Strategic knowledge management models and tools for entrepreneurial universities

1.1 Introduction

In the last decades, universities have moved from focussing exclusively on their primary two missions of education providers and scientific knowledge creators, to be considered as key actors of economic and cultural growth, transforming themselves into engaged institutions with industry and society at large (Etzkowitz, 2000; Vorley and Nelles, 2008). This movement has been frequently described as “third mission” focussing on knowledge transfer, commercialisation and innovation as third pillar of a university (Lambert, 2003; Laredo, 2007; Zomer and Benneworth, 2011; Secundo et al., 2017).

Although there is no general definition, third mission activities comprise three dimensions performed by universities about external environments: technology transfer and innovation, continuing education and social engagement (E3M, 2010). In this perspective, the term “entrepreneurial university” (Clark, 1998; Philpott et al., 2011; Etzkowitz, 2016) has been adopted by academics and policymakers to describe universities that effectively deliver on their “third mission” contributing to the regional economy simultaneously (Clark, 1998; Van Vught, 1999; Lambert, 2003).

The recognition that in today’s economic landscape Entrepreneurial Universities can play the fundamental role of key enablers in the areas of technology, innovation and economic development, points out their role as knowledge-based agents for local value creation dynamics. Indeed, an Entrepreneurial University can be seen as an entrepreneurial hub with multiple and integrated knowledge-based functions ranging from the traditional pure knowledge and technology development to innovation ecosystems development as well as social innovation and community engagement catalyzer (Margherita and Secundo, 2011; Philpott et al., 2011; Etzkowitz, 2016; Maas and Jones, 2017). Knowledge Management (KM) in academia is any systematic activity related to support and enhancement of the creation of scientific knowledge and achievement of research goals, including both social process and relevant KM technology tools (Tian et al., 2009).

Therefore, the understanding the knowledge models, processes and tools that can support the entrepreneurial universities as entrepreneurial hubs or knowledge agents, is of fundamental importance. The way Entrepreneurial Universities act strategically as creators and disseminators of new knowledge, organisers of multidisciplinary and boundary-spanning knowledge application activities as well as facilitator of university-industry links represent a critical area of research investigation. Entrepreneurial Universities as belonging to the public sector have specific labour divisions that are a disincentive to knowledge sharing and “this situation makes knowledge delivery in the public sector more difficult than that in the private sector” (Gau, 2011, p. 2).

To date, most of the studies on entrepreneurial university and academic entrepreneurship have focussed the attention on technology transfer offices (TTOs), incubators and science parks, stakeholder collaboration, innovation support, entrepreneurial training of highly skilled individuals and the development of new spin-off firms as tools used to achieve their entrepreneurial aspirations (Voisey et al., 2013; Somsuk and Laosirihongthong, 2014; Elia et al., 2017). In all these processes, a reconceptualization of knowledge production called the “Mode 3” Knowledge Production System (expanding and extending the “Mode 1” and “Mode 2” knowledge production systems) (Carayannis and Campbell, 2012) has been defined. The Mode 3 Knowledge Production System architecture focusses on and leverages higher-order learning processes and dynamics that allow for both top-down government, university, and industry policies and practices and bottom-up civil society initiatives and priorities to interact and engage with each other towards a more intelligent, effective, and efficient synthesis. This means that the entrepreneurial university implements several strategies and new institutional configuration such as Entrepreneurship centres (Cassia et al., 2014; Maas and Jones, 2017) to work together with the government, industries and society to facilitate the diffusion the production, the application and the exploitation of knowledge and technology (Leydesdorff and Meyer, 2006).

The convergence of these perspectives requires new updated models, strategies tools for the strategic KM in the entrepreneurial universities. The growing relevance of this new archetype of university calls for a more in-depth investigation of the strategic approaches, models, processes and tools supporting the creation, transfer, development, valorisation, exchange and integration of new knowledge at the core of their missions and strategic actions. Thus, the goal of this special issue is to provide a knowledge-based analysis of entrepreneurial universities investigating the strategic KM models and tools at the basis of the management, creation and diffusion of knowledge, research and innovation.

In this special issue we present a variety of international studies at the forefront of strategic KM in Entrepreneurial Universities. Overall 13 papers have been selected to accomplish the above rationale and to illustrate the premsies and future potential for such interdisciplinary and cross-level research agenda on the knowledge strategies and processes for universities. In the following sections we highlight the contents of the selected papers. Finally a discussion of the overall contributions is provided and the future research venues are outlined.

2.1 Research area: knowledge creation in University-industry collaboration

Giones (2019) in the paper “University-Industry Collaborations: An Industry Perspective” explores the UIC drivers from the industry side as a key element in the transition towards an entrepreneurial university model. The paper analyses how, and to what extent, policy interventions could increase the engagement of industry actors in UICs. Starting from a pilot study with 36 firms with a satellite university campus, findings reveal that Firms involved in universities students (academic forms of UICs) might not necessarily consider the university as a research partner, even in a geographic proximity setting. Besides, there is a potential dark side to proximity when industry participants build their perceptions using second-hand experiences or indirect information. The pilot study provides valuable insights for researchers interested in a larger randomised control trial. It also provides insights for university managers that want to understand the motivations of industry participants in UICs. The experimental approach of the research generates evidence on the feasibility to intervene in the activation of UICs from an industry perspective, a central aspect in a transition towards an entrepreneurial university model.

The paper of Guerrero et al. (2019) “Strategic knowledge management within subsidised entrepreneurial university-industry partnerships” provides a contribution to the academic debate about how entrepreneurial universities and industrial organisations are strategically managing their knowledge when participating in subsidised partnerships in emerging economies. The proposed conceptual model was analysed with a retrospective multiple case study approach integrated by four subsidised entrepreneurial universities-industry partnerships of the Incentive Programme for Innovation from 2009 to 2014 in Mexico. Entrepreneurial universities and industrial organisations confirm insights about dual collaborative opportunistic behaviour within subsidised partnerships. The ex-ante collaboration agreement anticipated and protected intellectual capabilities. The originality of the paper resides in the discussion about public administrations opportunistic behaviours in emerging economies.

Centobelli et al. (2019) with the “Managing the mediating role of knowledge exploration and exploitation for the development of an entrepreneurial university” focus on the modern knowledge-based economy. The authors acknowledge the role of the third mission of universities related to the process of knowledge transfer as a driving force to face sustainability issues, in addition to the two traditional missions focussing on research and teaching. This paper aims to investigate the relationships between internal environment, external environment, knowledge exploitation, knowledge exploration, and university performance. The study applies confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling (SEM) to test the conceptual model in the Chinese education system. The findings confirm the higher impact of internal environment on both knowledge exploitation and knowledge exploration as compared to external environment. Knowledge exploitation is more strongly related to university performance than knowledge exploration. These results highlight the imperative role of internal university stakeholders in fostering KM strategies. In addition, they encourage academicians, practitioners, and policy-makers to focus their attention on the impact of KM models, tools and practices in universities to achieve the entrepreneurial development that in turn has a positive impact on individual graduates and innovation ecosystems.

2.2 Research area: entrepreneurial orientation in the university’s context

Rybnicek et al. (2019) in the paper “Industry and leadership experiences of the heads of departments and their impact on the performance of public universities” identifies whether the prior industry experience (IE) or industry leadership experience (ILE) of the head might influence the departments publication output, the ability to acquire external research funds or its entrepreneurial activities (e.g. the commercialisation of research results through patents). Moving from data of 208 Austrian university departments results show a positive relationship between ILE and the patent output of the departments as one indicator for the commercialisation of research activities. Furthermore the scientific ability of researchers should be key when selecting the head of a department, because scientific performance is still essential for most of these units. However, when universities seek to focus more strongly on other entrepreneurial activities, then additional competencies come into play. As the actual focus of universities is currently subject to change, former IE and ILE will become increasingly more important, and the heads of departments will play a decisive role in the transition towards becoming an entrepreneurial university.

The paper “Entrepreneurial academics: a taxonomy with latent profiling analysis” of Rodrigues et al. (2019) aims to develop a taxonomy of academics from Higher Education institutions (HEI), based on their entrepreneurial orientation. The population in the study was composed of teachers and researchers from worldwide HEI. The data collection was conducted through a questionnaire sent by e-mail, and using the I-ENTRE-U scale to identify entrepreneurial oriented teachers and researchers from HEI. A latent profile analysis was conducted to identify profiles of researchers with similar values in the four entrepreneurial orientation dimensions. The study allowed to identify five profiles of researchers: downers; achievers; followers; defenders; and rebels. Findings allow the evaluation of the academics entrepreneurial orientation in a higher education sector. Few studies have yet focussed on individual entrepreneurial orientation of scientists/academics, considering different national and regional contexts.

Alvarez-Torres et al. (2019) in “Linking Entrepreneurial Orientation to SMEs’ Performance: Implications for Entrepreneurship Universities” analyses the relationship between Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) and performance of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The final aim is to contribute to the extant literature about the role of EO for SMEs development, and more specifically to identify implications that can inform knowledge-based initiatives of entrepreneurship. A quantitative approach is adopted moving from the hypothesis that EO positively affects Performance of SMEs. This hypothesis has been tested by using a system of partial least squares (PLS-SEM) of structural equations modelling in 170 SMEs operating in the Bajio Region (Mexico). The results provide three main contributions. First, it proposes a working definition of EO. Second, the empirical research findings support an understanding of the relationship between EO and Mexican SMEs Performance and propose a multiple and reflective dimension of EO’s model. Moreover, finally, this research provides some implications for entrepreneurship universities aiming to create and diffuse an entrepreneurial culture and capabilities by fostering the development of the EO. Accordingly, entrepreneurial universities should be engaged in the development of EO of students, academic staff and companies by focussing on knowledge-based actions that can foster the improvement of some specific features of the EO.

2.3 Research area: knowledge strategies and models for the entrepreneurial university

Lombardi et al. (2019) in the paper “Entrepreneurial universities and strategy. The case of the University of Bari” investigate the reasons behind the choice of the entrepreneurial universities for a particular business strategy focussing on diversification and multinationalization. In doing this the Intellectual Capital (IC) lens as part of knowledge assets is taken for supporting such strategies. An exploratory case study of the University of Bari, Italy is chosen and analysed using Secundo et al. (2016) collective intelligence framework. Specific contingency factors, such as economic and historical reasons, justify both the diversification and internationalisation strategies and how they both rely on IC. The results of this study can be used by managers to support the development of entrepreneurial university strategies. Findings contribute to demonstrate how IC can be used to support diversification and internationalisation in a university and to support third mission goals.

The paper of Dolan et al. (2019) “The Role and Function of Cooperative Research Centers in Entrepreneurial Universities: A Micro Level Perspective“ presents a micro-level examination of the role and function of cooperative research centres (CRCs) in entrepreneurial universities assuming the principal investigator (PI) perspective. The case of Centre for Research in Medical Device-based in Ireland whose multiple mission focus of supporting scientific excellence, industry engagement, educational and public engagement is studied. Findings reveal that from the micro level PI perspective, the role and function of CRCs focus on: research quality enhancement; brokerage, networks and collaborations; addressing research impact; and resource enhancement and appropriation. The research emphasises the strategic relevance for the creation of CRCs as part of the entrepreneurial architecture of entrepreneurial universities that provide the necessary appropriate local environmental conditions and enhanced supports to enable micro-level actors to fulfil multiple mission objectives to research excellence, industry, educational and public engagement and impact.

The paper “Entrepreneurial university strategies in the UK context: Towards a research agenda” of Pickernell et al. (2019) contributes to the Entrepreneurial University literature by providing a clearer understanding of knowledge exchange (KE) strategy of UK universities in specific relation to their portfolio of KE activities with small and medium-sized enterprises. Based on the 2015-2016 Higher Education Business and Community Interaction Survey (HE-BCI) data set, this study employs the preference ranking organisation method for the enrichment of evaluations to assess the KE activities from 162 UK higher education institutions. The study reveals that entrepreneurial universities valorise university knowledge assets through five SME-focussed KE activities most beneficial to measuring the entrepreneurial university. It also uncovers four different archetypal categories (groupings) of universities based on their strategic focus of KE activities.

Ricci et al. (2019) in the paper “Entrepreneurial activities and models of advanced European science and technology universities” aim at identifying: a broad set of entrepreneurial activities; different university entrepreneurial models; and the entrepreneurial best practices of advanced European S&T universities. The empirical analysis has combined both quantitative and qualitative approaches mainly relying on primary data, collected through questionnaires and interviews with those in charge of the TTOs of 20universities belonging to the CESAER association. Findings identified three main entrepreneurial university models: an “engage” model, which focusses on local economic development; a “formal” model, which focusses on the financial advantage of universities and their faculties; and a “comprehensive” model, which focusses on the local economic development and the financial advantage of universities and their faculties. Limitations regard the focus of the European area.

2.4 Research area: KM processes for university’s business incubators and Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs)

The paper “Analyzing technology transfer offices’ influence for entrepreneurial universities in Portugal ” by Mascarenhas et al. (2019) examines how important TTOs – which in Portuguese are called “industrial property support offices” or GAPIs – are in terms of fostering patent applications and technology transfer. Data have been collected from eight GAPIs among the existing 23 Portuguese GAPIs. Content analysis was performed on the data collected using NVivo software. The results show that GAPIs play an important role in the innovation life-cycle, speeding up the transfer of knowledge and technology to society. The major contribution is represented by the regulation of intellectual property ownership and royalty sharing with inventors, reinforcing the entrepreneurial universities’ role. The study’s results offer new insights into how GAPIs contribute to socio-economic growth by fostering more entrepreneurial universities and increasing the transfer of technology to society. Besides, these offices promote the creation of networks between GAPIs, enabling them to leverage universities’ potential for participation in socio-economic development.

The paper titled “Ranking Factors Influencing Strategic Management of University Business Incubators with ANP” of Kiani Mavi et al. (2019) provides a novel analysis and contribution to the literature related to the ranking university business incubators with a multi-criteria decision-making technique. Actual research prioritises the factors influencing strategic management of incubators using analytic network process (ANP). Data from University-Business Incubators affiliated with science and technology park of Guilan, located in city of Rasht (Iran), using the ANP questionnaire have been collected. Findings identify the most relevant factors influencing strategic management of incubators comprised of 4 main criteria and 14 sub-criteria. “Talented managers” criteria has the highest importance for strategic management of university business incubators. Moreover, University managers and incubator directors can utilise the findings for better resource allocation and aligning the strategies of incubators with macro strategies of the country.