The Development of An Entrepreneurial University PDF

J Technol Transf
DOI 10.1007/s10961-010-9171-x
The development of an entrepreneurial university
Maribel Guerrero • David Urbano
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract An entrepreneurial society refers to places where knowledge-based entrepre-

neurship has emerged as a driving force for economic growth, employment creation and
competitiveness. In this context, entrepreneurial universities play an important role as both
knowledge-producer and a disseminating institution. In the literature, several studies
contributed with relevant findings. Most of these studies reveal a tendency to use case
studies to explain this phenomenon justified by the embryonic nature of the topic field, and
with the lack of a robust theoretical framework to understand it. No empirical study,
however, has highlighted the interrelations among environmental and internal factors that
conditioned the development of entrepreneurial universities with the teaching, research and
entrepreneurial missions that they need to achieve. This paper aims to contribute to a better
understanding of these interrelations identifying the most critical factors that conditioned
these missions and to this end brings a proposal model to measure this phenomenon
empirically in the light of the Institutional Economics and the Resource-Based View. The
methodology adopted is integrated by the Spanish Entrepreneurial University Scoreboard
to identify this phenomenon and Structural Equation Modeling to analyze the relationships
among independent and dependent variables that integrate the proposal model of entre-
preneurial university. This research could cover invaluable strategies to bring further
benefits to society (in terms of the creation of new business and employment) and, in
particular, to educational institutions.
Keywords Entrepreneurial universities Institutional economics Resource-based view

Higher education Knowledge transfer Technology transfer
JEL Classification M13 (New Firms; Startups) L26 (Entrepreneurship)

I23 (Higher Education Research Institutions) I28 (Education Government Policy)
M. Guerrero (&) D. Urbano

Business Economics Department, Autonomous University of Barcelona,
08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
e-mail: [email protected]
D. Urbano
e-mail: [email protected]
123
M. Guerrero, D. Urbano
1 Introduction
An entrepreneurial society refers to places where knowledge-based entrepreneurship has

emerged as a driving force for economic growth, employment creation and competitive-
ness in global markets (Audretsch 2007). In this context, the entrepreneurial university1
plays an important role as both a knowledge-producer and a disseminating institution. In
this sense, an entrepreneurial university could be defined as a survivor of competitive
environments with a common strategy oriented to being the best in all its activities (e.g.,
having good finances, selecting good students and teachers, producing quality research)
and tries to be more productive and creative in establishing links between education and
research (Kirby 2005). Consequently, an entrepreneurial university is not only a promoter
of multiple support measures for entrepreneurship but is also a developer of administrative
techniques, strategies or competitive postures (Antoncic and Hisrich 2001). Based on this,
entrepreneurial universities are involved in partnerships, networks and other relationships
with public and private organizations that are an umbrella for interaction, collaboration,
co-operation and among the core elements of a national innovation system many different
interactions may exist (Inzelt 2004). This means that the entrepreneurial university
implements several strategies and new institutional configuration to work together with the
government and industries to facilitate the generation and exploitation of knowledge and
technology (Leydesdorff and Meyer 2003).
In the literature, theoretical models have tried to explain the phenomenon of entrepre-
neurial universities (Clark 1998; Sporn 2001; Etzkowitz 2004; Kirby 2005; O’Shea et al.
2005, 2008; Rothaermel et al. 2007). At the same time, in the period 1995–2008 some
empirical studies have analyzed this phenomenon in universities from Australia, Canada,
China, Germany, Italy, Netherland, Singapore, Sweden, Thailand, United States, among
others (see Appendix 1). At first sight, these previous studies indicated relevant findings
related to the identification of some universities considered to be examples of entrepreneurial
universities, their core factors, their adaptation processes and organizational changes, their
internal and external strategies, their different types of entrepreneurial activities and aca-
demic characteristics, the environmental pressures, practical recommendations, academic
implications, and others. Most of these studies reveal a tendency to use case studies to explain
this phenomenon justified by the embryonic nature of the topic field (Gartner and Birley
2002), and with the lack of a robust theoretical framework to understand it (Guerrero et al.
2006; Guerrero 2008). No empirical study, however, has highlighted the interrelations
among environmental and internal factors that conditioned the development of entrepre-
neurial universities with the teaching, research and entrepreneurial missions that they need to
achieve. This paper aims to contribute to a better understanding of these interrelations
identifying the most critical factors that conditioned these missions and to this end brings a
proposal model to measure this phenomenon empirically. Furthermore, the potential impact
and implications of knowing these interrelations will be analyzed and discussed.
To achieve this objective, an institutional perspective is adopted to analyze the factors
associated with the environmental factors (formal and informal), following the idea of North
(1990, 2005). This theory stresses the function carried out by institutions in economic
development and has turned out to be one of the most suitable frameworks for the analysis of
1
Term used to describe universities that have improved different mechanisms to contribute to regional
development and increase their incomes. Additionally, other terms used have been: University Techno-
logical Transfer (Dill 1995), Innovative Universities (Clark 1998; Van Vught 1999) and Market Universities
(Slaughter and Leslie 1997).
123
institutional factors on the development of entrepreneurial universities (Guerrero et al. 2006;

Guerrero 2008) and the changes in the tertiary educational systems (Witte 2004). Previously,
in the field of entrepreneurship, some scholars have already analyzed the effects of institu-
tions on entrepreneurial activity and business creation processes (Welter 2005; Urbano 2006;
Aidis et al. 2008; Stephen et al. 2009; among others). As a complementary theoretical
framework, the Resource-Based View (RBV) helps to explain the internal factors (resources
and capabilities) that generate a competitive advantage in the context of an entrepreneurial
university. In this respect, the resources are all assets of the organization and the capabilities
are the exploitation of its resources to implement its strategies (Amit and Schoemaker 1993).
The methodology adopted in this paper is integrated into two phases. In the first, the
paper constructs the Spanish Entrepreneurial University Scoreboard (SEUS) that allows the
identification of entrepreneurial universities using secondary information from 50 Spanish
public universities following the Berlin Principles on Rankings of Higher Education
(Institute for Higher Education Policy 2006) and the methods developed by the European
Innovation Scoreboard (European Commission 2005). In the second, the data were col-
lected using e-mail questionnaires administrated to academics enrolled at the universities
selected. The instrument used was a modified version of the Entrepreneurial University
Constructs (EUC) developed by Guerrero (2008). With these data, the model proposed is
tested empirically using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). This statistical technique
has been widely used in behavioural sciences during the last decade (Shook et al. 2004)
because allowed the examination of a set of relationships between one or more independent
or dependent variable, either continuous or discrete (Tabachnick and Fidell 1996).
This paper is organized as follows: Sect. 2 introduces the conceptual framework of
entrepreneurial universities; Sect. 3 describes the methodology designed to identify the
relationship among the factors that conditioned the development of entrepreneurial uni-
versities with their missions; Sect. 4 outlines the results and discussions; and Sect. 5
provide some concluding remarks.
2 Conceptual framework of entrepreneurial universities
In the literature, some theoretical models try to explain the phenomenon of entrepreneurial
universities (Clark 1998; Sporn 2001; Etzkowitz 2004; Kirby 2005; O’Shea et al. 2005,
2008; Rothaermel et al. 2007). Adopting the Institutional Economics and the Resource
Based View, Table 1 shows the integration of the theoretical factors which help to
understand the relevance of environmental (formal and informal factors), and recognize the
internal (resources and capabilities) factors involved in the transformation process. The
entrepreneurial universities’ missions are focused on fulfilling teaching, research and
entrepreneurial activities simultaneously (Etzkowitz 2004). The new university missions are
focused on their contribution to social development and economic growth (Schulte 2004).
Entrepreneurial universities additionally need to become entrepreneurial organizations;
their members need to become potential entrepreneurs; and their interaction with the envi-
ronment needs to follow an entrepreneurial pattern (Röpke 1998). As a consequence, the
outcomes of an entrepreneurial university are linked with its missions; teaching, research,
and entrepreneurial activities. Based on this, the conceptual model of an entrepreneurial
university is integrated by the environmental and internal factors involved in the creation and
development of entrepreneurial universities identified in the literature review (Fig. 1). As
mentioned previously, the environmental factors have been grouped into formal and informal
factors supported by Institutional Economics. Thus, the internal factors have been grouped
123
Table 1 Theoretical models of entrepreneurial universities
Environmental factors
Formal Informal
Clark (1998) A strengthened steering core A stimulated academic

An expanded developmental periphery heartland
A diversified funding base An integrated entrepreneurial
culture
Sporn (2001) Mission and goals Culture
Structure, management, governance and leadership
Networks, conglomerates and strategic alliances
Etzkowitz (2004) Interdependence with the industry and government Renovation
and independence from another institutional spheres
Hybrid organizational forms
Capitalization of knowledge
Kirby (2005) Incorporation, implementation Recognition and reward
Communication, organization Endorsement
Encouragement and support Promotion
Rothaermel Policies and technology Culture
et al. (2007)
Internal factors
Resources Capabilities
O’Shea et al. (2005, 2008) Human capital resources Status and prestige
Financial resources Networks and alliances
Physical resources Localization
Commercial resources
Rothaermel et al. (2007) Agents Status
Networks
Localization
into resources and capabilities supported by the RBV. Finally, the criteria to measure the
outcomes of these universities are supported by the new university missions. Based on this,
this compatible model of the entrepreneurial university suggests the following:
• Formal factors: entrepreneurial organizational and governance structure, support
measures for entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship education.
• Informal factors: university community’s attitudes towards entrepreneurship, entrepre-
neurial teaching methodologies, role models and reward system.
• Resources: human capital, financial, physical, and commercial.
• Capabilities: status and prestige, networks and alliances, localization.
2.1 Environmental factors
An entrepreneurial university requires entrepreneurial organizational structures to create a

connection between teaching, research and administration functions and that help to gen-
erate a shared vision where a university is more than just the sum of warring departments
(Dearlove 2002). Another organizational element is managerial self-governance (Clark
1998) that embraces internal management structures, decision-making and leadership roles
(Middlehurst 2004; Yokoyama 2006). As a result, the university’s efforts are oriented to
123
Environmental Factors (EF)
Formal Informal Outcomes
Entrepreneurial University community

Organization and Attitudes towards Teaching
Governance structure Entrepreneurship
Internal Factors (IF)

Resources Capabilities Entrepreneurial Research
Support Human Teaching
Measures for Status Methodologies
Financial Networks
Entrepreneurship Physical Localization Entrepreneurial
Commercial Entrepreneurial
activities
Entrepreneurship Role models and

Education Reward Systems
EU (Outcomes) = f ( EF, IF )
Fig. 1 Conceptual model of entrepreneurial universities
providing its members a fertile environment for entrepreneurship (Laukkanen 2000) which
later could be reflected in economic growth and regional development (Di Gregorio and
Shane 2003; Audretsch and Lehrmann 2005). A good example has been business incubators
and technology transfer offices that are support mechanisms in the process of creation of
university spin-offs (Mian 1996, 1997; Link and Scott 2005; Niosi 2006) or educational
programs that provide a wide variety of situations, aims, methods (Vesper and Gartner
1997; Fiet 2000, 2001) oriented towards improving students’ skills, attributes, and behavior
to developed both creative and critical thinking (Kirby 2004). The result of this process is
associated with novel ideas or intentions emerged by new successful entrepreneurs (By-
grave and Hofer 1991) that later they will become the new role models who will show their
peers that entrepreneurial success is not a theory (Venkataraman 2004). Thus, Kirby (2005)
explains another strategic actions intended to promote entrepreneurship related to complex
issues such as reward systems, both monetary (bonuses, use of corporate resources, profit-
sharing, others) and non-monetary (promotion and recognition systems).
2.2 Internal factors
An entrepreneurial university requires managers, with personal characteristics of leader-

ship, in professionalized full-time posts, to fulfil its mission (Dill 1995; Sporn 2001). In
addition, academics are a critical human resource for the development of educational
quality and generation of innovation in research (Powers and McDougall 2005). In this
context, the managers and academics are the actors involved in the internal transformation
of traditional universities. Other important factors are the financial resources that dem-
onstrate the university’s autonomy from the state. In this respect, Clark (1998) mentioned
that a diversified funding base means that the university has incremented its sources of
income from sources such as support from government, research contracts, campus ser-
vices, student fees and others. These resources allow an expanded developmental
periphery, in other words, crossing the old boundaries between the university and the
external world through infrastructure to satisfy social demands (Clark 1998). According to
Gallagher (2000), universities themselves are increasingly collaborating, networking and
123
partnering with multiple industries, universities, private or public institutions in a national

and international context. In this respect, the theory of localized knowledge spillovers
suggests that profits will be greater in agglomerations and spatial clusters, since access to
tacit knowledge is easier (Audretsch et al. 2005). Florida and Kenney (1988) and O’Shea
et al. (2008) highlight the central role that the availability of venture capital plays in
encouraging the formation of high-technology firms in regions as they provide essential
risk capital and operating assistance to new firms. At the same time, this explains why this
is more likely to occur in high-technology clusters with easier access to critical expertise,
networks and knowledge (Saxenian 1994). In practice, location is a significant factor which
explains the innovative activities of firms, as the cost of transferring the knowledge is a
function of geographic distance and gives rise to localized externalities (Siegel et al. 2003).
3 Methodology
3.1 Selecting entrepreneurial universities
In the higher education context, several rankings are produced annually to measure the
quality of each university (Eccles 2002). Most of them use indicators associated with the
university’s resources and outcomes (Federkeil 2002) or research productivity index
(Moed 2006; Grupo SCImago 2007). However, the rankings and indices have several
limitations associated with their interpretation (Page 1996); the indicators used that only
measure the traditional perspectives (Yonezawa et al. 2002); and the validity and reliability
of data sources (Usher and Savino 2006). In this context, this investigation adopts the
methodology applied in the European Innovation Scoreboard (European Commission
2005) to analyze the innovation performance of European Union (EU) members under the
Lisbon strategy. Complementary, the SEUS is estimated following the Berlin Principles on
Rankings of Higher Education2 (Institute for Higher Education Policy 2006).
In this sense, using secondary information from fifty Spanish public universities3 and
according with the methodology adopted, every indicator4 of inputs and outputs was cal-
culated for each university (see Table 2). Therefore, were identified the possible outliers or
scores that represent the lowest values founded within the all Public Spanish Universities. In
this sense, 13 universities were identified with the lowest values and where the data
availability were less than 50%. Afterwards, re-scaled scores of the indicators were cal-
culated by first subtracting the lowest value found within of fifty universities and then
dividing by the difference between the highest and lowest values found within the group of
universities. This allows the standardization or normalization of these values. For this
reason, the maximum re-scaled score is thus equal to one and the minimum value is equal to
zero. Later, the INPUTS and OUTPUTS were determinate by the average value of re-scaled
scores where indicators for which data are available receive the same weight. Finally, SEUS
is calculated by the average value of INPUTS and OUTPUTS. Therefore, by definition the
SEUS values are between zero and one for all universities (European Commission 2005,
2
A set of 16 principles of quality, good practice and heterogeneity to refine methodologies used to conduct
Higher Education rankings. Concretely, these principles define the purposes and goals of rankings; the
design and weighting of indicators; the collection and processing of data; and presentation of ranking results.
3
Source: Ministry of Spanish Education and Science (MEC).
4
The indicators identified in the literature and that characterize an entrepreneurial university based on
Table 6.
123
Table 2 Indicators of SEUS

Indicator Justification/source
Input Entrepreneurial Universities involved in entrepreneurial initiatives such as science parks

initiatives and incubators, teaching programs and courses in entrepreneurship, or
(EUinitiatives) interdisciplinary centers and co-operation networks (Ruiz et al. 2004;
Guerrero et al. 2006; Guerrero 2008). This information was obtained
using data from the Institute of Small and Medium Size Enterprises
(IPYME 2006) about the study of entrepreneurial initiatives of Spanish
universities and the entrepreneurial initiatives’ map
Outputs Entrepreneurial Universities involved in self-instituting efforts to adapt to environmental
experts (EUexp) changes for more than 10 years (Clark 1998) and to be generators of
potential entrepreneurs in their members (Schulte 2004). This
information was obtained from question number five of the
Entrepreneurship Researchers’ Survey developed in step 1 of this
research. EUexp shows which Spanish universities were considered
entrepreneurial by the experts (Guerrero 2008)
Entrepreneurial Universities that promote an entrepreneurial culture in their strategic
culture actions that allows adaptation to environmental changes (Sporn 2001).
(EUculture) This information was collected using the Spanish database from the
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM 2006) where several questions
were incorporated associated with the higher education population
Entrepreneurial Universities that have shown entrepreneurial activities such as patents,
outcomes licences, spin-offs, research agreements (Keast 1995). This data were
(EUoutcomes) obtained from secondary sources such as UNIVERSIA (2006), IPYME
(2006), and Spanish Office of Patents (OEPM 2007). As a consequence,
EUoutcomes evidenced how many entrepreneurial activities have been
generated by the Spanish universities
Entrepreneurial Universities located in regions characterized by higher levels of
region entrepreneurship measured by the number of new enterprises (Audretsch
(EUregion) and Lehrmann 2005). EUregion evidenced how entrepreneurial the
regions are where each Spanish university is located. The information
was obtained from the number of enterprises listed in the Spanish
Institute of Statistics (INE 2008)
University Universities ranked in the top positions of the Spanish universities
ranking rankings (Ewalt 2004). This information was obtained from
(EUrank) Webometrics (2005)
2008). Appendix 2 provides details of the indicators that are included in the SEUS which
represents the average value of indicators that compose the OUTPUTS and INPUTS cat-
egories. Based on this, the universities selected were the first technological and the first
general university of each Spanish region ranked in the top fifteen. Specifically, the uni-
versities selected were: UPC (Catalonia), UPV (Valencia), UAB (Catalonia), USE
(Andalusia), UAM (Madrid), UMH (Valencia), USC (Galicia), and UCA (Andalusia).5
3.2 Data
The data were gathered by e-mail questionnaires administrated to academics enrolled at the
universities selected. The data were collected during the 2007–2008 academic year. The
5
UPC (Technical University of Catalonia), UPV (Technical University of Valencia), UAB (Autonomous
University of Barcelona), USE (University of Seville), UAM (Autonomous University of Madrid), UMH
(Miguel Hernandez University), USC (University of Santiago de Compostela), UCA (University of Cadiz
University).
123
instrument used in this study was a modified version of the Entrepreneurial University
Questionnaire (EUQ) developed by Guerrero (2008). This instrument provides the per-
ception and valuation about environmental and internal factors from each university
analyzed. Particularly, the variables used to measure each construct with a likert scale are
presented in the Table 3.
In this sense, Table 4 shows the technical details of data collection. As can be seen, the
academics’ opinions were obtained from a population of 3,438 academics involved in
business and engineering disciplines. In practice, 200 responses were obtained from aca-
demics with a sample error of ±6.73 at the 95% confidence level (Z = 1.96, p = q = 0.5).
In this study, the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) offers results regarding the causal
relationships among the variables that integrate the proposal model of entrepreneurial
universities. Concretely, this technique has been used with this aim in behavioral sciences
(Shook et al. 2004) and in the entrepreneurship field has allowed to measure entrepreneurial
intentions (Guerrero et al. 2008; Liñán and Chen 2009). In this sense, the structural analysis
has been performed using the SPSS 16.0 and AMOS 7.0 as the software packages. Fur-
thermore, in order to obtain robust results Burnkrant and Page (1982) and Shook et al.
(2004) suggested the constructs’ reliability and convergent analysis (see Appendices 3, 4).
Table 3 Main constructs of the entrepreneurial university
Entrepreneurial university mission (UM)
UM_JS Generate jobseekers UM_EC Promote an entrepreneurial

culture
UM_PI Publishing papers with practical implications UM_Entre Generate entrepreneurs
UM_KT Knowledge transfer (patents, licences, UM_SP Publishing scientific papers
spin-offs)
UM_SRD Contribute to regional and social development
Environmental factors
Formal factors (FF) Informal factors (IF)
FF_RNV Minimal regulations for new IF_ETM Entrepreneurial teaching methodologies

venture creation
FF_STT Support for technology transfer IF_FAS Favorable student attitudes towards
entrepreneurship
FF_SNV Support for start-ups IF_FAP Favorable staff attitudes towards
entrepreneurship
FF_NES Not economical supports IF_AIE Appropriate reward systems
FF_SP Science park IF_ERM Entrepreneurship role models
FF_ECS Entrepreneurship courses for students
FF_ECP Entrepreneurship courses for academics
Internal factors
Resources (R) Capabilities (C)
R_Human Human resources C_History University history

R_Financial Financial resources C_Status University status
R_Physical Physical resources C_Alliances University alliances
R_Commercial Commercial resources C_Localiza University localization
Note: UM university missions, FF Formal factor, IF informal factor, R resources, C capabilities
123
Table 4 Technical details

Detail Academics
Population 3,438 Academics

Criteria Academics of Business Administration and
Engineering from UAB, UPC, UMH, UPV,
UAM, UPM, USE, UCA and USC
Instrument E-mail survey based on the entrepreneurship
researchers’ survey and the entrepreneurial
intention questionnaire (EIQ)
Questions used 10-point scale questions following the
experts’ survey protocol
Sample 346 Academics
Response rate 200 Academics
Sample error ±6.73
Confidence level 95% Z = 1.96 p = q = 0.5
Data fieldwork 2007–2008 Academic year
In general terms, the sample was composed by academics from: UAB (14.5%), UAM
(13.5%), UCA (9.5%), UMH (6.5%), UPC (10%), UPM (7%), USC (13%) and USE
(13.5%). The demographical variables reveal that this sample is dominated by male aca-
demics (61%) with an average age of 42 years. Professionally, most of them have doctoral
studies and their academic’s category is that of associate professor (41.8%) and full pro-
fessor (33.5%). More than 50% of the academics have collaborated with one enterprise,
with a member of the government or other university in their daily activities such as
teacher, researcher or consultant. On average, their labor relationship with the university
reveals an antiquity of less than 15 years.
4 Results and discussion
The European Union has started to develop several strategies, such as the Bologna and
Lisbon declarations, oriented towards fostering entrepreneurial innovation in higher edu-
cational levels. Before this normative, Spanish universities had been pioneers in the
implementation of several strategies with this aim (UPC, UPV, UAB, UAM, USC, and
UMH). These actions represented the basis of their sustained competitive advantage
(O’Shea et al. 2005) and that is reflected on the university outcomes. In this sense, the
academics involved in the universities analyzed gave their perception about the items that
integrate the conceptual model of entrepreneurial university. Therefore, this study provides
the first statistical insights into the environmental and internal factors involved in the
development of entrepreneurial universities in Spain.
The reliability of our measures was estimated by the Cronbach’s a parameters and by
the item to total correlation (Nunnally 1978). The alpha values obtained were higher than
0,700 in the majority of the constructs, and the item to total correlation show positive and
significant values (between 0,674 and 0,877). In other words, it may be considered that
these constructs were sufficiently reliable, since they measure the information they were
designed for Chandler and Lyon (2001). Complementary, the convergent analysis showed
how the items that integrate each constructs and that should be related were in reality
related. In this sense, the correlation coefficient values obtained in each construct were
positive and statistically significant (see Appendices 3, 4). This represents that each item
123
that integrate each construct has a medium and large relationship (Cohen 1988). Based on
that, the next step was to test the theoretical model of entrepreneurial model integrated by
the environmental factors, the internal factors and the entrepreneurial universities missions
proposed in the literature review (Figs. 1, 2). In this sense, the structural path shows the
constructs that have been defined as the factor analyses suggested. In this case, when
performing the full model analysis the items loading in each construct’s scales (see
Appendix 5). As can be seen, this structural path presents significant coefficients and
adequate parameters [v2 normalized 1.798; GFI 0.741; RMSEA 0.063; and CFI 0.877].
According with the evidence obtained, the academics consider that their entrepreneurial
universities are focused on fulfil the teaching, research and entrepreneurial missions
simultaneously. Particularly, the higher valuation were the activities related with the
transference of knowledge (1.728, p \ 0.001), the promotion of an entrepreneurial culture
(1.784, p \ 0.001), and the contribution to the regional development (1.583, p \ 0.001). In
this scenario, the environmental factors (1.000, p \ 0.001) versus the internal factors
(0.370, p \ 0.001) generate a higher contribution to the entrepreneurial universities’
missions. Thus, the structural path evidenced a significant and positive interrelationship
between the environmental and internal factors (0.210, p \ 0.001). Therefore, within these
1
m10 FF_RNV
1
m34
m11 FF_STT 1 1
1
m12 FF_SNV
1
FF_NES Formal Factors
m13
1
m14 FF_SP 1
1
m15 FF_ECS
1
Environmental
m16 FF_ECP Factors
1
m17 IF_ETM
1
1
m18 IF_FAS Informal Factors
1
m19 IF_FAP 1 1
UM_JS m2
1
m20 1
IF_AIE 1
1 UM_Entre m3
1
m21 IF_ERM m33
UM_SP 1 m4
Entrepreneurial
University Missions UM_PI 1 m5
1
UM_KT 1 m6
m1
UM_EC 1 m7
1 m32
m23 R_Human UM_SRD 1 m8
1 1
m24 1 R_Finantial
Resources
1
m25 R_Physical
1
1
m26 R_Commercial Internal Factors
1
m27 C_History
1
1
m28 C_Status Most Critical Factors
Capabilities
1
m29 C_Alliances
m30 1 C_Localization 1
m31
Incremental
Absolute measures Parsimony
measures
X2 607.668 (319) AGFI 0.789 PGFI 0.655
NCP 288.668 NFI 0.852 X2/gl 1.905
GFI 0.834 IFI 0.924 AIC 781.668
RMR 0.434 RFI 0.825
RMSEA 0.067 CFI 0.923
Fig. 2 Model of entrepreneurial university
123
conditions, the environmental and internal factors were examined in-depth to identify the
determinants of entrepreneurial universities in Spain.
Based on the statistical relationships defined by the academic perceptions, the construct of
environmental factors is significantly more conditioned by the informal factors (3.337,
p \ 0.001) than formal factors (1.000, p \ 0.001). Concretely, the most critical factors are
related with the favorable attitudes towards entrepreneurship from researchers (1.211,
p \ 0.001) and students (1.138, p \ 0.001). Intuitively, the mentality inside their univer-
sities started to change over the last 5 years (since 2000). For example, several years ago, the
apparition of a successful academic entrepreneur produced some negative reactions in the
community. Then, the university culture was considered a barrier to the entrepreneurial
process (Shattock 2005). Nowadays, the university culture is changing slowly and the aca-
demic entrepreneur would be considered such a role model who can impact positively in the
university community. Also, this process requires strategic actions that promote entrepre-
neurship associated with monetary and non-monetary incentives (Kirby 2005). Comple-
mentary, the formal factors with higher weights were the entrepreneurial education programs
oriented to potential entrepreneurs inside their universities such as researchers (4.308,
p \ 0.001) and students (3.943, p \ 0.001). In this respect, Krueger (2007) mentions the
importance to examine the deep beliefs that are behind the cognitive structures, attitudes,
intentions and entrepreneurial actions. However, most of the time there is no evidence of the
impact of this entrepreneurial process on the members of the university community because
it is difficult to distinguish the role and the culture at every entrepreneurial stage.
On the other side, the construct of internal factors is significantly conditioned by the
capabilities (1.078, p \ 0.001) and by the resources (1.000, p \ 0.001). Particularly, the
most critical factors are related with the alliances (1.013, p \ 0.001) and the resources
associated with the commercialization of technology (1.192, p \ 0.001). In this way, the
organizational structure was adapting to these changes to create an interface between the
university and industry. In this sense, new hybrid structures appeared within the university
such as Foundations, Science Parks, and Specialized Offices. Actually, these structures
have shown an evolution in their infrastructures, services, interfaces with the industry and
government, and the strategies implemented. In addition, the university has signed several
trades and alliances with other public and private organizations to reinforce its missions.
The main purpose is providing for the university community several mechanisms for
fostering entrepreneurship through a combination of commercial and financial resources.
Complementary, the structural path was tested with the data grouped in two subsamples
according the type of university in general (UAB, UAM, UMH, USC, UCA and USE) and
technological universities (UPC, UPM and UPV). In this new analysis, the parameters and
previous relationships were corroborated in both groups but with a few differences asso-
ciated with the percentage of significance inside each construct (see Appendix 6). The most
relevant differences are linked with their nature (see Fig. 3); however, in practice, the
environmental and internal factors have higher contributions to fulfil all the missions
simultaneously. As a consequence, the main factors behind the entrepreneurial universities
in Spain have been the entrepreneurial attitudes of academics, managers, researchers, staff
and students. This means that an adequate combination of the leadership of the university
government and the positive attitudes towards entrepreneurship of the university com-
munity makes substantial changes possible inside the university (Sporn 2001). In this
sense, following Porter’s ideas (1985), this combination would allow the university to build
a competitive advantage over other universities. Therefore, the entrepreneurial intentions
(informal factors) of the university community (human resources) were the vital factor for
the achievement of the university missions (Powers and McDougall 2005). Finally, the
123
High
FF 3 = Entrepreneurship Education
Courses for Academics and Students
IF 1 = University Community Attitudes
FF 2 = Support Measures
Academics from General Universities
IF 3 = Role Models &

Rewards System
R4 = Commercial Resources
C3 =Alliances
R3 = Physical Resources
IF 2 = Teaching Methodologies
R1 = Human Resources
C1 = History
C4 = Localization
R2 = Financial Resources
C2 = Status
FF 1= Organizational and
Governance Structure
Low Academics from Technological Universities High
Fig. 3 Critical factors involved in the Spanish entrepreneurial universities
impact at the regional level was not explored in this phase because more data are required
to generate robust evidence. Thus, this could be a good opportunity for future research.
5 Conclusion
Entrepreneurship is a wide concept that is observed in several scenarios such as real life
cases, scientific projects, new enterprises and also in the configuration of societies. Spe-
cifically, in this last scenario, the value added is generated through the entrepreneurial
opportunities that make the difference between the traditional and new knowledge econ-
omies (Audretsch 2007). In this context, the entrepreneurial opportunities are associated
with the generation and the exploitation of knowledge considered such a key factor of
production in this economy (Romer 1986). Besides, the university has been experimenting
with several cultural, educational, institutional and legislative challenges in order to be a
survivor inside a global competitive environment. As a result of these challenges, the
phenomenon of entrepreneurial universities has emerged with a common strategy focused
on being entrepreneurial at all university levels (Kirby 2005). This is not surprising
because, since its creation, the university has been considered an innovation to cover the
societies’ necessities. However, universities are complex organizations comprising a
number of overlapping and nested communities of practice (Finlay 2004) and the economic
benefit of universities for the local area is not highly visible. In this respect, Feldman and
Desrochers (2003) found that it might be attributed to the lack of incentives and encour-
agement for commercial activity that might have potentially benefited the local area.
123
In this way, the entrepreneurial university is an instrument that not only provides a
workforce and value added with the creation or transformation of knowledge but also
improves the individual’s values and attitudes towards these issues. During the last years, at
the academia level, this has represented a profitable research opportunity area in order to bring
examples of good practices, strategies, solutions and recommendations to the university
authorities and the policy makers. However, most of studies reveal a tendency to use case
studies and the lack of a robust theoretical framework to understand the interrelations among
the factors that conditioned the development of entrepreneurial university missions (Guerrero
et al. 2006; Guerrero 2008). The main objective of this investigation was to identify the most
critical factors and brings a model to measure this phenomenon empirically. Therefore, the
first challenge was to identify a connection between the theoretical and the practical per-
spectives of this phenomenon adopting the Institutional Economics and Resource Base-View
as a linkage. In this context, this investigation adopted the European Innovation Scoreboard
methodology (European Commission 2005) and the Berlin Principles on Rankings of Higher
Education (Institute for Higher Education Policy 2006) to identify the Spanish entrepre-
neurial university. Afterwards, the model was tested with the structural equation model.
The most critical factors identified were the attitudes towards entrepreneurship from
academics and students. The main explanation for this is that each university community is
unique and its attitudes towards entrepreneurship are defined by a combination of factors,
such as entrepreneurship education, teaching methodologies, role models and reward
systems. An interesting point is that only few studies in the field have analyzed the
academics’ intentions (Hay et al. 2002). From this analysis, the stages model of an
entrepreneurial university could be defined by an application orientation, a product ori-
entation and a business orientation (Tijssen 2006). Hence, it is important to recognize the
university typologies because not all universities are fully technological. In this sense,
strategies need to be adapted to each type of university because the technological has the
knowledge production and the strong relationship with the industry as its main competitive
advantages, while the general has the multidisciplinary approach that helps to exploit
several areas such as the phenomenon of nanotechnology, biosciences, cogno or info
sciences. In summary, the results not only show empirical evidence about the conceptual
framework proposed in this investigation but also about the identification of several stages
of Entrepreneurial Universities. From this perspective and considering the Institutional
Economics (formal and informal factors) and Resource Base-View (resources and capa-
bilities), Table 5 presents the stages model of an entrepreneurial university based on
Tijssen (2006). Complementary, the relevance could be measured by the economical and
social externalities (value creation) associated with its impact on policy, demography,
economy, infrastructure, culture, mobility, education and society (Guerrero 2008).
The results of this research bring implications to university authorities about the human
capital that constitutes the potential entrepreneurs (staff, academics and researchers, and
students). In this sense, the university would to develop several strategies, structures and a
culture oriented to reinforce: (1) better methods of quality education and training based on
the personal growth that supports the creativity and entrepreneurial experience; and (2)
better strategies for incentives. Also, industry implications evidenced by the necessity for
strong collaborative agreements between university and industry. Concretely, the small and
medium-sized enterprise requires those mechanisms to survive in a competitive environ-
ment because in the new economy the firm’s main strategic advantage is its knowledge and
human capital. The university generates ideas and qualified human resources while
industry has the economic resources to transform ideas into economically useful products.
123
Table 5 Entrepreneurial universities’ stages

Factor Stages
Initial stage Development Consolidation

UCA & USE UMH & UAM & UPC & UPV & USC
UPM & UAB
FF & IF Three missions Planned Planned and implemented Institutionalized

Governance Collegial Bureaucratic & collegial Entrepreneurial &
collegial
Organizational Permanent Shift (Hybrids) Challenge (Hybrids)
structures (Basic)
Support measures Planned Implemented Institutionalized
Entrepreneurial For students For students & academics Institutionalized
education
Attitudes to Intuitive Familiarized Incorporated
entrepreneurship
Role models & Observed Promoted Promoted
incentives
R&C Key resources Human Human & commercial & All
physical
Key capabilities Alliances Alliances & localization & All
status
Entrepreneurial activities Lower Medium Higher
Note: IF informal factor, FF formal factor, R resources, and C capabilities
This research has several limitations that creates future research lines; for example, an
extended investigation comparing Spanish entrepreneurial universities with other European
or American universities. Also, a longitudinal comparison of the entrepreneurial evolution of
each university would prove to be useful and interesting information. In addition, other
diagnostics with analytical tools applied to universities’ strategies in other regions would be a
good research opportunity (Wong et al. 2007). Furthermore, there are other factors that need
to be considered in the conceptual model proposed; for example, in-depth analysis needs to be
focused on the influence of formal factors such as specific legislation, initiatives, incentives or
other strategies developed by the regional governments to foster entrepreneurship and
innovation. Also, there is a need for further research on the informal factors linked with the
impact of social dynamics of entrepreneurship in the configuration of entrepreneurial
intentions, and the acceptance of academic entrepreneurs (role models) in the region.
Acknowledgments A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2009 Technology Transfer
Society Annual Conference (Greensboro, North Carolina, October, 2). We are most grateful to several
participants for their comments and suggestions, which have contributed to the improvement of this study. In
particular, we highly appreciate comments from Professor Albert N. Link and Professor Sarfraz Mian. We
are also grateful to comments and suggestions by two anonymous reviewers, which have decisively con-
tributed to improve this final version of the manuscript. Finally, Maribel Guerrero has received financial
support from the Autonomous University of Tamaulipas (Mexico). David Urbano has received financial
resources from SEJ2007-60995 (Spanish Ministry of Education and Science) and 2005SGR00858 (Catalan
Government’s Department for Universities, Research and Information Society).
123
Appendix 1 Selected empirical studies of entrepreneurial universities
Author Unit of analysis Objective Theoretical Methodology Findings
framework
Formal factors
Keast (1995) Alberta, Canada To identify the entrepreneurial Entrepreneurship Interviews with the vice- Entrepreneurship and associated activities or
activities and organizational president and director of initiatives is becoming increasingly important
structure to promote research research to administrators
Slaughter and US, Australia, To identify the structures to respond Keynesian and Interviews with academics Explanation and development of the concept of
Leslie UK and to the changes Marxist models and faculty members academic capitalism
(1997) Canada
Klofsten and Universities in To examine the activities of Academic Ten case studies and Impact of previous entrepreneurial experiences
Jones- Ireland and academics involved with industry in entrepreneurship structured questionnaires among academics in both countries and their
Evans Sweden two small European countries to all academics practical application in activities such as
(2000) (n = 1857) consultancy and contract research
Jacob et al. Technology To describe and analyze the internal Entrepreneurial Interviews with the One important element required for innovation
(2003) University of transformation process universities principal actors in the is macro- (vision and implementation) and
Chalmers in (Clark 1998) internal transformation micro- (university organization) level
Sweden process flexibility and diversity
Ranga et al. Universiteit To explore the impact of the science- Knowledge 2356 Publications in Suggest that the academic research groups have
(2003) Leuven industry relationship on the production Science Citation Index developed a record of applied research without
knowledge production of academic Triple-helix (SCI) affecting the basic research publications
research groups
Zhao (2004) Australian To explore the issues associated with Academic Extensive interviews with Identified and discussed the key issues in the
universities the commercialization of university entrepreneurship academic entrepreneurs study and proposed a series of
research and commercialization recommendations to enhance the overall
managers performance of university research
commercialization
Audretsch Germany To discover if technical universities Academic 276 IPO (Initial Public Technical universities do not bestow any
and universities have been more successful in entrepreneurship Stock Offering) firms in location advantage to firm performance.
Lehrmann commercialization of knowledge Firm growth Germany from 73 Hence it will take more than just this type of
(2005) than other universities universities university to generate knowledge spillovers
Regression models
123
Appendix 1 continued

framework
123
Debackere Catholic To document and analyze the Academic Case study The development of an adequate structure and
and University of evolution of ‘‘effective’’ university- entrepreneurship Secondary sources processes need careful attention and support
Veugelers Louvain based technology transfer Institutional on behalf of the university’s management as
(2005) mechanisms economics well as of the institutional context
Lazzeretti University of To show that local economic Entrepreneurial Direct observation, some A strong entrepreneurial vision and the adoption
and Twente, The relevance and international universities interviews and of different concepts of knowledge may be the
Tavoletti Netherlands excellence are not incompatible (Clark 1998) documentation key to reaching both local economic relevance
(2005) objectives and international excellence
Powers and US research To investigate the effect of particular RBV 120 Research intensive The results confirm that university funding,
McDougall intensive resource sets on two university Academic institutions human capital, and organizational resources
(2005) institutions commercialization activities: spin- entrepreneurship are the most significant predictors of spin-off
offs and initial public offering or initial public offering
Baldini et al. Italian Focusing on the way that patenting Knowledge 637 Patent applications The influence of regulation, the number of
(2006) universities activities are affected by internal production and from 1965 to 2002 patents rose substantially. This institutional
regulations technology Secondary databases characteristic made the difference
transference Multivariate analysis
Eun et al. Chinese To explain and evaluate the evolution Triple helix Chinese situation from the The universities show a path from a close
(2005) universities of university-run enterprises in New economics of 1980s to 1990s integration to gradual separation with the
China science Secondary data industry
Yokoyama Japanese and UK To scrutinize the organizational Entrepreneurial Four case studies (Japan New institutional strategies (governance,
(2006) universities change in Japanese and UK universities and UK) management, leadership and funding) and the
universities which are engaged in (Clark 1998; Secondary sources relationship with other institutions provide five
entrepreneurial activities Sporn 2001) (documentation) types of entrepreneurial universities

framework
Tijssen Universities To introduce concepts, theory, and Entrepreneurial Quantitative approach A conceptual framework and measurement
(2006) in the measurement models to identify the universities OECD Database model of science-based entrepreneurial
Organisation stage of the university’s (Clark 1998) multivariate analysis orientation in three phases (applied, product,
for Economic entrepreneurial orientation and business)
Co-operation
and
Development
OECD
countries
Informal factors
Ryu (1998) Yonsei To explore how Korean Universities Entrepreneurial Semi-structured interviews Identification of strategic planning and the
University and their professors have been scholarship with senior male development of the academic services
of Korea responding to demands for academic staff

knowledge creation
Hsu et al. MIT To analyze the major patterns and Entrepreneurial Enterprises founded by The number of entrepreneurial graduates
(2007) trends in entrepreneurship among intentions MIT graduates. increases in response to the business and
technology-based university alumni Multivariate analysis entrepreneurial environment. Indeed, this
since the 1930s suggests the importance of reinforcing the
research activities
Clark (1998) England, To explore the different Globalization Semi-structured Identifies the five core factors of entrepreneurial
Netherlands, organizational forms of entrepreneurship interviews, direct universities
Scotland, entrepreneurial organizations observation and
Sweden, documentation
Finland
Formal and informal factors
Sporn (2001) Universities To know the strategy to adapt to Approaches related Six case studies of Identification of critical factors related to the
from US, environmental changes to environmental institutions facing adaptation process: environment, culture,
Italy and forces and changing environments structure, administration, governance and
Australia university and having a history of leadership
structures adaptation
123

framework
123
Smilor et al. High To explore the drivers that have Knowledge Four case studies in an The cases reveal the influence of organization,
(2007) technology shaped more proactive and production and entrepreneurial region leadership, role models, financial resources,
centers in the entrepreneurial approach to create technology Secondary data and the benefits inside a research
US research entrepreneurial universities transference entrepreneurial university
Wong et al. National To explore how Asian universities are Knowledge Case study Represent the change from a small and newly
(2007) University of responding to the globalization of production and Secondary data industrialized economy to the knowledge-
Singapore the knowledge economy economic Descriptive analysis based economy in Singapore
development
Resource based view
O’Shea et al. US To analyze why some universities are RBV (institutional, Panel data from 1980 and The relevance of university resources and their
(2005) Universities more successful than others in the human, financial, 2001 combination made the difference in variation
generation of spin-offs commercial of spin-off activity
resources)
O’Shea et al. MIT To explain the anatomy of an RBV Case study The evidence suggests that four attributes are
(2008) entrepreneurial university Secondary databases important in supporting spin-off activity;
Interviews individuals, organization, culture, and
environment
Appendix 2 Spanish entrepreneurial university scoreboard
University EUinitiatives INPUTS (I) EU experts EU culture
Start-up courses University-enterprise OTRIs Other initiatives
UPC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94

UPV 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.80
UAB 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90
USE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 – 0.98
UAM 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 – 0.73
UB 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 – 0.92
UGR 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 – 0.88
UPM 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 – 0.86
UMH 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 – 0.35
UAL 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 – 0.18

UNAVARRA 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 – 0.14
USC 1.00 1.00 – 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.59
UV 1.00 – 1.00 1.00 0.75 – 0.96
UA 1.00 1.00 1.00 – 0.75 – 0.84
UAH 1.00 1.00 1.00 – 0.75 – 0.27
UCA 1.00 – 1.00 1.00 0.75 – 0.20
UIA 1.00 1.00 1.00 – 0.75 – 0.02
UBU 1.00 1.00 1.00 – 0.75 – 0.12
UIMP – 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 – –
UC3M – – 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.55
UDG 1.00 – 1.00 – 0.50 – 0.41
UNIOVI 1.00 – 1.00 – 0.50 – 0.67
UPF 1.00 – 1.00 – 0.50 – 0.78
UNIZAR 1.00 – 1.00 – 0.50 – 0.82
123
123
UDL 1.00 – 1.00 – 0.50 – 0.29
URJC 1.00 – 1.00 – 0.50 – 0.24
UIB 1.00 – 1.00 – 0.50 – 0.69
UJAEN 1.00 – 1.00 – 0.50 – 0.10
UDC 1.00 – 1.00 – 0.50 – 0.49
ULPGC 1.00 – 1.00 – 0.50 – 0.47
ULL 1.00 – 1.00 – 0.50 – 0.37
UPO – 1.00 1.00 – 0.50 – 0.06
EHU – – 1.00 – 0.25 – 0.71
UPCT 1.00 – 1.00 – 0.50 – 0.04
UMA – – 1.00 – 0.25 – 0.53
USAL – – 1.00 – 0.25 – 0.57
UM – – 1.00 – 0.25 – 0.65
UCM – – 1.00 – 0.25 – 1.00
UVA – – 1.00 – 0.25 – 0.76
URV – – 1.00 – 0.25 – 0.08
UJI – – 1.00 – 0.25 – 0.63
UVIGO – – 1.00 – 0.25 – 0.51
UNICAN – – 1.00 – 0.25 – 0.31
UNILEON – – 1.00 – 0.25 – 0.22
UNEX – – 1.00 – 0.25 – 0.45
UCLM – – 1.00 – 0.25 – 0.43
UHU – – 1.00 – 0.25 – 0.16
UNED – – – – – – 0.61
UNIRIOJA – – – – – – 0.39
UCO – – – – – – 0.33
University EUOutcomes EU region EU ranking OUTPUTS SEUS = No.

(O) (I ? O)/2
Start-up for Start-up courses Graduate Research Patents Spin-offs Thesis
alumni valuation students productivity
UPC 0.08 0.50 0.36 0.52 1.00 0.55 0.18 1.00 0.59 0.61 0.81 1
UPV 0.08 0.31 0.28 0.35 0.90 1.00 0.27 0.55 0.52 0.55 0.78 2
UAB 0.06 – 0.56 1.00 0.28 0.07 0.70 1.00 – 0.51 0.75 3
USE 0.22 0.41 0.59 0.29 0.67 0.05 0.45 0.77 0.80 0.47 0.74 4
UAM 0.54 0.16 0.33 0.82 0.37 0.01 0.62 0.76 0.54 0.44 0.72 5
UB 0.42 0.31 0.14 0.98 0.31 0.09 0.06 1.00 0.49 0.43 0.71 6
UGR 0.28 0.33 0.55 0.38 0.46 0.04 0.48 0.77 0.43 0.42 0.71 6
UPM 0.16 0.30 0.28 0.28 0.46 0.06 0.24 0.76 0.51 0.35 0.68 7
UMH – 0.29 0.07 0.63 0.13 0.01 0.08 0.55 0.51 0.24 0.62 8
UAL 0.02 0.25 0.11 0.35 0.13 0.00 0.07 0.77 0.44 0.21 0.61 9
UNAVARRA 0.30 0.31 0.10 0.46 0.14 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.50 0.19 0.59 10
USC 0.34 – 0.34 0.65 0.54 0.44 0.30 0.31 – 0.41 0.58 11
UV 0.32 0.26 0.53 0.66 0.28 – 0.47 0.55 0.47 0.41 0.58 11
UA 0.12 0.35 0.22 0.43 0.23 – 0.12 0.55 0.52 0.31 0.53 12
UAH 0.02 0.32 0.18 0.56 0.27 – 0.18 0.76 0.49 0.28 0.51 13
UCA 0.22 0.41 0.19 0.28 0.20 0.02 0.13 0.77 0.51 0.27 0.51 13
123
University EUOutcomes EU EU OUTPUTS SEUS = No.
Region Ranking (O) (I ? O)/2
Start-up Start-up Graduate Research Patents Spin-offs Thesis
123
for courses students productivity
alumni valuation
UIA – 0.37 0.19 – – – – 0.77 0.54 0.17 0.46 14

UBU 0.04 0.35 0.10 0.20 0.03 – 0.04 0.27 0.60 0.16 0.45 15
UIMP – 0.58 – – – – – 0.19 0.65 0.13 0.44 16
UC3M 0.06 0.35 0.13 0.48 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.76 0.48 0.37 0.43 17
UDG 0.06 0.57 0.12 0.40 0.03 0.04 0.06 1.00 0.80 0.32 0.41 18
UNIOVI 0.60 0.25 0.31 0.41 0.34 – 0.24 0.10 0.53 0.31 0.41 18
UPF – 0.35 0.12 0.53 0.02 – 0.06 1.00 0.51 0.31 0.40 19
UNIZAR 0.16 0.32 0.35 0.41 0.35 0.01 0.27 0.13 0.53 0.30 0.40 19
UDL 0.06 0.34 0.34 0.32 0.01 – 0.27 1.00 0.53 0.29 0.39 20
URJC 0.04 0.74 0.10 0.21 0.05 – 0.05 0.76 0.56 0.25 0.37 21
UIB 0.14 0.37 0.12 0.45 0.09 0.03 0.06 0.11 0.52 0.23 0.37 21
UJAEN 0.04 0.31 0.13 0.35 0.08 – 0.05 0.77 0.47 0.21 0.36 22
UDC 0.08 0.26 0.24 0.30 0.17 0.03 0.11 0.31 0.48 0.22 0.36 22
ULPGC 0.24 0.33 0.18 0.20 0.09 – 0.26 0.19 0.51 0.22 0.36 22
ULL 0.30 0.37 0.18 0.28 0.05 – 0.13 0.19 0.49 0.21 0.36 22
UPO – 0.28 0.04 0.27 0.02 – 0.06 0.77 0.49 0.18 0.34 23
EHU 0.44 0.47 0.58 0.34 0.21 0.10 0.11 0.28 0.77 0.36 0.31 24
UPCT – 0.26 0.04 0.32 0.05 – 0.09 0.11 0.50 0.13 0.31 24
UMA 0.14 0.43 0.28 0.33 0.36 – 0.22 0.77 0.71 0.34 0.30 25
USAL 0.24 0.75 0.32 0.34 0.17 – 0.36 0.27 0.60 0.33 0.29 26
UM 0.56 0.40 0.25 0.46 0.13 0.01 0.23 0.11 0.60 0.31 0.28 27
University EUOutcomes EU EU OUTPUTS SEUS = No.
region ranking (O) (I ? O)/2
Start-up Start-up Graduate Research Patents Spin-offs Thesis
for courses students productivity
alumni valuation
UCM 1.00 – 1.00 0.52 0.51 0.00 1.00 0.76 0.20 0.54 0.27 28
UVA 0.18 0.26 0.39 0.30 0.09 – 0.46 0.27 0.50 0.29 0.27 28
URV 0.02 0.33 0.13 0.71 0.06 0.00 0.09 1.00 0.60 0.28 0.26 29
UJI 0.02 0.44 0.10 0.53 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.55 0.56 0.27 0.26 30
UVIGO 0.20 0.20 0.23 0.52 0.38 0.01 0.12 0.31 0.46 0.27 0.26 30
UNICAN 0.08 – 0.13 0.56 0.19 0.02 0.08 0.19 0.70 0.20 0.23 31
UNILEON 0.10 0.50 0.13 0.28 0.06 0.01 0.11 0.27 0.50 0.20 0.22 32
UNEX 0.14 0.14 0.27 0.34 0.04 0.01 0.11 0.06 0.51 0.19 0.22 32
UCLM 0.36 – 0.31 0.29 0.10 – 0.09 0.17 – 0.16 0.20 33
UHU 0.04 – 0.13 0.20 0.08 – 0.04 0.77 – 0.13 0.19 34
UNED 0.24 – 0.31 0.21 0.09 – 0.18 0.76 0.73 0.28 0.14 35
UNIRIOJA – 1.00 0.07 0.26 0.05 – 0.02 – 1.00 0.25 0.13 36
UCO 0.06 – 0.20 0.50 0.20 0.00 0.19 0.77 0.40 0.24 0.12 37
123
Appendix 3 Reliability and convergent analysis of entrepreneurial universities’ constructs
Variables Items Factorial Reliability Convergent
analysis
Cronbach Item to UM_JS UM_Entre UM_SP UM_PI UM_KT UM_EC UM_SRD
123
total
Entrepreneurial university UM
mission UM_JS Generate jobseekers KMO 0.911 0.684*** 1
UM_Entre Generate entrepreneurs 0.864 0.867*** 0.603*** 1
X2 1026.5
UM_SP Publishing scientific papers Sig. *** 0.676*** 0.559*** 0.477*** 1
UM_PI Publishing papers with practical 0.872*** 0.529*** 0.705*** 0.653*** 1
implications
UM_KT Knowledge transfer (patents, 0.865*** 0.417*** 0.726*** 0.409*** 0.711*** 1
licences, spin-offs)
UM_EC Promote an entrepreneurial culture 0.836*** 0.344*** 0.716*** 0.341*** 0.660*** 0.840*** 1
UM_SRD Contribute to regional and social 0.854*** 0.539*** 0.669*** 0.470*** 0.684*** 0.718*** 0.731*** 1
development
Variables Items Factorial analysis Reliability Convergent
Cronbach Item to total FF_RNV FF_STT FF_SNV FF_NES FF_SP FF_ECS FF_ECP
Environmental factors FF
FF_RNV Minimal regulations for new venture creation KMO 0.882 0.674*** 1
FF_STT Support for technology transfer 0.874 0.763*** 0.533*** 1
X2 695.25
FF_SNV Support for start-ups Sig. *** 0.795*** 0.484*** 0.566*** 1
FF_NES Not economical supports 0.836*** 0.484*** 0.635*** 0.633*** 1
FF_SP Science park 0.707*** 0.372*** 0.420*** 0.496*** 0.553*** 1
FF_ECS Entrepreneurship courses for students 0.769*** 0.353*** 0.487*** 0.506*** 0.591*** 0.408*** 1
FF_ECP Entrepreneurship courses for academics 0.811*** 0.369*** 0.511*** 0.550*** 0.631*** 0.494*** 0.776*** 1
Variables Items Factorial Reliability Convergent
analysis
Cronbach Item to total IF_ETM IF_FAS IF_FAP IF_AIE IF_ERM
Environmental IF
factors IF_ETM Entrepreneurial teaching methodologies KMO 0.864 0.731*** 1
IF_FAS Favorable student attitudes towards 0.797 0.871*** 0.582*** 1
entrepreneurship X2 554.72
Sig. ***
IF_FAP Favorable staff attitudes towards entrepreneurship 0.877*** 0.566*** 0.870*** 1
IF_AIE Appropriate reward systems 0.756*** 0.334*** 0.521*** 0.572*** 1
IF_ERM Entrepreneurship role models 0.787*** 0.490*** 0.588*** 0.562*** 0.516*** 1
Cronbach Item to total R_Human R_Financia R_Physical R_Comme

Internal factors R
R_Human Human resources KMO 0.809 0.735*** 1
R_Financial Financial resources 0.752 0.839*** 0.458*** 1
X2 292.02
R_Physical Physical resources Sig. *** 0.839*** 0.433*** 0.747*** 1
R_Commercial Commercial resources 0.774*** 0.410*** 0.514*** 0.523*** 1

Cronbach Item to total
C_History C_Status C_Alliances C_Localiz
Internal factors C
C_History University history KMO 0.835 0.797*** 1
C_Status University status 0.737 0.874*** 0.720*** 1
X2 364.26
C_Alliances University alliances Sig. *** 0.874*** 0.565*** 0.693*** 1
C_Localization University localization 0.727*** 0.332*** 0.444*** 0.599*** 1
Note: *** p \ 0.001; ** p \ 0.005; * p \ 0.010

UM; university missions, FF; formal factor, IF; informal factor, R; resources, C; capabilities
123
Appendix 4 Convergent analysis of environmental and internal factors of entrepreneurial universities

Environmental Factors
Regression Weights Estimate S.E. C.R. P
1 FF_RNV
m10 Formal Factors <--> Informal Factors 1.383 0.274 5.046 ***
FF_RNV <--- Formal Factors 1.000
1 FF_STT FF_STT <--- Formal Factors 1.212 0.173 6.988 ***
m11 1
FF_SNV <--- Formal Factors 1.430 0.216 6.628 ***
m12 1 FF_SNV FF_NES <--- Formal Factors 1.430 0.207 6.918 ***
FF_SP <--- Formal Factors 1.351 0.231 5.849 ***
1 FF_NES Formal Factors FF_ECS <--- Formal Factors 1.527 0.240 6.365 ***
m13
FF_ECP <--- Formal Factors 1.741 0.265 6.576 ***
m14 1 IF_AIE <--- Informal Factors 1.146 0.146 7.858 ***
FF_SP
IF_ERM <--- Informal Factors 1.091 0.126 8.639 ***
m15 1 IF_FAP <--- Informal Factors 1.224 0.124 9.854 ***
FF_ECS
IF_ETM <--- Informal Factors 1.000
m16 1 IF_FAS <--- Informal Factors 1.105 0.114 9.658 ***
FF_ECP
m17 1 IF_ETM
1 Absolute measures Incremental measures Parsimony
m18 1
IF_FAS Informal Factors
1 M0 M1 M0 M1 M0 M1
m19 IF_FAP
1 X2 330.63(53) 141.80(45) AGFI 0.740 0.811 PGFI 0.559 0.514
m20 IF_AIE GFI 0.823 0.891 NFI 0.788 0.909 X2/gl 6.238 3.151
RMR 1.455 0.232 IFI 0.816 0.936 AIC 380.64 207.80
m21 1 IF_ERM RMSEA 0.162 0.104 RFI 0.736 0.867
CFI 0.814 0.935
Note: *** p < 0.001; **

p < 0.005; * p < 0.010
Internal Factors
Regression Weights Estimate S.E. C.R. P
Resources <--> Capabilities 1.607 0.314 5.123 ***
1 R_Human <--- Resources 1.000
m23 R_ Human
R_Financial <--- Resources 1.362 0.178 7.660 ***
1
R_Physical <--- Resources 1.458 0.191 7.642 ***
R_Financial R_Commercial <--- Resources 1.104 0.170 6.485 ***
m24 1
C_Alliances <--- Capabilities 0.970 0.086 11.322 ***
Resources C_Localization <--- Capabilities 0.596 0.092 6.516 ***
m25 1 R_Physical C_Status <--- Capabilities 1.164 0.092 12.680 ***
C_History <--- Capabilities 1.000
1
m26 R_Commercial
m27 1 C_History
1
m28 1 C_Status
Capabilities
1 C_Alliances
m29
Absolute measures Incremental measures Parsimony
m30 1 C_Localization
M0 M1 M0 M1 M0 M1
X2 174.57(20) AGFI 0.695 PGFI 0.461

GFI 0.830 NFI 0.782 X2/gl 8.72
RMR 1.506 IFI 0.802 AIC 206.572
RMSEA 0.197 RFI 0.695
CFI 0.800
Note: *** p < 0.001; **

p < 0.005; * p < 0.010
Appendix 5 Factors of entrepreneurial universities (global sample)

Regression weights Estimate S.E. C.R. p
Entrepreneurial university \— Environmental 1.000

missions
Entrepreneurial university \— Internal 0.377 0.094 4.024 ***
missions
Internal \— Environmental 0.206 0.071 2.899 ***
Formal factors \— Environmental 1.000
Informal factors \— Environmental 3.337 0.820 4.068 ***
Resources \— Internal 1.000
Capabilities \— Internal 1.078 0.198 5.449 ***
UM_PI \— Entrepreneurial university 1.526 0.161 9.463 ***
missions
UM_SP \— Entrepreneurial university 0.965 0.117 8.227 ***
missions
123
Regression weights Estimate S.E. C.R. p
UM_Entre \— Entrepreneurial university 1.597 0.148 10.809 ***

missions
UM_JS \— Entrepreneurial university 1.000
missions
UM_KT \— Entrepreneurial university 1.728 0.178 9.712 ***
missions
UM_EC \— Entrepreneurial university 1.784 0.187 9.564 ***
missions
UM_SRD \— Entrepreneurial university 1.583 0.165 9.574 ***
missions
FF_RNV \— Formal factors 1.000
FF_STT \— Formal factors 2.855 0.645 4.425 ***
FF_SNV \— Formal factors 3.119 0.724 4.308 ***
FF_NES \— Formal factors 3.411 0.775 4.403 ***
FF_SP \— Formal factors 3.015 0.736 4.098 ***
FF_ECS \— Formal factors 3.943 0.927 4.255 ***
FF_ECP \— Formal factors 4.308 1.005 4.286 ***
IF_AIE \— Informal factors 1.141 0.143 8.001 ***
IF_ERM \— Informal factors 1.114 0.125 8.882 ***
IF_FAP \— Informal factors 1.211 0.121 9.985 ***
IF_ETM \— Informal factors 1.000
IF_FAS \— Informal factors 1.138 0.113 10.047 ***
R_Human \— Resources 1.000
R_Financial \— Resources 1.017 0.139 7.329 ***
R_Physical \— Resources 1.083 0.149 7.283 ***
R_Commercial \— Resources 1.192 0.159 7.509 ***
C_Alliances \— Capabilities 1.013 0.115 8.773 ***
C_Localization \— Capabilities 0.620 0.112 5.522 ***
C_Status \— Capabilities 0.884 0.091 9.665 ***
C_History \— Capabilities 1.000
Note: *** p \ 0.001; ** p \ 0.005; * p \ 0.010
Appendix 6 Factors of entrepreneurial universities by type of university (subsamples general &

technological)
Regression weights General universities Technological universities
Estimate S.E. C.R. p Estimate S.E. C.R. p
Entrepreneurial \— Environmental 1.000 1.000

university
missions
Entrepreneurial \— Internal 0.361 0.110 3.265 *** 0.483 0.198 2.444 **
university
missions
Internal \— Environmental 0.218 0.090 2.407 ** 0.112 0.083 1.345
123
Regression weights General universities Technological universities
Estimate S.E. C.R. p Estimate S.E. C.R. p
Formal factors \— Environmental 1.000 1.000

Informal factors \— Environmental 2.679 0.789 3.396 *** 7.171 4.118 1.742 *
Resources \— Internal 1.000 1.000
Capabilities \— Internal 1.068 0.240 4.457 *** 0.953 0.334 2.853 **
UM_PI \— Entrepreneurial 1.462 0.174 8.379 *** 1.818 0.359 5.062 ***
university
missions
UM_SP \— Entrepreneurial 0.931 0.133 6.972 *** 1.193 0.235 5.083 ***
university
missions
UM_Entre \— Entrepreneurial 1.679 0.165 10.168 *** 1.302 0.254 5.132 ***
university
missions
UM_JS \— Entrepreneurial 1.000 1.000
university
missions
UM_KT \— Entrepreneurial 1.686 0.196 8.609 *** 1.758 0.354 4.964 ***
university
missions
UM_EC \— Entrepreneurial 1.728 0.208 8.302 *** 1.539 0.340 4.525 ***
university
missions
UM_SRD \— Entrepreneurial 1.629 0.187 8.694 *** 1.338 0.300 4.454 ***
university
missions
FF_STT \— Formal factors 2.918 0.787 3.708 *** 3.511 1.833 1.915 *
FF_SNV \— Formal factors 3.311 0.925 3.579 *** 3.425 1.679 2.040 **
FF_NES \— Formal factors 3.493 0.942 3.710 *** 3.833 2.010 1.907 *
FF_SP \— Formal factors 2.979 0.857 3.477 *** 3.541 2.012 1.760 *
FF_ECS \— Formal factors 3.817 1.062 3.595 *** 5.729 3.084 1.857 *
FF_ECP \— Formal factors 4.121 1.138 3.622 *** 6.647 3.547 1.874 *
IF_AIE \— Informal factors 1.196 0.205 5.843 *** 1.095 0.183 5.983 ***
IF_ERM \— Informal factors 1.326 0.195 6.805 *** 0.841 0.151 5.572 ***
IF_FAP \— Informal factors 1.283 0.180 7.133 *** 1.114 0.147 7.599 ***
IF_ETM \— Informal factors 1.000 1.000
IF_FAS \— Informal factors 1.220 0.168 7.276 *** 1.051 0.143 7.369 ***
R_Human \— Resources 1.000 1.000
R_Financial \— Resources 0.962 0.148 6.485 *** 0.824 0.278 2.964 **
R_Physical \— Resources 1.028 0.159 6.452 *** 1.184 0.332 3.564 ***
R_Commercial \— Resources 1.148 0.174 6.583 *** 1.400 0.380 3.680 ***
C_Alliances \— Capabilities 1.033 0.136 7.612 *** 1.130 0.279 4.055 ***
C_Localization \— Capabilities 0.535 0.127 4.217 *** 1.067 0.306 3.482 ***
C_Status \— Capabilities 0.865 0.093 9.342 *** 0.842 0.223 3.776 ***
C_History \— Capabilities 1.000 1.000
Note *** p \ 0.001; ** p \ 0.005; * p \ 0.01
123
References
Aidis, R., Estrin, S., & Mickiewicz, T. (2008). Institutions and entrepreneurship development in Russia: A
comparative perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 23(6), 656–672.
Amit, R., & Schoemaker, D. C. (1993). Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management
Journal, 14(1), 33–46.
Antoncic, B., & Hisrich, R. (2001). Intrapreneurship: Construct refinement and cross-cultural validation.
Journal of Business Venturing, 16(5), 495–527.
Audretsch, D. (2007). The entrepreneurial society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E., & Warning, S. (2005). University spillovers and new firm location.
Research Policy, 34(7), 113–1122.
Audretsch, D., & Lehrmann, E. (2005). Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for
regions? Research Policy, 34(8), 1191–1202.
Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2006). Institutional changes and the commercialization of aca-
demic knowledge: A study of Italian universities’ patenting activities between 1965 and 2002.
Burnkrant, R. E., & Page, T. J. (1982). An examination of the convergent, discriminant and predictive
validity of Fishbein’s behavioral intention model. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 526–550.
Bygrave, W. D., & Hofer, C. W. (1991). Theorizing about entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, 16(2), 13–22.
Chandler, G. N., & Lyon, D. W. (2001). Issues of research design and construct measurement in entre-
preneurship research: The past decade. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25(4), 101–113.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities. Oxford: Pergamon.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dearlove, J. (2002). A continuing role of academics: The governance of UK universities in the post-Dearing
era. Higher Education Quarterly, 53(3), 257–275.
Debackere, K., & Veugelers, R. (2005). The role of academic technology transfer organizations in
improving industry science links. Research Policy, 34(3), 321–342.
Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?
Dill, D. (1995). University-industry entrepreneurship: The organization and management of American
university technology transfer units. Higher Education, 29(4), 369–384.
Eccles, C. (2002). The use of university rankings in the United Kingdom. Higher Education in Europe,
XXVII(4), 423–432.
Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology
and Globalization, 1(1), 64–77.
Eun, J., Lee, K., & Wu, G. (2005). Explaining the university-run enterprises in China: A theoretical
framework for university–industry relationship in developing countries and its application to China.
European Commission. (2005). European innovation scoreboard 2005. http://www.trendchart.org/score
boards/scoreboard2005/index.cfm. Accessed 25 June 2006.
European Commission. (2008). European innovation scoreboard 2007. http://www.proinno-europe.eu/index.
cfm?fuseaction=page.display&topicID=275&parentID=51#. Accessed 25 September 2008.
Ewalt, D. M. (2004). America’s most entrepreneurial campuses: Methodology. New York: Forbes. http://
www.forbes.com/lists/2004/10/21/cx_de_1021_04conncampentrepremeth.html. Accessed 28 June 2006.
Federkeil, G. (2002). Some aspects of ranking methodology. The Che-ranking of German universities.
Higher Education in Europe, XXVII(4), 389–397.
Feldman, M., & Desrochers, P. (2003). Research universities and local economic development: Lessons
from the history of the Johns Hopkins University. Industry and Innovation, 10(1), 5–24.
Fiet, J. (2000). The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2),
101–117.
Fiet, J. (2001). The theoretical side of teaching entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(2),
1–24.
Finlay, I. (2004). Living in an entrepreneurial university. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 9(3),
421–434.
Florida, R., & Kenney, M. (1988). Venture capital financed innovation and technological change in the
United States. Research Policy, 17(3), 119–137.
Gallagher, M. (2000). The emergence of entrepreneurial public universities in Australia. In Paper Presented
at the IMHE General Conference of the OECD Paris, September 2000.
123
Gartner, W., & Birley, S. (2002). Introduction to the special issue on qualitative methods in entrepreneurship
research. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(5), 387–395.
GEM. (2006). Global entrepreneurship monitor—Spanish database. Wellesley MA: London Business
School and Babson College.
Grupo SCImago. (2007). La productividad ISI de las universidades españolas (2000–2004). El profesional
de la información, 16(4), 354–358.
Guerrero, M. (2008). The creation and development of entrepreneurial universities in Spain: An institutional
approach, PhD dissertation. Barcelona: Autonomous University of Barcelona.
Guerrero, M., Rialp, J., & Urbano, D. (2008). The impact of desirability and feasibility on entrepreneurial
intentions: A structural equation model. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 4,
35–50.
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Kirby, D. (2006). A literature review on entrepreneurial universities: An
institutional approach. Working Paper Series, 06/8. Business Economics Department. Autonomous
University of Barcelona.
Hay, D. B., Butt, F., & Kirby, D. A. (2002). Academics as entrepreneurs in a UK university. In G. Williams
(Ed.), The enterprising university: Reform, excellence and equity. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hsu, D. H., Roberts, E. B., & Eesley, C. E. (2007). Entrepreneurs from technology-based universities:
Evidence from MIT. Research Policy, 36(5), 768–788.
INE. (2008). Estadı́stica de la enseñanza universitaria en España. Curso 2006–2007. Instituto Nacional de
Estadı́stica de España. http://www.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do?type=pcaxis&path=/t13/p405&file=inebase.
Accessed 28 September 2008.
Institute for Higher Education Policy. (2006). Berlin principles on ranking of higher education institutions.
UNESCO. http://www.ihep.org/Publications/publications-detail.cfm?id=3. Accessed 28 September
2007.
Inzelt, A. (2004). The evolution of university–industry–government relationships during transition.
Research Policy, 33(6–7), 975–995.
IPYME. (2006). Iniciativas Emprendedoras en la universidad Española. Dirección General de Polı́tica de la
Pequeña y Mediana Empresa. Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio, Spain. http://www.ipyme.
org/IPYME/es-ES/IniciativaEmprendedora/Promocion/AmbitoEducativo/. Accessed 27 September
2008.
Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M., & Hellsmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish uni-
versity system: The case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy, 32(9), 1555–1569.
Keast, D. (1995). Entrepreneurship in universities: Definitions, practices and implications. Higher Education
Quarterly, 49(3), 248–266.
Kirby, D. A. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Can business schools meet the challenge? Education and
Training, 46(8/9), 510–519.
Kirby, D. A. (2005). Creating entrepreneurial universities in the UK: Applying entrepreneurship theory to
practice. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(5), 599–603.
Klofsten, M., & Jones-Evans, D. (2000). Comparing academic entrepreneurship in Europe—the case of
Sweden and Ireland. Small Business Economics, 14(4), 299–310.
Krueger, N. F. (2007). What lies beneath? The experiential essence of entrepreneurial thinking. Entrepre-
neurship: Theory and Practice, 31(1), 123–138.
Laukkanen, M. (2000). Exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurship education: Creating
micro-mechanisms for endogenous regional growth. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 12,
25–47.
Lazzeretti, L., & Tavoletti, E. (2005). Higher education excellence and local economic development: The
case of the entrepreneurial university of Twente. European Planning Studies, 13(3), 475–493.
Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2003). Triple helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems.
Scientometrics, 58(2), 191–203.
Liñán, F., & Chen, Y. W. (2009). Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument to
measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 593–617.
Link, A., & Scott, J. (2005). Opening the ivory tower’s door: An analysis of the determinants of the
formation of U.S. university spin-off companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1106–1112.
Mian, S. (1996). The university business incubator: A strategy for development of new research/technology-
based firms. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 7(2), 191–208.
Mian, S. (1997). Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: An integrative
framework. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(4), 251–340.
Middlehurst, R. (2004). Changing internal governance: A discussion of leadership roles and management
structures in UK universities. Higher Education Quarterly, 58(4), 258–279.
123
Moed, H. F. (2006). Bibliometric rankings of world universities. Leiden University, Netherlands: Centre for
Science and Technology.
Niosi, J. (2006). Success factors in Canadian academic spin-offs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(4),
451–457.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
North, D. C. (2005). Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.
O’Shea, R., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer
and spin-off performance of US universities. Research Policy, 34(7), 994–1009.
O’Shea, R., Chugh, H., & Allen, T. J. (2008). Determinants and consequences of university spin-off activity:
A conceptual framework. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(6), 653–666.
Page, S. (1996). Rankings of Canadian universities, 1995: More problems in interpretation. The Canadian
Journal of Higher Education, XXVI(2), 47–58.
PM, O. E. (2007). Solicitudes de patentes nacionales presentadas por universidades en el año 1997
y durante el perı´odo 2000–2007. Madrid, Spain: Unidad de Apoyo Dirección General Servicio de
Estudios.
Porter, M. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press.
Powers, J., & McDougall, P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology licensing with firms that
go public: A resource based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(3),
291–311.
Ranga, L. M., Debackere, K., & Von-Tunzelmann, N. (2003). Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics
of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs. applied research in Belgium. Sciento-
metrics, 58(2), 301–320.
Romer, P. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. The Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002–
1037.
Röpke, J. (1998). The entrepreneurial university, innovation, academic knowledge creation and regional
development in a globalized economy. Working Paper No.3, Department of Economics, Philipps-
Universität Marburg, Germany.
Rothaermel, F. T., Agung, S. D., & Jiang, L. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the
literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 691–791.
Ruiz, J., Parellada, F. S., & Vecina, J. M. (2004). Creación de empresas y universidad. Cadiz: Fundación
Universidad Empresa de la Provincia de Cádiz.
Ryu, M. (1998). A muted voice in academe: The Korean version of entrepreneurial scholarship. Higher
Education, 35(1), 9–26.
Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128.
Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Cited in O’Shea, R., Allen, T.J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F.
(2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spin-off performance of US universities.
Schulte, P. (2004). The entrepreneurial university: A strategy for institutional development. Higher Edu-
cation in Europe, 29(2), 187–191.
Shattock, M. (2005). European universities for entrepreneurship: Their role in the Europe of knowledge: The
theoretical context. Higher Education Management and Policy, 17(3), 13–25.
Shook, C., Ketchen, D., Hult, T., & Kacmar, M. (2004). An assessment of the use of structural equation
modelling in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 25(4), 397–404.
Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003). Assessing the impact of science parks on the research
productivity of firms: Exploratory evidence from the United Kingdom. International Journal of
Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1217–1225.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial
university. London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Smilor, R., O’Donnell, N., Stein, G., & Welborn, R. S., III (2007). The research university and the
development of high-technology centers in the United States. Economic Development Quarterly, 21(3),
203–222.
Sporn, B. (2001). Building adaptive universities: Emerging organisational forms based on experiences of
European and US universities. Tertiary Education and Management, 7(2), 121–134.
Stephen, F., Urbano, D., & van Hemmen, S. (2009). The responsiveness of entrepreneurs to working time
regulations. Small Business Economics, 32, 259–276.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper Collins.
123
Tijssen, R. (2006). Universities and industrially relevant science: Towards measurement models and indi-
cators of entrepreneurial orientation. Research Policy, 35(10), 1569–1585.
UNIVERSIA. (2006). Empresas de base tecnológica en las universidades. http://investigacion.universia.
es/spin-off/empresas/unis/index.htm. Accessed 28 September 2008.
Urbano, D. (2006). New business creation in Catalonia: Support measures and attitudes towards entre-
preneurship. Barcelona, Spain: Generalitat de Catalunya, CIDEM.
Usher, A., & Savino, M. (2006). Estudio global de los rankings universitarios. Calidad de Educación, 25,
33–53.
Van Vught, F. (1999). Innovative universities. Tertiary Education and Management, 5(4), 347–354.
Venkataraman, S. (2004). Regional transformation through technological entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Venturing, 19(1), 153–167.
Vesper, K. H., & Gartner, W. B. (1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. Journal of
Business Venturing, 12(5), 403–421.
Webometrics. (2005). Methodology of ranking: Web de las Universidades en el Mundo. http://www.
webometrics.info/methodology_es.html. Accessed 28 September 2008.
Welter, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial behavior in differing environments. In D. B. Audretsch, H. Grimm &
C. W. Wessner (Eds.), Local heroes in the global village globalization and the new entrepreneurship
policies (93–112). International Studies in Entrepreneurship. New York: Springer.
Witte, J. (2004). The introduction of two-tiered study structures in the context of the Bologna process: A
theoretical framework for an international comparative study of change in higher education systems.
Higher Education Policy, 17, 405–425.
Wong, P.-K., Ho, Y.-P., & Singh, A. (2007). Towards an ‘entrepreneurial university’ model to support
knowledge-based economic development: The case of the national university of Singapore. World
Development, 35(6), 941–958.
Yokoyama, K. (2006). Entrepreneurialism in Japanese and UK Universities: Governance, management,
leadership and funding. Higher Education, 52(3), 523–555.
Yonezawa, A., Nakatsui, I., & Kobayashi, T. (2002). University rankings in Japan. Higher Education in
Europe, 27(4), 373–382.
Zhao, F. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: Case study of Australian universities. The International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 5(2), 91–97.
123

The Development of An Entrepreneurial University PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Development of An Entrepreneurial University PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Development of An Entrepreneurial University PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Technol Transf

The development of an entrepreneurial university

Maribel Guerrero • David Urbano

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract An entrepreneurial society refers to places where knowledge-based entrepre-

Keywords Entrepreneurial universities Institutional economics Resource-based view

JEL Classification M13 (New Firms; Startups) L26 (Entrepreneurship)

M. Guerrero (&) D. Urbano

An entrepreneurial society refers to places where knowledge-based entrepreneurship has

institutional factors on the development of entrepreneurial universities (Guerrero et al. 2006;

2 Conceptual framework of entrepreneurial universities

Table 1 Theoretical models of entrepreneurial universities

Clark (1998) A strengthened steering core A stimulated academic

2.1 Environmental factors

An entrepreneurial university requires entrepreneurial organizational structures to create a

Environmental Factors (EF)

Formal Informal Outcomes

Entrepreneurial University community

Internal Factors (IF)

Entrepreneurship Role models and

Fig. 1 Conceptual model of entrepreneurial universities

2.2 Internal factors

An entrepreneurial university requires managers, with personal characteristics of leader-

partnering with multiple industries, universities, private or public institutions in a national

3.1 Selecting entrepreneurial universities

Table 2 Indicators of SEUS

Input Entrepreneurial Universities involved in entrepreneurial initiatives such as science parks

Table 3 Main constructs of the entrepreneurial university

Entrepreneurial university mission (UM)

UM_JS Generate jobseekers UM_EC Promote an entrepreneurial

Formal factors (FF) Informal factors (IF)

FF_RNV Minimal regulations for new IF_ETM Entrepreneurial teaching methodologies

Resources (R) Capabilities (C)

R_Human Human resources C_History University history

Note: UM university missions, FF Formal factor, IF informal factor, R resources, C capabilities

Table 4 Technical details

Population 3,438 Academics

4 Results and discussion

Fig. 2 Model of entrepreneurial university

IF 1 = University Community Attitudes

IF 3 = Role Models &

Low Academics from Technological Universities High

Fig. 3 Critical factors involved in the Spanish entrepreneurial universities

Table 5 Entrepreneurial universities’ stages

Initial stage Development Consolidation

FF & IF Three missions Planned Planned and implemented Institutionalized

Author Unit of analysis Objective Theoretical Methodology Findings

Author Unit of analysis Objective Theoretical Methodology Findings

of Korea responding to demands for academic staff

Author Unit of analysis Objective Theoretical Methodology Findings

Start-up courses University-enterprise OTRIs Other initiatives

UPC 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.94

UAL 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 – 0.18

Start-up courses University-enterprise OTRIs Other initiatives

University EUinitiatives INPUTS (I) EU experts EU culture

Start-up courses University-enterprise OTRIs Other initiatives

University EUOutcomes EU region EU ranking OUTPUTS SEUS = No.

UIA – 0.37 0.19 – – – – 0.77 0.54 0.17 0.46 14

Variables Items Factorial analysis Reliability Convergent

Note: * p \ 0.001; p \ 0.005; * p \ 0.010

Note: * p < 0.001;

Note: * p < 0.001;

Note: * p \ 0.001; p \ 0.005; * p \ 0.010