new initiatives take a substantial time in the ‘preparation phase’, wherein input and affirmation from stakeholders from various areas are solicited.
4.2.6.4. Providing Opportunities
Next to the entrepreneurial practice conducted by the institution, a cascading provisional scenario can be defined. The university provides institutionalized knowledge entrepreneurship opportunities for professors and both the institution and the professors provide opportunities to the students. Research and teaching improvement opportunities are provided by the institution in the form of new technologies, or fellowships. The universities’ general offer of courses and programmes can be seen as providing knowledge opportunities to students, and the General Studies (as institutionalised by the FU) - a one year program in which a very broad array of subjects is offered with the goal of facilitating the evaluation process – can be singled out as a good practice of facilitating knowledge entrepreneurship as it promotes the internal locus of control and the teleological decision of the students [iii].
-----------------------------
[i] While it has to be made clear that the dispersed agency and fragmented identity of a university entails essential differences to individual (micro-) knowledge entrepreneurial practices, the majority of the practices are applicable to individuals and institutions.
[ii] Except FU’s ZEDAT
[iii] It is not clear whether this program is being closed in relation to the standardisation of the Bologna process.
Users' Comments (0) 
|
|
|
