According to the findings of this research, entrepreneurship is always based on free will, it is a voluntary activity that can not be ordered. The practical challenge is twofold. First the right mindset is necessary (see Chapter 4 section 4.2.4.), as the cause of culture, needs to be created (so that stakeholders are motivated and have the right approach to pursue entrepreneurial initiatives). Second the right Gestell (see Chapter 4 section 4.2.5.), or institutional infrastructure, needs to be in place. This includes: resources, standardized aids for opportunity development, a strategy which serves as a map for orientation when making decisions, and as a common reference for planning the way forward (by publishing it the also commits and creates trust), while leaving spielraum (see Chapter 4 section 2.2.5.1.) for the individual stakeholders to manoeuvre, exploit opportunities and evade hazards that come up along the way. Deploying Delanty’s (2001) terminology of technological- and cultural-citizenship to the specifics of organisational citizenship, the stakeholders have a technical (natural science and logic based) function to fulfil a set of tasks (the professor to teach and do research, the student to study and take exams, each administrator to fulfil the tasks described in his job description), but secondly there is a socio-cultural role/responsibility, to contribute to a positive and ‘can do’ atmosphere. Hornstein describes this function as: “helping co-workers when one is not required to do so, being courteous (as opposed to simply not being discourteous), and going the extra yard when dealing with customers or even vendors – not to mention turning of the lights when they are simply wasting money and energy – are just a few concrete examples” (Hornstein., 2002). It is the intangible and not rational base of socio-cultural citizenship that makes a well thought through mindset the foremost condition for entrepreneurship. It is impossible to forcefully construct it, it needs to be convincing. In order to make the stakeholders identify with the institution – to create a We feeling – the challenge is to align personal and organisational (self-) interest.

In the following section, specific aspects of knowledge entrepreneurship are set in relation to the conclusions given by Burton Clark when he was researching practices and conditions at particularly successful universities using the traditional (read economic) entrepreneurial paradigm. Before the differentiation begins, allow me to state my appreciation and thanks to Prof. Clark whose work has greatly inspired this research. Knowledge entrepreneurship is believed to be central to the spirit of his motivation: to make universities the vibrant, productive and fertile knowledge institutions, we need to reach inclusive and sustainable information societies.

5.2.1.1. Foster Internal Locus of Control
Burton Clark’s first element of an entrepreneurial university to strengthen the steering core is amended to reflect the progressive paradigm of distributed leadership, which is fostering an internal locus of control amongst all institutional stakeholders. Clark’s assessment that “universities have long exhibited a notoriously weak capacity to steer themselves” (Clark, 1998, p. 5) is in principle agreed with, because their bureaucracy and state dependency has generally resulted in slow and hierarchical organisations. Nevertheless, Clark’s solution to increase their managerial capacity, which he continues to describe in terms of a strong leadership capacity, is found to be at least problematic in a federalist and merit based environment like that found in universities. It is the organisational mindset that is observed to be able to rouse the university’s internal locus of control (see Chapter 4.2.4.1.). But also outside a university context, strong leadership is a characteristic of traditional bureaucracies, from what has been observed in the cases studied, it is assessed that today’s environment needs flexibility and opportunistic capabilities. Such a condition is only available when giving spielraum to the stakeholders and for developing a governance structure enabling distributed leadership (see Chapter 4 section 4.2.5.1.). Contrary to authoritarian leadership knowledge institutions are assessed to work best when all stakeholders realize and accept their own responsibility for the situation they are in. To do so, stakeholders engage in the act of looking for and realizing opportunities to improve (or optimize their position). Clark’s understanding of leadership also plays out in the way he describes the following characteristics of entrepreneurial universities. They are all strategic activities to be initiated from a central steering team. Therefore, only some relation can be drawn to the elements deemed important considering the findings of this research.

At the end of Clark’s argument about the strengthened steering core attractor, he claims that universities have to reconcile new values alongside traditional academic ones, and that these values are not the values of business and profit, but instead are the values of entrepreneurship. It is by embodying entrepreneurship that the institution has to undergo a discursive process for exploring and defining its values (see Chapter 4 section 4.2.4.2.); just as described in the telos attractor of the entrepreneurial mindset.

5.2.1.2. Entrepreneuring
Clark, names expanding the developmental periphery, and diversifying the funding base. He speaks about enterprising universities that cross traditional boundaries, and this is exactly what is found to be essential for knowledge entrepreneurship. Clark, however, continues his observations one dimensionally, as they are exclusively market driven. His two elements target the same goal of finding new markets and finding new funding. Here, according to this research, the importance of the knowledge telos (see Chapter 4 section 4.2.4.2) for universities becomes important. Universities shall engage in entrepreneuring and develop visionary scenarios for new knowledge products and services, but the focus has to be primarily on knowledge and only secondarily arises the question of how to raise funding. The findings of this research are again in agreement with Clark’s observation that specialists and units dedicated to opportunity development and realization are necessary to exploit the potentials available before them. But this is not enough. A more holistic and inclusive strategy process, allows more space for emergent strategy and opportunistic practices. To prepare the organization for serendipity is one objective that is also connected with the distributed leadership.

5.2.1.3. Gestell
Clark’s last element of an entrepreneurial university touches on the importance of organisational culture, which he portrays a bit vaguely as consisting out of an institutional idea, which translates into practices. Furthermore, he says that the other four elements are indications as to what the culture should look like for an entrepreneurial university. This research has developed an innovative and holistic idea of entrepreneurship in the context of universities. This core contribution in chapter 4 section 2 stands apart and has to be distinct from the more practical conclusions given here. The following three concrete attractors are meant to support the entrepreneurial mindset/culture through aspects of the gestell (procedural, role, and physical architecture) presented herein:

Defined Support for Entrepreneurial Practices
The defined processes on how to identify, evaluate and make a decision regarding innovation opportunities found at the UPCnet (see chapter 3 UPC section 3.3.12.2.) are assessed to contribute extensively to the fertile environment regarding creative destruction and innovation in the institution. Even though more informal and emergent practices found at other institutions did produce similar results, the explicit organisation and support of the innovation process is evaluated to ensure the delivery of good opportunity exploitation on a consistent basis.

While most universities (directly or in-directly) assign innovation as a task to the respectively responsible stakeholders, the development process of new projects is not defined and hence not supported by institutionalized processes. Practice is hence dominated by emergence. This is not supposed to lead to a fixed process architecture but through re-interpreting Eisenhower’s great saying “Plans are nothing; planning is everything” there needs to be a gestell of common practice, which serves like fix-points to be counted upon, in order to allow for efficient bricolage.

Cultivate Reflexive Discourse, Transparency and Informality
As described, the transparent and discursive practices at the LSE and the UPC have positive influence on entrepreneurial behaviour, because they produce trust in the reliability of the environment (see chapter 4 section 3.1.5.2).

Another important element of a good communication environment is the fomentation of a culture of informality and the provision of informal spaces. At the LSE the interviewees reported that networking and especially trans-disciplinary (trans-departmental) collaboration was initiated frequently at informal events.

Apprenticeship and Imitation
One element of knowledge entrepreneurship that has not been developed by McDonald (2002) is the immensely enabling role that role models and case studies can have by facilitating imitation and adaptation into one’s own context. This is somehow related with Clark’s advice to stimulate the academic heartland. But rather than thinking in traditional disciplinary boundaries and “our heartland” departments, the findings of this research suggest that it would be beneficial to give over-proportional support to successful knowledge entrepreneurs no matter what department they are in; because these entrepreneurs initiate the positive spirals needed and thus serve as role models for other faculty and students. At the LSE, the phenomenon is wide spread and senior academics take selected students in a sort of apprenticeship like tutorial to transmit unto them the tacit knowledge, competencies of scientific research and to introduce them to their social network. At the FU and the UPC, this practice has also been identified as successful.

During this research, three computer science professors (two from UPC and one from FU) have been interviewed who incarnate the internet based knowledge entrepreneurship that lies at the focus of this research. All three have been involved in business creations, and are now regularly consulted by students with business ideas. When they see potential they often get involved with projects and the student entrepreneurs incorporate them as business angels or similar.

It seems that the same idea was thought of by UOC’s management when designing the research council made up of eminent international authorities; the intention became even more visible when each of UOC’s research groups was assigned a research consultant. The problem is that even though the advice and steering coming from the international figure is perceived of positively, the figure is generally too far away to truly serve as a significant role model as contact is too infrequent.

5.2.1.4. Importance of the Regional and National Context
The regional and national context is decisive – as an important aspect of their historical, cultural, and geopolitical conditions. While the LSE is positively influenced by its access to the political stage and the cultural attractiveness of London, it benefits even more from the overall good practice of the UK educational system. In the case of the FU Berlin, its special role in history caused its foundation and the university first grew unnaturally because of the political setting in the divided city and later had to suffer from the city’s notorious bankruptcy for more than a decade since the reunification. However, the most recent decisive impulse comes from the German government’s Excellence Initiative. In the case of the two Catalan universities there can be no doubt that regionalism is, and will increasingly be, an important influencer. While officially bound through many interfaces to Madrid, Catalan universities are becoming increasingly steered through the educational contracts negotiated with the Generalitat. One complaint uttered by both institutions is that, while the universities produce innovations, there is a lack of a venture capital to take them to the market in the region (UOC/UPC 17).

Users' Comments (0)

Add your comment