TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK DEPARTMENT OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP
I N V E S T I G A T I N G U N I V E R S I T Y E C O S Y S T E M S A S A K E Y F A C T O R F O R E N T R E P R E N E U R I A L E D U C A T I O N A N D B E H A V I O R M A S T E R T H E S I S
Marta Sabadell Marín, S196644 M.S.c Eng. Industrial Engineering Master Thesis
Supervisors: Carina Lomberg Lasse Skovgaard Jensen February 3rd - July 3rd 30 ECTS II Master Thesis
Technical University of Denmark Department of Entrepreneurship
Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior
Danish title: Undersøgelse af universitets økosystemer med fokus på deres indvirkning på entreprenant uddannelse og adfærd
Project: Thesis for the degree of MSc in Industrial Engineering Number of ECTS: 30 credits
Author: Marta Sabadell Marin, s196644 Supervisors: Carina Lomberg and Lasse Skovgaard Jensen
Start Date: 03/02/2020 Submission Date: 03/07/2020 Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page III
Abstract
The emergence of university-based makerspaces and innovation hubs along with the introduction of new entrepreneurship courses, have created novel dynamics and cultures within educational institutions. The aim of introducing these new initiatives is to create an ecosystem that supports innovation and entrepreneurship (I&E) education and behavior in all levels of the institution to engage students in creating startup companies as well as developing their competences as innovators and entrepreneurs. However, among their community, the impact of these ecosystems in relation to the progress of entrepreneurial education is unclear.
This thesis seeks to face the uncertainty of the impact with respect to the student body. To begin with, through a relaxed literature review, knowledge about the entrepreneurial ecosystems is established to formulate an evaluation template that analyzes the main domains of a university’s ecosystem; Leadership & Governance, Finance, Culture, Infrastructure, Human Capital, Markets & Networks and Metrics. This approach strives to determine the research framework for the project, which is based on five main areas of investigation: context, evolution, metrics, configuration and entrepreneurial education. In addition, three hypotheses (a, b, c) are established to delimitate the focus of the project.
Subsequently, a case-study outline is determined from the evaluation of existing research within the field to study DTU’s ecosystem. The assessment is made through a desk- research analysis where the current infrastructure is characterized. Beyond this assessment, thanks to semi-structured interviews, insights about the dynamics are gained. In addition, a comparison with other ecosystems endeavors the enrichment of the study.
The collected data and findings are grouped into sub-groups under the seven main domains and brought together to detect key areas of improvement by identifying gaps, overlaps and contradictory points among relevant stakeholders. As a result, this evaluation can be used as a basis to further analyze the present challenges from which proposals can be developed.
Eventually, three improvement areas are emphasized: 1) The current ecosystem’s configuration has led to a lack of cooperation and competitive dynamics, resulting in a chaotic ecosystem difficult to navigate if not familiar with; 2) The integration of entrepreneurial education (EEd) does not guarantee a gradual development of I&E capabilities; and 3) There is no common monitoring of the EEd impact on students’ I&E IV Master Thesis journeys. These three improvement areas provide a new perspective on the current situation of DTU’s I&E ecosystem regarding students’ behavior and education. The project suggests several proposals with the common goal of displaying the ecosystem as an appealing environment for students to develop their competences. It can be concluded that in order to acquire this target the tracking of the impact of the ecosystem is essential for optimizing its performance.
Finally, the assessment of the implemented hypothesis leads to the following conclusions; a) Building an entrepreneurial ecosystem takes time, therefore, it can be permitted to have a chaotic configuration as long as the coopetition dynamic is balanced. b) The commitment towards entrepreneurship can be presumed by the relevant stakeholders, however, it won’t be fully validated until specific objectives are set. c) The integration of entrepreneurship education into the students’ curriculum is not a priority since DTU is a technical institution. Consequently, the ecosystem plays a crucial role in shaping the students entrepreneurial mindset through their participation in extracurricular activities.
Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page V
Learning objectives
The learning objectives proposed for the project are the following:
Objective 1 is about identifying and analyzing relevant literature about entrepreneurial ecosystems and documenting the underlying motivations and their effect on the engaged stakeholders.
Objective 2 is about developing a model for comparison of relevant literature using relevant categories.
Objective 3 is about planning and executing a participatory and case study research to investigate DTU’s ecosystem and understand its dynamics, challenges and key focus areas.
Objective 4 is about analyzing and comparing other existing ecosystems both locally and abroad through a desk-research study.
Objective 5 is about evaluating the collected data and the insights using comparative methods to identify key areas for improvement by identifying gaps, overlaps or conflicting points of view of relevant stakeholders.
Objective 6 is about creating ideas and concepts for how DTU’s ecosystem can be improved, in terms of entrepreneurial education and behavior, based on the prior analysis.
Objective 7 is about designing criteria and metrics for evaluating generated concepts and further detail most relevant concepts to progress DTU’s ecosystem.
Objective 8 is about testing and evaluating parts of the detailed concepts with relevant stakeholders in DTU’s ecosystem.
Objective 9 is about communicating the process and findings in a larger project report and oral presentation. VI Master Thesis
Acknowledgments
Writing this project has been an interesting and challenging experience that has had a meaningful impact on me. For this reason, I would like to thank all those people who have helped and supported me during this process.
A special thanks to my supervisors Carina Lomberg and Lasse Skovgaard Jensen for trusting in me to carry out this project. I am especially grateful for the constructive critiques and suggestions facilitated along the way.
Moreover, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to all the interviewees who were willing to allocate some of their time to contribute to this project. I felt extremely welcomed and accompanied during the interviews. Your contributions have entailed me to understand the ecosystem’s dynamics and inner-culture to carry out this project.
Finally, I would also like to thank my family and friends who have supported me specially in the finalization of this project. A particular gratitude to Patricia Imaz and Andrea Esteve with whom I have been able to discuss many aspects of the project in order to improve it.
Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page VII
Reading guideline
This thesis is meant to be read in sequence from section 1 to section 9.
Section 1 introduces the thesis, the research topic and the motivation for choosing it. Furthermore, the objectives and scope of the project are presented.
Section 2 reviews the current literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems and it covers the fundamentals needed in the succeeding chapters.
Section 3 presents the research framework in order to evaluate DTU’s ecosystem. In addition, it establishes the working hypothesis this project discusses.
Section 4 introduces the main aspects considered when choosing the research methodologies for the explorative case study.
Section 5 presents the case study analysis following the research framework. In this section, an extensive analysis of DTU’s innovative and entrepreneurial ecosystem is provided. Besides, a comparative desk-research analysis is also described.
Section 6 displays an evaluation of DTU’s ecosystem extracted from comparing the collected data and insights obtained from the literature review, the desk-research and the interviews.
Section 7 exposes suggestions for progressing DTU’s ecosystem and a validation process to test the concepts.
Section 8 presents the conclusion on the working hypothesis formulated in Section 3. Furthermore, recommendations on future work are discussed.
Section 9 argues the implications and limitations of this thesis as well as it reviews the project’s process.
Section 10 provides the list of articles, papers, reports and webpages used.
A section of Appendices, which is divided in internal and external sources, is provided for optional review. The internal appendices are cited as Appendix [Letter] and the external appendices are cited as Appendix [0_RefNº. Name of specific part]. In Appendix [0] specific instructions are displayed for further information. VIII Master Thesis
Glossary
This section gathers abbreviations and specific terms used in the project in order to clarify any doubts that can emerge through the reading of this document.
Abbreviations
EE Entrepreneurial Ecosystem EEd Entrepreneurial Education GEM Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
GDP Gross Domestic Product HE High Education I&E Innovation & Entrepreneurship // Innovative and Entrepreneurial Int [X] Interviewee number X R&D Research and Development STEM Science, technology, engineering and mathematics
Definitions
Concept I&E actors & Subgroup of DTU’s stakeholders. It usually refers to the I&E units following units DTU Entrepreneurship, Skylab, Science Park, DTU Link and DTU Tech Transfer. Working groups It refers to the groups that were created around two years ago with the goal to coordinate the entrepreneurial ecosystem. They are composed of the main I&E actors (DTU Entrepreneurship, Skylab, Science Park, DTU Link and DTU TechTransfer). * Other departments are also integrated in some of these groups. Domain It refers to the seven domains described in Section 2.3.2. Leadership & Governance, Finance, Culture, Infrastructure, Human Capital, Markets & Networks and Metrics .
Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page IX
Table of content
Tabla de contenido Abstract ...... III Learning objectives ...... V Acknowledgments ...... VI Reading guideline ...... VII Glossary ...... VIII Table of content ...... IX 1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Literature Review ...... 3 2.1. Methodology for the literature review ...... 3 2.2. The entrepreneurial ecosystem ...... 4 2.3. University’s I&E ecosystem ...... 7 3. Research Framework ...... 13 4. Methodology ...... 14 4.1. Research design ...... 14 4.2. Research method ...... 14 4.3. Data collection and analysis ...... 17 5. Case Study – DTU’s ecosystem ...... 19 5.1. The regional context ...... 19 5.2. University approach to I&E ...... 21 5.3. Historical development of I&E at the university ...... 22 5.4. Comparison within other ecosystems ...... 28 6. Evaluation ...... 32 6.1. Leadership & Governance ...... 32 6.2. Finance ...... 32 6.3. Culture ...... 33 6.4. Infrastructure ...... 35 6.5. Human Capital ...... 35 6.6. Markets & Networks...... 36 6.7. Metrics ...... 37 7. Proposals ...... 38 7.1. Definition of improvement areas ...... 38 7.2. Development of the proposals ...... 39 X Master Thesis
7.3. Selection of the proposals ...... 44 7.4. Validation of the proposals ...... 45 8. Conclusions ...... 46 8.1. Recommendations for future work ...... 49 9. Reflections ...... 50 9.1. Research limitations ...... 50 9.2. Personal limitations ...... 50 9.3. Project process ...... 51 10. Bibliography ...... 52 Articles ...... 52 Webpages ...... 58 Appendices ...... 61 0. External appendices ...... 61 A. Initial questions ...... 63 B. Metrics ...... 64 C. I&E Actors...... 68 C.1. DTU Entrepreneurship ...... 68 C.2. Skylab ...... 68 C.3. DTU Tech Transfer ...... 69 C.4. DTU Link ...... 70 C.5. Science Park ...... 70 D. EEd Curriculum ...... 72 D.1. Program’s structure ...... 72 D.2. EEd Evaluation process ...... 73 E. University evaluations ...... 78 E.1. Copenhagen Business School ...... 78 E.2. Aalto University ...... 81 E.3. Massachusetts Institute of Technology ...... 84 F. Considerations for the survey’s structure ...... 88
Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 1
1. Introduction
The 21st century is bringing new challenges that require the development of innovative entrepreneurial capabilities (Gómez, S. 2020). A wide range of stakeholders are realizing that they are in the need of increasing entrepreneurial skills to manage some of their current demands (Gibb, A. 2003). Furthermore, innovation driven enterprises (IDEs), which consists of start-ups where competitive advantage and potential growth is driven by innovation, are generating most of the new jobs amongst technical university-like environments (Budden, P. & Murray, F. 2015). With this in mind, new soft skills are thereby required for students who are in the process of joining the labor market (Desai, M., Berger, B., & Higgs, R. 2016).
Along the same vein, recent and significant change in universities’ ecosystems has been noticed and carefully followed. Institutions are modifying their archetypes, complementing the traditional set of technical skills, while also developing and adding soft capabilities to their research competences. As Warhuus, J. & Vaid Basaiawmoit, R. (2014) have proved in their previous work, it can be deduced that the success of a program depends on factors such as project design and the designer’s inception. In addition to this, it has been argued that the most effective way of influencing students' perceptions towards entrepreneurship and equipping them with the required competences, is through the implementation of experiential approaches (specifically for entrepreneurship) (Mason, C. & Arshed, N. 2013) & (Haase, H. & Lautenschläger, A. 2011). However, many universities’ existing approach towards entrepreneurial education (EEd) is seen to be repeatedly favoring methods that focus on teaching about, rather than for, entrepreneurship (Mason, C. & Arshed, N. 2013).
As a possible solution, new initiatives are appearing in institutions as supplementary options to traditional learning. For instance, many universities are developing a new infrastructure to promote a more innovative and entrepreneurial culture within their respective ecosystems. Such an initiative strives to offer students and faculties access to prototyping facilities, while it also strives to spread awareness about project-based learning activities, making them more accessible (Kumar, A. 2013).
Interested in IRIS Group (2018) report; which shows a quantitative analysis of DTU’s outcome regarding innovation and entrepreneurship, and inspired by Miller, D. & Acs, Z. (2017) Chicago’s case study; which purpose was to explore the governance of its campus as an entrepreneurial ecosystem to construct a framework focused on the cultural impact, this thesis will seek to evaluate DTU’s ecosystem in ways that will reveal areas of 2 Master Thesis improvement so as to provide a sustainable way forward which places students and their ambitions at the center.
The execution of this paper begins with the characterization of an entrepreneurial ecosystem, specifically from a university's perspective, in order to build an evaluation framework that will help analyze DTU’s ecosystem. From this research area, the following hypothesis are delineated:
Hypothesis a) DTU’s ecosystem has been evolving during these past years organizing its structure around all the relevant actors.
Hypothesis b) DTU’s entrepreneurial ecosystem is perceived by stakeholders as a good environment that allows students to develop an entrepreneurial behavior.
Hypothesis c) DTU has EEd integrated within its curriculum which is aligned with DTU’s mission and policies.
In order to further elaborate these hypotheses, an evaluation of DTU’s ecosystem through a case study is carried out. The process is divided in three parts: a desk-research analysis to evaluate the current infrastructure, semi-structured interviews to gain insight from different viewpoints and a desk-research comparison with other ecosystems to explore possible variations. The thesis concludes with the identification and conceptualization of three improvement areas which aim to solve the identified problems.
Ecosystems are continuously evolving and being reconstructed (Garud, R. et al. 2008) & (Malecki, E. 2017). After all, each environment is unique due to the interaction and interdependence of the actors (Theodoraki, C. 2020). It is therefore important to identify at which state one is working to define appropriate strategies that will lead to the peak performance of the ecosystem.
Considering that the purpose of the ecosystem to have an impact on its community, the coverage of this study focuses on cherishing the development of an entrepreneurial mindset amongst DTU’s students. Since part of the study is based on interviews from different domains, it is limited to subjective perspectives that might arise to the fluctuation of the study. Furthermore, faculty staff is not considered in the project. As the researcher is a student, whose intention was to participate in multiple DTU events as a way of evaluating the ecosystem, the study is inherently limited students’ perspective. Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 3
2. Literature Review
This section presents a summary of the investigated topic in order to prepare the necessary knowledge to establish a research framework for evaluating DTU’s ecosystem.
2.1. Methodology for the literature review
As a first approach, the research started by a simple investigation to find articles and books about “Entrepreneurship and Innovation” in order to gain an overview on the topic. It was a qualitative research since some of the sources were biased to specific directions or opinions and no specific search strategy was defined.
Subsequently, a more structured literature review was planned to provide a summary of the literature on the topic. Even though the process followed some of the required steps in a systematic literature review, the methods cannot be compared (Denyer, D. & Tranfield, D. 2009) & (Lynn, K. 2020).
The process started with the formulation of some research questions that focused the search by setting boundaries for the literature review. The questions can be found in Appendix [A].
The next step was the location of studies, which was carried out using specific strings that were iterated over time and following some of the articles’ citations for further investigation in the topic. In the beginning, Wiley Online Library and Google Scholar were used for the search since they both include full books and the possibility to do full-text searches. Following, two main databases were identified and used: Scopus and Web of Science. Moreover, other populistic content was used such as Webinars, Reports and Webpages.
Some of the terms were: “Entrepreneurship ecosystems”, “Entrepreneurship and innovation (I&E) capabilities”, “Technology innovation ecosystems”, “Student entrepreneurial movement”, “Student-driven entrepreneurship”, “Founder’s involvement”, “University’s entrepreneurial curriculum”, “Higher education makerspaces”, “Entrepreneurial clusters”.
Once the article was located, a critical evaluation was carried out before readying the full paper. This assessment consisted of scanning the terms and abstract to validate the relevance of the paper.
Finally, the articles were categorized by topic, year and authors. This information can be found in Appendix [0_Ref 1. Sheet: Literature Review] for optional review. 4 Master Thesis
2.2. The entrepreneurial ecosystem
In this section a general overview of the main characteristics of an ecosystem, the key features of its evolution through time and the metrics used in this project are described.
2.2.1. Definition
There are many ways of describing an innovative and entrepreneurial (I&E) ecosystem. However, a commonly used definition is “a set of interconnected entrepreneurial actors (both potential and existing), entrepreneurial organizations (e.g. firms, venture capitalists, business angels, banks), institutions (universities, public sector agencies, financial bodies) and entrepreneurial processes (e.g. the business birth rate, numbers of high growth firms, levels of ‘blockbuster entrepreneurship’, number of serial entrepreneurs, degree of sellout mentality within firms and levels of entrepreneurial ambition) which formally and informally coalesce to connect, mediate and govern the performance within the local entrepreneurial environment” (Mason, C. & Brown, R. 2014).
A common trait shared by many definitions is the importance referred to the interaction and interdependence between the elements of the system as well as the principal output defined as the production of the entrepreneurial activity (new value creation) (Malecki, E. 2017) & (Acs, Z. & Stam, E. 2017). However, the causes and effects of these interactions can not be generalized since the roles played by participants and institutions can be simultaneously or sequentially related to several different roles (Stam, E. & Spigel, B. 2017) & (Lowe, N. & Feldman, M. 2017).
Consequently, literature has been able to produce long lists of factors and actors that enhance entrepreneurship, but it has been unsuccessful in defining an evaluation framework to analyze the relations of these factors (Alvedalen, J. & Boschma, R. 2017). Nevertheless, this project takes Isenberg, D. (2011a) model as a starting point for building a template to evaluate the complex interactions between the actors at DTU. This model is based on six main domains; Policies & Leadership, Financial capital, Culture, Infrastructure, Human capital and Markets & Networks.
2.2.2. Evolution
The creation of an I&E ecosystem along with its development over time are poorly understood (Alvedalen, J. & Boschma, R. 2017). In fact, the literature on the topic has been judged for applying a static framework that describes relations in entrepreneurial ecosystems (EE) without considering their evolution over time (Alvedalen, J. & Boschma, R. 2017). Instead, a dynamic EE framework needs to make explicit which elements and Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 5 relations matter in each stage, and how they influence each other over time (Alvedalen, J & Boschma, R. 2017).
Cukier, D. et al. (2015) presents the startup ecosystem sustainability model which sees an ecosystem’s progression through four stages: nascent, evolving, mature and self- sustainable. The first stage is the most likely to generate problems since once the cluster is in or after maturity a robust sequence of “entrepreneurial spawning” takes places giving the system an ability to withstand reconfiguration or adverse shocks (Feldman, M. & Francis, J. 2006).
Furthermore, an I&E ecosystem is argued to be dependent on its context, “each ecosystem emerges under a unique set of conditions and circumstances” (Isenberg, D. 2011a). From a social perspective, an entrepreneurial ecosystem can be linked to its region’s culture as it coevolves with the development of its dynamics (Malecki, E. 2017). Beyond the social context, the specific sectoral sub-ecosystem is defined by the industrial, technological, organizational, institutional and policy factors of the region (Autio, E. et al. 2014) & (Harrington, K. 2017) & (Malecki, E. 2017).
Some common aspects have been identified such as traits related to their establishment. Feldman, M. & Francis, J. (2006) highlight “a fully functioning entrepreneurial environment emerges from the individual activities of entrepreneurs, organizations and institutions that coevolve to support them in a coherent system”. Moreover, in every ecosystem there is at least one “large established business” that undertakes functions such as managements, research, development and/or production (Mason, C. & Brown, R. 2014). Their main role is usually to attract skilled workers from outside the area (talent magnets) to train them with soft skills that enable them to progress as well as providing spaces and resources for local business (Mason, C. & Brown, R. 2014).
Mason, C. & Brown, R. (2014) define the creation of an entrepreneurial ecosystem as a combination of spin-off processes that take place in a system. In other words, the growth in entrepreneurial activity occurs through a spin-off process, with people leaving the initial organizations to start their own businesses, and these businesses in turn being the source of further waves of spinoff activity. Equally significant is the process of entrepreneurial recycling in which entrepreneurs who have exited from their businesses, through sale or failure, put their expertise and capital to work as serial entrepreneurs, business angels and venture capitalists, mentors and advisers. 6 Master Thesis
2.2.3. Metrics
Evaluating the performance of an entrepreneurial ecosystem can help identify its strengths and weaknesses, which can assist in interpreting its special qualities and deficiencies.
“If we do not measure the effectiveness of the various components in an ecosystem as well as the ecosystem as a whole, we will not be able to improve existing programs and put in place new and complementary sources” (Vogel, P. 2013b).
Therefore, metrics to evaluate an entrepreneurial ecosystem were searched through the literature review. The complete list of identified metrics can be found in Appendix [B].
However, this section presents the metrics used to evaluate Denmark’s entrepreneurial ecosystem, see Table 1.
Table 1. Summary on different metrics for an entrepreneurial and innovative ecosystem.
Name Short description Scope Source Focus on studying the environment and Global its outputs, looking at a number of Global Entrepreneurship parameters to define attitudes, abilities, (Szerb, L. et al. 2020) level Index (GEI) and aspirations of individuals, and institutional factors affecting those. Global Focus on understanding the environment National Entrepreneurship (Bosma, N. et al. 2020) for entrepreneurship. level Monitor (GEM) Regional Entrepreneurship Measure progress in entrepreneurship at Regional (Szerb, L. et al. 2014) and Development a subnational level throughout the EU. level Index (REDI)
Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 7
2.3. University’s I&E ecosystem
The following section presents a specific part about innovative and entrepreneurial (I&E) ecosystems in a university setting. Moreover, it describes an evaluation framework.
2.3.1. Introduction
The main purpose of an educational institution in an I&E ecosystem is to provide highly skilled and specialized talent (Bramwell, A. & Wolfe, D. 2008). Nonetheless, not all authors agree on their importance nor contribution to the ecosystem. For instance, Mason, C. & Brown, R. (2014) defend that their role is not crucial as research-based universities are not found in every ecosystem; or as Harrison, R. & Leitch, C. (2010) argue that they play a passive role in the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems.
Certainly, some universities even though they are an active member of the environment, they are not always considered central (Motoyama, Y. & Knowlton, K. 2016). Malecki, E. (2017) argues that the most useful positioning for a university is when its influence is shaped by the specific regional innovation system in which is embedded. However, other researchers argue that some of these institutions “act not only as educators but also as institutional entrepreneurs, proactively networking, shaping regional strategies and attempting to change local routines as well as national policies” (Raagmaa, G. & Keerberg, A. 2017).
Historically, universities have fostered two archetypes: research universities and teaching universities (Heinonen, J. & Hytti, U. 2010). The research universities represent the “about” entrepreneurship, establishing entrepreneurship as a research field as well as an academic subject; while the teaching universities represent the “through” entrepreneurship, experimenting with practice-based pedagogical approaches (Warhuus, J. & Vaid Basaiawmoit, R. 2014). In this context, the entrepreneurial university combines the best of both worlds, via teaching “for” entrepreneurship by combining the knowledge of entrepreneurship, business administration and management skills along with pedagogical tools that aid entrepreneurial learning objectives, see Figure 1.
Figure 1. University’s archetypes. Source: Adapted from (Warhuus, J. & Vaid Basaiawmoit, R. 2014). 8 Master Thesis
2.3.2. University’s Framework
As a conclusion for this section, a framework was constructed using the six-domain theory of Isenberg, D. (2011a), a template which underpins the OECD methodology of assessing entrepreneurship teaching (OECD, 2012) and a checklist of the distinctive features that can be directly influenced by the institution by (Graham, R. 2014a).
The aspects of a university’s entrepreneurial ecosystem are resumed in the model presented in Figure 2. The model symbolizes the university’s ecosystem, having six main features represented in a hexagon surrounded by three boundaries that define the environment frontiers. Each side represents one of the six domains and it is complemented with their main characteristics.
Figure 2. University entrepreneurial ecosystem. Source: Constructed from (Isenberg, D. 2011a), (OECD, 2012), (Graham, R. 2014a) & (Miller, D. & Acs, Z. 2017)
Starting with the characterization of the ecosystem’s surroundings, the first is related to freedom. A positive attitude as well as the development of I&E skills from a low-key perspective is attainable by having an environment where its stakeholders have liberty to choose their path. Followed by providing the necessary assets to develop these attitudes; an ecosystem ought to offer a great variety of opportunities. Finally, having a multicultural Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 9 workforce is a crucial attribute when creating teams and developing new learnings. Source by authors Miller, D. & Acs, Z. (2017) after studying Chicago’s University ecosystem basing their findings in Turner’s Barrier Theories (Turner, F. 1894)
These conditions have to be supported and implied within the rest of aspects that surround the ecosystem in order to maintain a positive result.
Leadership & Governance
Building a vibrant and sustainable entrepreneurial economy takes time and the quality of the leadership is crucial. It needs to be inclusive, mentor-driven and embrace other members of the start-up community who want to be involved (Mason, C. & Brown, R. 2014). In many cases, the founders have had the power to establish the vision for change and drive the growth of I&E activities within it (Graham, R. 2014a) & (Warhuus, J. & Vaid Basaiawmoit, R. 2014).
Strategy & Commitment; the university should have a I&E working mission statement with specific objectives to generate entrepreneurial motivation and attitudes; support business start-ups and commercialize research results through technology transfers. A way to maintain such changes in the strategy of the institution is to promote a strong sense of collective commitment through the institution (Graham, R. 2014a). Therefore, the strategy should be known across the institution and understood as a priority by staff and students. A key indicator of commitment is if someone at the level of the Dean or Rector is made responsible for the entrepreneurial agenda. (OECD, 2012)
Coordination & Autonomy; the university should have an entrepreneurial structure in place which coordinates activities within the institution along with other stakeholders within the local entrepreneurship ecosystem. These individuals should be involved in strategy and future planning for the university. Other mechanisms for feedback and adjustment of strategy and courses are also required. (OECD, 2012)
Coopetition; a coopetition strategy ought to be empowered through the institution, but monitoring its evolution. This strategy is defined as “the simultaneous articulation of competition and cooperation strategies” (Theodoraki, C. 2020). At the university there could be many units fighting for the same resources, while at the same time, willing to share them. 10 Master Thesis
Finance
Financial strategy; entrepreneurial activities in universities will be viewed as more legitimate and have a better chance of making an impact if they are sustainable in the long-term. Therefore, the university should invest in its entrepreneurial activities through its financial strategy. Nonetheless, it is vital to diversify funding sources and reduce its dependency on state/public funding. An option could be bringing additional funding from or through services, such as sharing space and facilities; or applying for external funding. (OECD, 2012)
Resources for entrepreneurs; universities should build relations with funds and organize networking events for nascent entrepreneurs where they can meet investors, such as events and competitions that provide the chance to entrepreneurs to pitch their ideas. Moreover, the institution should provide support to staff, students and graduate entrepreneurs in finding private financing opportunities. (OECD, 2012)
Culture
Entrepreneurial ecosystems are characterized as being “information rich” since they have an open culture of widely sharing knowledge experience and expertise embedded in the startup community (Mason, C. & Brown, R. 2014). The culture cultivated in the system reinforces behaviors that enhance high tolerance of risk and failure as well as it raises an open attitude towards experimentation and a positive image of entrepreneurs (Spigel, B. 2015) & (Isenberg, D. 2011a).
Synergies within internal stakeholders; traditional boundaries have to be broken down by creating synergies and linkages across faculties, departments and other structures. Universities should have mechanisms in place for exploiting internal knowledge and resources through, for example, shared facilities across faculties, student-staff structures, interdisciplinary structures, cross faculty teaching and research groups. Furthermore, the institution should work towards integrating an international, intercultural and global dimension into the purposes, functions and delivery of education to build an empowered and cohesive community. Multidisciplinary initiatives ought to be promoted to create new circles of diversity. (OECD, 2012)
Mentoring and knowledge transfer; collaborating with external stakeholders can provide new relationships and be an important source of expertise and experience that can be used in EEd and support services. Matching student and graduate entrepreneurs with experienced entrepreneurs will increase the business's chances of success. Moreover, Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 11 knowledge exchange should be part of the institutional policy, supporting mechanisms for coordinating these relationships with industry, the public and private sector. (OECD, 2012)
Student-led activity; the student-driven entrepreneurship movement has a positive impact on the university ecosystem since it benefits from an increasingly international and connected student network. This network allows participants to collaborate with other universities and external stakeholders without any misunderstanding (Graham, R. 2014a).
Infrastructure
Programs & Opportunities; the university should provide opportunities to experience entrepreneurship from different stages through programs, courses and activities. However, these initiatives have to be coherent with the culture and curriculum as staff and students need to understand the benefits of developing an I&E mindset. (OECD, 2012)
Facilities & Support; universities should have a system in place that allows the cross- fertilization of knowledge and ideas from science parks. Moreover, the institution should have incubators on-site that provide support to new startups and spin-offs as well as building links to industry, or that provide access to external facilities where the entrepreneurs can receive this type of assistance. (OECD, 2012)
Human Capital
Entrepreneurial Education (EEd) Integration; universities should be delivering their entrepreneurial teaching through a range of different methods across all departments with the goal to enhance the students’ ability to think and respond entrepreneurially (OECD, 2012). An essential feature, though, is to embed I&E capabilities in a coherent and interconnected curriculum to establish and sustain the development of I&E capabilities through time (Graham, R. 2014a).
Student EEd Formation & Motivation; the university should embed awareness amongst the importance of developing a range of I&E abilities that support new business ideas as well as those that can endorse employability and career development. For that reason, formal and informal learning opportunities ought to be offered. Moreover, these activities should have mechanisms in place by which teaching staff can codify the expected I&E learning outcomes, so that students have a clear understanding of the results that can be achieved. (OECD, 2012)
Recruitment & Formation; recruitment should be focused on ensuring the institution’s needs. However, entrepreneurial attitudes and experience should be a part of the criteria 12 Master Thesis in the recruitment process even when talking about guest lecturers or alumni. In addition, universities should have a formal policy for career development for all staff since they are a key asset in strategy delivery, EEd and all entrepreneurial activities the university wants to develop. (OECD, 2012)
Markets & Networks
The market created around an entrepreneurial ecosystem is characterized by a high rate of adoption of new technologies and products (Kumar, A. 2013). Nonetheless, in the context of a university an important priority should be the establishment of a market for the its innovative output, at a local, regional and international level (Graham, R. 2014a).
External relations & Partnerships; the institution should collaborate and maintain regular contact with external stakeholders. A key asset would be to have activities that could integrate their experience and expertise into EEd and support services. Moreover, it ought to have mechanisms in place to support staff and students’ mobility with the external environment. (OECD, 2012)
Active role in the community; the institution should be an active player linked to its external environment by having a strong presence in the community. For example, providing facilities, participating in regional clusters, providing opportunities for regional start-ups as well as taking an active role in determining the strategic direction of local development.
Metrics
Measure I&E impact; in order to measure the impact on the success of the business start- up, universities should measure and evaluate the role played by start-up support not only after the completion of the support activity, but also at a later date. Moreover, other metrics related to knowledge exchange need to be defined such as the number of start-ups and spins offs, patents and new relationships. For the external measurements the institution should include its perceived value and impact on the wider stakeholder environment (business, government, etc). (OECD, 2012)
Measure EEd impact; in order to get an accurate picture of the EEd impact on students it should be measured at different phases (beginning, end, point in time after). The goal would be to measure the impact on participants’ motivation along with the level of competence in the skills gained through the EEd activities. Furthermore, an important aspect to measure is the level of engagement with entrepreneurial teaching and learning across all faculties and departments. (OECD, 2012) Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 13
3. Research Framework
This section presents the research framework constructed from the previous analysis.
Five investigation areas were identified as important factors in order to analyze DTU’s ecosystem.
• The contextualization of Denmark’s ecosystem which can help understand the influence of the Danish culture in DTU’s ecosystem. • The evolution of DTU’s ecosystem to recognize its current stage and its present requirements. • The definition of the ecosystem’s performance metrics to evaluate and interpret the current monitoring system. • The ecosystem’s configuration to interpret its dynamics and environment. • The entrepreneurial education to assess DTU’s approach towards integrating entrepreneurship within the curriculum of its students.
From these research areas, the hypotheses were set to delimitate the focus of the project:
Hypothesis a) DTU’s ecosystem has been evolving during these past years organizing its structure around all the relevant actors.
Hypothesis b) DTU’s entrepreneurial ecosystem is perceived by stakeholders as a good environment that allows students to develop an entrepreneurial behavior.
Hypothesis c) DTU has EEd integrated within its curriculum which is aligned with DTU’s mission and policies.
14 Master Thesis
4. Methodology
After establishing the research framework and the working hypothesis, this section outlines the main aspects that were considered when choosing the research designs for the explorative study.
4.1. Research design
A participatory case study research was preferred from the evaluation of existing research within the field since the aim of the analysis is to examine a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context. In this case study, DTU served as the primary unit of analysis.
This methodology’s strength is to investigate a case in-depth while retaining general and meaningful characteristics of real life (Yin, R. 2009). Furthermore, this approach provides accurate data and supports a detailed analysis (Juneja, P. 2015a). However, it lacks the overall perspective that more quantitative approaches usually produce. Therefore, the assessment of the importance of the data as well as the generalization of the findings becomes complex (Eisenhardt, K. 1989).
This approach also holds weaknesses such as time consumption and confidential and sensitive information assessment. Besides, using stakeholders adds bias to the analysis which can led to basing theories in personal perspectives which complicates reaching generality (Eisenhardt, K. 1989) & (Juneja, P. 2015a).
4.2. Research method
Two methods were used to form a more compact and robust analysis in order to evaluate the research framework described in Section 3.
4.2.1. Desk-research method
As a first approach, DTU’s I&E ecosystem was studied through a desk-research analysis. This methodology involves collecting and organizing data from existing resources to efficiently use it to understand processes and aspects. This method is considered a low- cost technique as the information is available. However, an important aspect is to refine the searching technique in such a way that the results are relevant and no time is wasted during the process (Juneja, P. 2015b). Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 15
The analysis was focused on gathering information on the five research areas starting with the contextualization of DTU as a university. The search didn’t follow a straight line, it was a continuous iteration throughout the areas.
It started analyzing DTU’s webpage where the most relevant stakeholders were identified. A definition of the university strategy and organization was sought, followed by the analysis and classification of the main initiatives within the I&E ecosystem. Once a preliminary conceptualization of DTU was illustrated, the regional context was analyzed using the metrics identified in the literature review. Afterwards, DTU’s positioning towards I&E was reevaluated and characterized. Continuing with the evolution of the I&E ecosystem through the years. Finally, the definition of the actual I&E infrastructure and the analysis of the current EEd curriculum was described.
As a second approach, three other ecosystems were analyzed in order to compare their infrastructure with DTU’s structure. The analysis was again carried out using the available material found through articles and the universities’ webpages. Moreover, an individualized comparison method was chosen to contrast the ecosystems. This method is used to describe the characteristics or features of each of the studied cases in order to broaden the knowledge. Besides, it gives insight to see cases in-depth. This method cannot be said to be truly comparative but makes use of comparison in a small aspect of the research (Fredrickson, G. 1997).
4.2.2. Interviews method
At the same time, a semi-structured interview approach was chosen as a parallel method to gain insight into DTU’s ecosystem from a different perspective. This method is more structured than an unstructured interview, but more agile than a fully structured interview (Robson, C. 1993). A semi-structured interview is based in a guide with a list of questions that the interviewer has prepared beforehand, but enables the interviewer to adapt to the respondents’ characteristics. For example, by changing the order of the questions or the wording of these questions to fit the situation, by leaving out questions that seem inappropriate, or by add questions that are relevant for that particular interviewee (Robson, C. 1993). However, the fact that all interviews are based in the same interview guide, keeps the data consistent and comparable.
The interview guide was designed based on the framework provided in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2012) and complemented with the constructed framework in Section 2.3.2. This template helped evaluating different aspects of the seven main domains defined previously in Figure 2. The development of the 16 Master Thesis interview-guide was centered around ensuring openness and clarity between the interviewee and the interviewer without leading to specific answers. The questions were formulated to help obtain insight into the progress of change in the university and its past and current dynamics. For checking the template see Appendix [0_Ref2. Section: Interview template].
Most of the interviews were conducted one-on-one with the exception of two. These two were one-on-two being two interviewees from the same organization answering the questions. The interviewees were specifically chosen to have stakeholders both affecting the ecosystem and affected by it, in order to build a more realistic and accurate picture. A total of eleven actors agreed to do the interviews. Even though the interviews were anonymously, a profile of each interviewee is presented in Figure 3 in order to better understand their relation to the ecosystem.
Figure 3. Interviewees profiles. Source: (own).
Three of the interviewees were from DTU Entrepreneurship center but had different approaches towards the ecosystem; interviewee 1 (Int [1]) was related to the acceleration and incubation initiatives, Int [2] was related to I&E research and Int [3] was related to the educational field. Moreover, three other interviewees affecting the ecosystem were Int [4] from the unit Skylab, Int [7] from the project Roskilde Festival and Int [10] from the unit Science Park (FutureBox).
The interviewees affected by the ecosystem were sought to be in different stages of involvement. Int [6] was a relatively new member in the ecosystem and Int [5] was a Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 17 student entrepreneur with a startup running for over a year. Furthermore, stakeholders in student-led organizations were also aimed such as Int [8] from Danstar, Int [9] from Startdust and Int [11] from the Roskilde project.
As it can be seen, DTU Link and DTU Tech Transfer are not represented in Figure 3 since the interview wasn’t carried out. Nevertheless, being the students the main focus of the project, the absence of these two actors was considered acceptable.
While conducting the interviews, the author took notes on important aspects that were contrasted afterwards. Each interview was initiated with a short introduction of its purpose and scope along with the appreciation for the interviewee’s participation. In addition, it was emphasized that there was no right or wrong answer, but rather an interest in their point of view on each feature.
The interviews were successfully managed being able to follow the guide of questions, focusing in relevant aspects and following up on important points. Nonetheless, it might had been an advantage to conduct the interviews in person instead of online as it would have possibly created a more personal connection between the author and the interviewees. Finally, after each interview a schematic transcription was written. For reading them see Appendix [0_Ref 2. Section: Schematic transcripts].
4.3. Data collection and analysis
The evaluation process was built through an iterative exploration that had several stages of analysis. The gathered data from the desk-research analysis and the semi-structured interviews was considerable. Therefore, the ability to focus specifically on the information that could help answer the research areas was crucial.
The first step was collecting the objective data from the desk-research analysis building a first picture of the ecosystem. The picture was built around DTU’s infrastructure and its attitude towards entrepreneurship. The second step was collecting data on the other universities.
A specific iterative process had to be done regarding the interviews since the collected data was extensive. The first step was writing down the transcriptions of the interviews right after the conversations emphasizing the immediate areas of interest. Afterwards, a more structured analysis of the transcript was conducted where important answers were highlighted. The next step was grouping the answers around topics that were pre-defined 18 Master Thesis in the interview guideline. It can be seen in Appendix [0_Ref 2. Section: Aggregation of the answers].
From the comparison of notes and emphasized sections, initial themes began to stand out which led to their verification and contrast with the desk-research data. This process was repeated many times until the themes were firmly established. The process was held in an excel layout, where the research framework, the interview data and a preliminary evaluation were written down. Later, a fourth column was added for writing down ideas about possible proposals. This process can be seen in Appendix [0_Ref 1. Sheet: Evaluation results].
Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 19
5. Case Study – DTU’s ecosystem
In this section, a full analysis of DTU’s innovative and entrepreneurial ecosystem is provided. Furthermore, a comparative desk-research analysis is also described.
5.1. The regional context
Denmark’s entrepreneurial ecosystem is the fourth best ecosystem in the world, according to the 2019 Global Entrepreneurship Index (Szerb, L. et al. 2020). In a European comparison, the Danish region Hovedstaden (capital), is found to be the most entrepreneurial region, followed by London and Íle de France, according to the Regional Entrepreneurship and Development Index (REDI) (Szerb, L. et al. 2014).
Using the REDI indicator for analyzing the five regions of Denmark, a spider diagram is formed showing the different behaviors of each region in each pillar, see Figure 4.
Figure 4. Denmark’s regions and REDI indicator. Source: (Szerb, L. et al. 2014)
Denmark has a well-established educational system that creates a powerful workforce of talented people that includes a growing scene of internationals. Pillars such as Opportunity 20 Master Thesis perception, Opportunity start-up and Cultural support which present a high punctuation demonstrate the largely valued capacity, recognition and motivation of starting new businesses in all Denmark. Moreover, Denmark’s community enjoys a high level of trust, which facilitates the connection and transfer experiences with everybody (Szerb, L. et al. 2020)
The capital region (DK01) attracts a wider range of population which leads to higher rates at pillars such as Competition, Technology Adoption, Process Innovation and High growth. The reasons are that the more diversity in customers the wider range in needs and expectations. This entails a broader market that opens the possibility for higher perspectives in terms of business growth. A company will be more likely to invest in innovation if good perspectives are presented. This results in a cycle of constant improvement which directly increases the competitivity in the region. However, it is important to notice that the Globalization pillar behaves below the average in all the regions. Denmark is a small country that needs to potentiate internationalization in order to reach the highest growth potential of its companies.
On the other hand, the Risk Perception pillar, which is related to society’s behavior around the fear of failure, is low in all regions. “The Danish culture is different; most students have jobs waiting for them in big companies with big salaries” (Graham, R. 2014b). Educational institutions are, therefore, a crucial asset since they can help change students’ expectations and motivation towards entrepreneurship.
Even though Denmark’s process of establishing businesses is simple and at minimal cost, the Start-up skills pillar is low for all the regions.
Finally, Financing is a pillar that is low in almost all areas except Nordjylland (DK05). It is related to the different sources of financial support that exist in the region. The fact that Denmark is a small country with not many populations implies that the available financial resources are lower than in other regions such as the United States or China. Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 21
5.2. University approach to I&E
5.2.1. Introduction to DTU
Technical University of Denmark, referred to as DTU, was established in 1829 by Hans Christian Østed whose vision was to create Denmark’s first polytechnic institution that would benefit society through natural and technical sciences. This vision has established DTU as an internationally renowned institution among the top technical universities in Europe (Steensboe, C. 2020) and it is ranked #112 by (QS World University Rankings, 2020) and #184 by (THE World University Rankings, 2020).
DTU is a research-based, business-oriented and internationally-oriented university. Its mission is to use technical and natural sciences to develop and generate sustainable value and welfare in society exploiting synergies between education, research, innovation and scientific advice in close collaboration with the outside world.
It is home to around 9.300 students, 4.000 new students admitted each year, whom around 25% are international (THE World University Rankings, 2020). Diversity is a strong feature encouraged by DTU, promoting campaigns for gender, ethnic, age, sexual orientation equality, within others (Toft, K. 2018).
5.2.2. University I&E strategy and policy
The new strategy planned for 2020-2025 continues its deep engagement in the ecosystem and culture created around the institution. It offers consultancy, advice and partnerships to the business community and government. Its values are innovative thinking, credibility and commitment, which boost an organizational culture of trust and respect that ensures a productive study and workplace, allowing interdisciplinary actors to work together (DTU Strategy, 2020). The institution has an entrepreneurial and innovation spirit, using the energy and enthusiasm of the students, staff and the people who work in it.
DTU has three strategic objectives in the period 2020-2025: developing Europe’s best engineering education, promoting technologies for sustainable change, and realizing the potential of digitalization (DTU Strategy, 2020). Ideas are unleashed and carried into society and industry where they make a difference through the introduction of I&E capabilities in the curriculum of all the engineering programs. An example of this strategy are the following numbers, in 2018 DTU had: Registered patents (50), Registered inventions (117), Projects with industry (1.460) and New start-up companies (87), (Tonsberg, C. 2019a). 22 Master Thesis
5.3. Historical development of I&E at the university
DTU’s I&E ecosystem is a top-down and university-led model since its strategy for implementing innovation and entrepreneurship within the institution is directed from the top management down to the departments and centers (Graham, R. 2014a).
Like many entrepreneurial ecosystems, DTU’s evolution has been an iterative process, which has been described as a “Mushrooming process” (Int [2] & Int [10]). This strategy can be defined as a wild and uncoordinated creation of initiatives that empowers an easy growth and disappearance of activities. The expectation is to obtain an organized settlement at some point in the future, by empowering the growth of the best proposals that end up shadowing the weakest. As a conclusion, DTU’s ecosystem current stage can be defined as a middle ground between growth and maturation. Some initiatives are still being created; however, the main efforts are being placed in organizing the actual offerings in order to present the ecosystem as a comprehensive unit.
As for the evolution of the ecosystem, there have been some major events that have defined the ecosystem’s development over the past years.
Starting with the appointment of President Anders Bjaklev in 2011 (Tonsberg, C. 2019b), which defined a turning point for the institution in terms of I&E development. Followed by the creation of the Senior Vice President - Innovation and Entrepreneurship position in 2012 that was portrayed by Marianne Thellersen (Jeppesen, K. 2012). Her main goals where to be at the forefront of DTU's I&E agenda as well as the development of an I&E culture among DTU’s students.
A couple of years before, the X-Tech course was created when not many entrepreneurial initiatives were going on. This initiative was created by two entrepreneurs that wanted to strengthen the connection between DTU and the Business Schools (Int [3]). This course was created with the goal to create spin-out teams departing with high technologies from either companies or DTU researchers. The course has been evolving during these years, currently being a technology-based course-incubator at a Master’s level.
The creation of DTU Skylab happened around 2013 with the mission to potentiate and equip students with an entrepreneurial mindset and a skillset to tackle real world problems. Nowadays, the space servs as a connection between education and other entrepreneurial programs. The most important aspect in Skylab is the culture that is being created around failure “It’s a lucky environment, where a lot of startups are going to fail early on or later Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 23 on, but, usually startups who have some experience will have a better go the next time” (Int [4]).
In 2018, DTU Entrepreneurship center was created with the goal to strengthen the I&E ecosystem. “DTU Entrepreneurship marks a major expansion of our ecosystem for entrepreneurship and innovation at DTU” said President Anders Bjaklev in his speech (Tækker, C. 2018). The center provides a portfolio of courses that foster both technical skills and capabilities to recognize needs, innovate, productize and commercialize new technology.
Around a year ago, several working groups were formed to coordinate different projects to better understand DTU’s ecosystem from different perspectives, such as Funding, Mentoring, Incubation & Acceleration, among others. The actors of these groups are; DTU Entrepreneurship, Skylab, Tech Transfer, Science Park and DTU Link, among others.
The latest event was the creation of the MSc in Technology Entrepreneurship, which will start its first promotion with a total of 30 students in September 2020. This degree involves students from different backgrounds not only technical students are sought. It is an important aspect to have in mind since a key to develop high-growth startups on campuses is to have a diverse team (engineering, laboratory science and business) (Miller, D. & Acs, Z. 2017).
5.3.1. I&E infrastructure
One of the goals of any innovative and entrepreneurial ecosystem is to host a comprehensive set of organizations, initiatives and activities available for entrepreneurs at different stages in their development.
The current configuration of the ecosystem is based on five main actors, from this point on called I&E actors. Each actor works independently and has its own role within the ecosystem. For instance, DTU Entrepreneurship is focused on entrepreneurial research and education in order to develop I&E capabilities amongst students and faculty staff. DTU Skylab is concentrated on students’ I&E mindset development offering programs and facilities. On the other hand, DTU Tech Transfer is dedicated in commercializing the university’s research technologies. Finally, DTU Link and Science Park (Future Box) are centered on providing incubation spaces and acceleration programs for startups while promoting a powerful culture of knowledge exchange collaboration. For further information a short description of each I&E actor is provided in Appendix [C]. 24 Master Thesis
In the desk-research analysis, more than fifty initiatives that promote the development of I&E capacities and external collaboration were identified. The initiatives were classified into two main categories in order to map the ecosystem.
The initiative’s focus area was defined using the categories described in (DTU Innovation Webpage, 2020):
• Commercialization; research community & intellectual property rights (IPR). • Student innovation; development of the necessary I&E competences. • Business collaboration; wide range of collaborations with companies. • Start-ups; translate ideas into solutions that benefit society.
The second classification is related to the type of initiative:
• Entrepreneurship courses; curricular courses that are offered to students to develop I&E capabilities. • Entrepreneurship programs; activities that are offered to students in engineering and technology disciplines as an extra-curricular activity, although some can be taken as special or even curricular courses. • Access to events and competitions; initiatives that can work as a low-entry introduction to I&E where positives attitudes, opportunities to form teams and promotion of EEd agenda take place; or as a competition event where new technologies and ideas are developed and presented to possible business partners and investors. • University accelerator and incubator, programs that offer the opportunity to start and develop a business on DTU’s campus. • Access to capital; several organizations that offer financial support to entrepreneurs at different stages of their development as well as pitch support for VC investment. • Access to support; open-access spaces that provide entrepreneurship physic support and advice (guidance and mentorship). • Student clubs and societies which create student-led activities related to I&E.
Others initiatives related to the students’ career development werw been identified, even though, not having a direct relation with entrepreneurship. Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 25
After collecting all the initiatives information, two diagrams were created to illustrate DTU’s I&E ecosystem, see Appendix [0_Ref 3. Section: Diagram_1] and [0_Ref 3. Section: Diagram_2].
From the first diagram, it was concluded that the connection between actors is weak. Each actor has built its own sub-ecosystems and there are no clear connections between initiatives from the different actors. The most evident example is Skylab, which has at least one initiative of each type within its own sub-ecosystem. However, it is fair to say that new connections seem to be appearing. For example, the direct connection between the X- Tech course (from DTU Entrepreneurship) and the Ignite Program (from Skylab). Or the possible connection between the Skylab’s incubator program and the Danish Tech Challenge from the Science Park.
From the second diagram, it was deducted that entrepreneurs do not necessarily make use of the activities in the same order as well as that many initiatives are often undertaken simultaneously. The lines try to show a process through the ecosystem. Nonetheless, “entrepreneurship is never going to follow the same path” (Int [1]).
The data in regards to the initiatives information can be found in Appendix [0_Ref 1. Sheet: Initiatives].
5.3.2. EEd curriculum
From an education perspective, DTU offers different degrees with a wide range of science and engineering courses that can be studied. The main goal is for students to gain theoretical knowledge and creative skills in areas such as sustainability, innovation and entrepreneurship while enhancing awareness and sense of responsibility towards society. I&E activities are a crucial part of all teaching, both theoretical and practical, for which DTU Entrepreneurship plays a key role in developing courses, training and study programs.
There are four levels of education: Bachelor degrees (BSc), Master degrees (MSc), Doctoral degrees and other Professional degrees (PhD). These degrees are based on a great variety of different programs that depend on the specialization wanted (e.g. Advanced Materials & Healthcare Engineering, Business Analytics, Environmental Engineering…).
In 2014, two important aspects were highlighted regarding to the integration of I&E into DTU’s curriculum. It was described as “patchy” as only a few departments were offering 26 Master Thesis any entrepreneurship element within their programs; and initiatives, activities and workshops had no tangible impact on the student curriculum (Graham, R. 2014b).
By analyzing the EEd curriculum more into detail, a total of sixty-nine courses were identified to have some kind of connection with I&E education. The percentage of number of EEd courses identified is approximately 3,5% in relation with the total number of courses provided by DTU. This number can be considered acceptable as DTU is a technical institution and the development of technical skills is prioritized above I&E capabilities.
The MSc is the level of education that offers the greatest number of I&E courses, as expected (Warhuus, J. & Vaid Basaiawmoit, R. 2014). In addition, the situation in regards of EEd spread amongst the different centers seems to have changed. Around 70% of DTU’s departments offer at least one course related to I&E capabilities, some are even a collaboration between different centers. Still, it is worth keeping in mind that each department has its own way of developing its innovation purpose, for instance, “DTU Wind Energy doesn’t have a lot of start-ups, but it has a lot of external engaging with industry, while, DTU Photonics are very entrepreneurial” (Int [2]). The departments and centers with more I&E courses are DTU Entrepreneurship and DTU Management followed by the Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science and the National Food Institute.
In regards to autonomy, the MSc in Technology Entrepreneurship Program is the only program that can be classified as a Higher Autonomy Program. It has a clear path towards I&E, combining “about EEd” and “through EEd” in the beginning, potentiating “for EEd” during all the program and adding “tech contributions” along the way. The rest of the identified courses have low autonomy, as they can be taken at any point in the program but have no specific follow-ups defined.
In regards to the specialization courses, the EEd curriculum has a high impact in terms of number of students; 73% of the I&E courses capture more than 15 students. However, the impact of these courses in terms of number of ECTS is low; gaining a maximum of 10 ECTS credits per course. However, the new MSc program will take on this spot allowing 30 students to gain a total of 120 ECTS credits related to I&E abilities. Finally, there are no courses positioned in the high reach – high scope position, though it could be filled with courses that have a deliberate entrepreneurial approach embedded in its didactics despite the course’s academic content (Warhuus, J. & Vaid Basaiawmoit, R. 2014). Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 27
As for the mandatory and general competences courses, an analysis of their implication in their study-lines was carried out in order to investigate the relation of each program with the I&E offerings. These courses are provided by or in combination with the following departments Entrepreneurship (5), Management (12), Applied Mathematics and Computer Science (1), the National Food Institute (2), the Chemical and Biotechnology and Biomedical Department (1) and the Mechanical (2).
For example, the Design and Innovation study-line is composed of 50% I&E courses in the first two blocks (30 General + 30 Specialization ECTS credits). That doesn’t necessarily mean that all students go through 30 I&E credits, however it shows the clear focus of the program towards EEd. Following, in the Industrial and Management study line this percentage is around 26%; in the Computer Science study line is 13%; and the Food Technology program goes up to 32%, for these two blocks. It should be noted that further analysis ought to be carried out in order to fully validate this data, such as the number of students that take each course and their next steps.
Finally, it is important to highlight the tight relation of initiatives, such as Green Challenge, Blue Dot and Roskilde, with many courses. This connection is crucial, as it links the curriculum to DTU’s initiatives and facilitates the students’ introduction to the ecosystem.
The process for analyzing the EEd curriculum is explained in Appendix [D] and the data can be found in Appendix [0_Ref 1. Sheet: Courses]. 28 Master Thesis
5.4. Comparison within other ecosystems
5.4.1. Identification of candidates
In order to identify suitable candidates for the analysis, specific searches were carried out to find the most highly valued technology driven universities. Withal, institutions mentioned in various articles were also added to the list. The full list of universities considered can be seen in Appendix [0_Ref 1. Sheet: Universities].
As for the selection process, four aspects were used to decide which universities should be studied: 1. Country: choosing countries that are in the top 10 of the GEI ranking (Szerb, L. et al. 2020), (11 Finland, but it is tied with Sweden 10). 2. Type of university: selecting private vs public along with technical vs research vs business. 3. % International students: favoring those with high percentages as it is a relevant feature for an ecosystem as well as a significant characteristic at DTU. 4. University rankings: using THE (THE World University Rankings, 2020) and QS (QS World University Rankings, 2020) rankings to decide similar institutions.
Using these criteria, the list was reduced to the final candidates listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Final candidates to be analyzed. Source: (own).
Name Country GEI Type %Inter THE QS Technical University of Denmark 4 Public Technical 25% 184 112 Denmark Research & Aalborg University Denmark 4 Public 15% 201-250 324 Humanities Research & Aarhus University Denmark 4 Public 9% 115 145 Humanities Copenhagen Business Business Denmark 4 Public 25% 201–250 n/a School School Technical & Aalto University Finland 11 Public 26% 184 134 Business & Arts Chalmers University of Sweden 10 Private Technical 17% 251-300 125 Technology Imperial College United Technical & 5 Public 56% 10 9 London Kingdom Science Massachusetts United Technical & 1 Private 34% 5 1 Institute of Technology States Business & Arts United Rice University 1 Private Research 28% 105 85 States Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 29
5.4.2. Selection of candidates
Finally, the selection was made based on having similarities and differences as well as on prioritizing those who have a connection to DTU. The selected universities are:
The Copenhagen Business School (CBS) which is also located in Denmark, is public and has a comparable percentage of international students. It also has similar rankings. Nonetheless, it is a Business School.
The Aalto University which is located in Finland, close to Denmark, with a culture that is quite similar. The institution is also public; however, it is quite new as it was established in 2010 through a merge of three renowned universities. Its percentage of international students and its rankings are very similar to DTU’s.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) which is located in the United States, a different continent with very distinctive characteristics in its culture. Besides, it is private and researched based. Its rankings and its percentage of international students are higher than DTU’s. The close relation with DTU is the main reason to select it.
5.4.3. Comparison between universities ecosystems
The comparison between DTU and these universities was directed towards analyzing the universities’ infrastructure and their positioning towards EEd.
Starting from a governance perspective, the three analyzed universities share in common having I&E goals explicitly stated within their global strategy. Moreover, some of these universities have specific I&E goals to reach along with particular commitments for each department, for example, in CBS.
From a financing perspective, the MIT has developed specific capital resources for supporting spin-outs, which in most cases need a special treatment. Clearly, being a private university and from the United States establishes a differentiation of context. The financial options in DTU and in the overall Denmark area are not comparable to the available options in the MIT.
From a culture perspective, examples of different founders’ pathways are shared through the community. This is an interesting aspect since an analysis of the most used and repeated initiatives can be done. Moreover, there are clear differences between DTU, Aalto and MIT from a student-led organization perspective. The last two have a prominent student-led movement regarding entrepreneurship. In Aalto’s case, the student-led 30 Master Thesis movement is a crucial pillar for its I&E ecosystem since it manages most of the university’s initiatives. This is also a context distinction as in the United States the entrepreneurial mindset is empowered from a very young age (having young kids selling lemonade outside their homes to earn some money), while in Denmark a more secure behavior towards career development is promoted.
From an infrastructure perspective, all of them have many entities playing specific roles within the I&E ecosystem. However, the communication of the ecosystem is a distinct feature. On one hand, DTU’s actors work independently and their communication is also individual even though they sometimes choose to cooperate, for example in the DTU Startup Fair. On the other hand, the other universities have a unique presentation of their ecosystem even though each actor has its own initiatives.
It is clear again that the MIT has the greatest number of organizations, initiatives and resources. An interesting trait is that most of these organizations are external even being closely related to the university ecosystem. This aspect allows the ecosystem to grow bigger and more independently. However, the coordination of these initiatives is monitored through an agent called the MIT Innovation Initiative which keeps the ecosystem assembled. This is a similar characteristic with DTU’s ecosystem, having the Science Park and Skylab as semi-external organizations.
From an EEd perspective, CBS is by far the one with more full programs. It offers a total of seven versus the rest which are offering less than three. Moreover, CBS has a specific focus on improving its existing I&E teaching and creating new I&E material by providing their faculty members with regular formation. However, it is important to take into consideration that CBS is a Business School whose focus is in developing business creation skills over technical skills, contrary from DTU which is a Technical Institution.
I&E courses are offered in the other institutions presented by many departments; for instance, Mechanical Engineering, Materials Science and Engineering, Architecture, Photonics and Chemical Engineering...
Finally, from a network perspective, it is important to mention the collaborations and partnerships that are being formed between the universities. For example, DTU and CBS having the Go Grow Startup Accelerator as a possible next step for the incubatees at Skylab. Or, DTU and Aalto in the Nordic Five Tech Alliance. Or the collaboration between the MIT and DTU in many research projects.
Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 31
A summary of the main initiatives is displayed in Table 3.
Table 3. Comparison table of the universities’ main actors and initiatives. Source: (own).
DTU CBS Aalto MIT - MIT Innovation - Skylab - Entrepreneurship - A Grid Initiative Main I&E - Science Park platform - Startup Sauna - Technology Licensing - Tech Transfer - Copenhagen School actors - Aaltoes Office - Entrepreneurship of Entrepreneurship - Other I&E Infrastructure - RF Project - IDEAS GC - Blue Dot - Legatum Center for - RISE Programme - Talk The Talk I&E programs - EVP D&E - CSE Match Up - Aaltoes Ambassadors - Technology Leaving - MISTI no one behind - I&E Internship - Junction - Oi-X Developer - HEL Tech - MIT Solve - Next Generator Access to events - Dash - MIT $100K Comp. - DTC - CSE Start-up Hacks - FallUp - Lemelson-MIT and competitions - Green Challenge - Revive Program - GC Food Innovation - Showdown Morrow - Skylab Ignite - Skylab Incubator - MIT delta v - Proof program - Kiuas Accelerators and - Smart Innovation - Innovation HQ - Go Grow - Ignite - Future Box - MIT I-Corps incubators - Digital Growth Path - Aalto Startup Center - Open Entrepreneur. - Design X - DTU Link - Sandbox Innov. Fund - Skylab Funding - The Engine - PreSeed Ventures Access to capital - CBS StartUp n/f - Deshpande Center for - DTU Discovery grants Technological - DTU POC grant Innovation - Aaltoes Mentorship - Martin Trust Center - Pre-Startup Mentoring Access to - Startuplifers - MIT Startup Exchange - FoodLab Skylab n/f - European Innovation - MIT D-Lab support - Skylab Digital Academy - MIT Entrepr. Hub
- Business Club Student clubs - Aaltoes - Conflux n/f - TECHX - Slush and societies - Stardust
- DSE Fair - CSE Research Others initiatives n/f - DTU Job Bank - CSE Teaching Center
Nordic5Tech CEMS Partnerships CIEL Nordic5Tech CIEL EuroTech
The desk-research analysis of each university is described in Appendix [E]. 32 Master Thesis
6. Evaluation
As a conclusion of the previous sections, a detailed evaluation of each domain of DTU’s I&E ecosystem is presented below.
6.1. Leadership & Governance
In terms of direction, DTU does not have entrepreneurship explicit in its global strategy thus there are no specific entrepreneurial objectives to achieve. Additionally, it has been highlighted by many interviewees that the weight given to Innovation and Entrepreneurship, even though it has increased it is below the other two pillars: Education and Research. However, the development of many events along with the agreement between the interviewees in a strong sense of collective commitment towards I&E implementation, demonstrates the university’s intention towards entrepreneurship.
From another perspective, the entrepreneurial structure is important since DTU’s actors are very independent. The I&E governance structure is directed from a powerful role with clear leadership towards I&E. Furthermore, there are two specific groups coordinating each pillar. The Innovation Group organizes the innovation within all the departments and specific working groups are in control of the coordination of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
It was a shared opinion through the interviewees that having to compete within each other is reflecting positive in the ecosystem. The units are motivated to innovate entailing to an improvement of the current infrastructure. However, this strategy also led to bad dynamics between these actors as a result of lack of collaboration. For all that, the ecosystem is being monitored to ensure cooperation. The endeavors are focused on potentiating the collaboration within the I&E actors as well as with the departments in order to keep units related. For example, Skylab’s collaboration and connection with the educational framework through DTU Entrepreneurship in the X-Tech course.
6.2. Finance
DTU’s economic strategy for financing I&E activity depends on each I&E actor. Each unit decides how to spend the received amount of money from DTU’s budget, if any received. However, a sustainable funding strategy is needed if long-term impact is sought.
Some actors already seek for external resources. For instance, Skylab which is already funded by DTU as well as by external sponsors or the Science Park who is completely Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 33 funded from external sources. Other organizations such as DANSTAR, from the Blue Dot projects, also seek for its own fundraising and sponsorships a part from DTU’s money.
Important assets for these actors when looking for external resources are to be prioritized by DTU's management or to have received a previous substantial donation. This is considered an advantage since many of these entities have to compete with each other in order to get the same money.
From an entrepreneur perspective, the provided resources vary from the classic monetary support to an intangible support. For instance, the open usage of workshops and offices provided to incubatees at Skylab or by Blue Dot’s projects. “Being able to use Skylab’s facilities for “free” is amazing, not only for it, but because of the community around it” (Int [8]). Moreover, it is shared by most of the interviewees that it is quite easy to get money when the startup/spin-off’s project is well described and pitched.
However, a gap was highlighted when talking about long-term capital funding. This aspect is also a common characteristic in Denmark’s I&E ecosystems, as explained in Sections 5.1 & 5.4.3.
6.3. Culture
In DTU there are different mechanisms to enhance a cohesive, well-connected and empowered community which benefits from knowledge transfer and coordination.
Starting by the entrepreneurs’ community which is built around campus specifically in the main actors’ spaces. Interesting features are the physical interaction as well as the peer- to-peer learning culture that is promoted amongst these units. For instance, in the Science Park the startup teams are located in specialized clusters that allow collaborations. Or in Skylab the startups are actively asked to participate in events and workshops.
The student-led movement has many initiatives around campus that are really well- structured. These organizations are composed with lots of talented students willing to spend their time volunteering. That is the case of Polyteknisk Forening (PF) which is very powerful at DTU.
From an innovation perspective there are also many associations. An example is DANSTAR which is a great example of student-driven organization that is well structured and well supported; "in our case, we do it all by ourselves, which in some cases has been rough, but, it has given us the opportunity to develop our management and leadership 34 Master Thesis skills, and it has created a different bond between the team and specially within the board team" (Int [8]).
Many interviewees agreed on a change within the environment from an entrepreneurial perspective. Nonetheless, there were opposite opinions regarding the reason for this dynamic. On one hand, DTU’s top-down strategy might be linked to the progressive disappearance of these entrepreneurial student-led initiatives. On the other hand, the fluctuance of students in this kind of organizations is also deemed as a possible explanation since it hampers the perseverance through time of the group.
The reduction of volunteer work along with a shift of the culture are the main consequences of this new situation. The first effect implies a decrease on the available money for the I&E initiatives since the jobs are replaced by remunerated work. In the second case, it entails a new culture generated around the initiatives where the potential feedback, the interaction between students and the potential networking are reduced. An interesting difference was highlighted about the culture created around student-led projects versus staff-driven projects; “the high degree of freedom and responsibility that they are given, supports the notion that their motivation is mainly intrinsic and more dependent on their autonomy and the control of their own tasks” (Nielsen, K. et al, 2018) vs “those students experience a different dynamic that is more like a job” (Int [11]).
The student-staff’s structures are promoted mainly through the student assistant figure and special courses. The student assistant position usually creates a special connection with the professor and offers the opportunity for the student to integrate her/his knowledge as well as develop other soft skills. Through the development of a special course a particular bond can also emerge since the relation becomes very close. “The special courses create a unique environment where students and teachers get to know each other and can create a different relationship” (Int [7]).
At DTU, mentoring is facilitated from a very wide range of actors. Starting by any faculty staff "whenever and wherever you go, it's impressive how much time people take to help and listen to you” (Int [5]). Followed by external collaborators that are invited to programs and courses and who represent an important source of expertise and experience, e.g. Ignite, X-Tech, FutureBox, Roskilde Festival and Skylab Incubation. Finishing with personalized mentoring provided to students by industry professionals, e.g. Conflux. Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 35
Interdisciplinary structures are not very common; "you don’t get to make a lot of friends from other study-lines" (Int [5]). Therefore, special structures need to be laid down in order to promote these interactions.
Cross-faculty teaching should be carried out in order to integrate I&E capabilities in those courses that have the potential to develop ideas for startups. This mechanism potentiates the collaboration between different departments in developing courses since it can provide a better structure to the course, integrating knowledge and different pedagogical strategies. This collaboration could also help monitor the integration of I&E capabilities for assuring a gradual development through the various programs.
Finally, DTU is working on creating research groups formed by different departments and involving all the relevant stakeholders.
6.4. Infrastructure
There are lots of opportunities to experience entrepreneurship through campus; from curricular courses about I&E to acceleration programs to workshops for prototyping. However, the resources could be better spread into all the departments to support some of their potential courses. Moreover, the current ecosystem is complex and uncoordinated, which complicates the navigation through it.
From another perspective, DTU is not a complete system since its infrastructure adapts mostly to certain types of startups such as early-stage and/or deep tech as well as it presents an identical support regardless of the project’s nature. Accordingly, external collaboration is needed to provide a solution. For all that, DTU is building partnerships with other Science Parks (DeepTech Alliance) and with other universities such as Copenhagen School of Entrepreneurship from CBS or Roskilde University.
6.5. Human Capital
Most of DTU’s programs are extremely open and students have complete freedom to choose their way. “While in your study line, you can pick some courses that are related to entrepreneurship, experience a little bit and then go back to your path” (Int [1]). The gradual evolution of I&E capabilities is hindered since no clear path is defined within the students’ curriculum. Consequently, students might end up with the wrong opinion about what entrepreneurship is or unmotivated as their capabilities are not being gradually satisfied.
However, some specialties seem to be better at “coloring” the integration of I&E capabilities within their programs. For example, the Design and Innovation degree which 36 Master Thesis has a high number of students involved in many of the ecosystem’s initiatives (Skylab’s startups, Roskilde Festival project…). As explained in Section 5.3.2, this program has a 50% of I&E courses within its General and Specialization blocks which influences in the students’ learnings: “it’d be like, you have this product, now build a business model around it” (Int [5]). Additionally, this program uses a lot of facilities in Skylab for many of its courses which eases the introduction of its students to the infrastructure and breaks down some barriers. A very characteristic feature emphasized by one of the interviewees (Int [9]) is that its management team takes a great effort in involving the students' feedback in the creation and development of each course, boosting the student’s motivation.
Furthermore, there is a relation between the students’ commitment and motivation with gaining recognition through, for example, ECTS credits. “The motivation comes along with the students, but we need to make sure that they will have the time” (Int [11]). Students do not need the validation in order to be motivated, but “they still need to prioritize their time and progress their education” (Int [4]). Accordingly, DTU uses mechanisms such as taking I&E curricular courses, designing a special course for the activity or carrying out a final thesis around the initiative. Many are the programs that allow these mechanisms such as Roskilde Festival, Blue Dot, Ignite, Green Challenge, X-Tech... A mechanism that is being used in CBS is the CSE Match Up program which is an internship in one of the community’s startups allowing students to gain ECTS credits for it.
From the university's staff perspective, even though many interviewees declared that entrepreneurial attitudes and experience were not a key criterion when hiring someone, there is a pattern of the people working in the main I&E actors. For instance, most of the people from DTU Entrepreneurship center have worked or funded at least one startup, have been investigating I&E around the world, and/or have entrepreneurial attitudes.
As for the formation perspective, the available resources could be improved although each department has its own policies depending highly on each faculty staff.
6.6. Markets & Networks
DTU is connected to the regional ecosystem and it has a strong presence in the community: "DTU is the only technical university in Denmark, and that’s why it is a part of all the clusters that have a connection to science in Denmark" (Int [2]). DTU participates in many collaborations with the industry and the business community. For example, the Oi-X program which is a competition where students get to solve industry problems; or the Business Club where companies become part of the startup community in Skylab. Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 37
Go-to-market initiatives are a crucial aspect to provide entrepreneurs since one of the most challenging part of the startup journey is to “find your first customer” (Int [10]). Collaborations such as the Roskilde Festival or the Students Hack Folkemødet give the opportunity to test the idea in a secure environment.
Additionally, DTU participates in and/or organizes competitions and fairs such as the Danish Tech Challenge, the Green Challenge and the HighTech Summit, where startups, organizations and universities come together to present projects and new technologies.
Finally, DTU collaborates with partner universities to develop doble degrees, partnerships and collaborations, such as the Nordic5Tech which relates the five technical universities.
6.7. Metrics
As for the rest of the aspects, each I&E actor has defined its own metrics. The metrics used by each unit hold up the recommendations described in Section 2.3.2. For example, the Science Park uses metrics to evaluate the interaction between the startups and the community as well as it monitors the impact of its programs during and after the initiatives.
Moreover, DTU has also defined the knowledge exchange metrics such as the number of start-ups and spins-offs created, the number of patents presented, the number of inventions commercialized, the number of new collaborations…
From an educational point of view, DTU’s departments use surveys to evaluate the courses content, format and performance. However, there are no entrepreneurial aspects evaluated, therefore, the impact of EEd is not being measured nor tracked.
38 Master Thesis
7. Proposals
This section presents the process to identify the improvement areas for the project. A brief introduction to possible ideas for solving the challenges of each area is also described. Furthermore, a specific part has been added to select one of the areas as well as a section where the validation plan is detailed.
7.1. Definition of improvement areas
A SWOT analysis enables to study, through a mind map, the situation of a project. In this case, the analysis was performed based on the evaluation provided in Section 6 in order to recognize improvement areas, see in Figure 5.
Figure 5. SWOT analysis of DTU’s ecosystem evaluation. Source: (own).
Assessing the weaknesses zone, three improvement areas were identified to have a close relation to this project’s scope.
1) The Ecosystem’s configuration which is related to the coopetition strategy, the navigation through the ecosystem and the current organization of the infrastructure. 2) The Integration of EEd which is related to the collaboration between departments and the development of I&E capabilities amongst students. 3) The Monitoring of the EEd impact on students which is related to monitoring the ecosystem’s impact on students’ mindset and measuring its global performance. Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 39
7.2. Development of the proposals
7.2.1. Ecosystem’s configuration
As stated previously, DTU’s current organization sometimes hinders the coordination of the overall ecosystem arousing many problems along the way. For instance, the lack of cooperation between the units during these past years has concluded in a chaotic ecosystem with a long list of offerings that have no clear connection between them. This strategy has led to dangerous and competitive dynamics between these very same units.
From a student perspective, this tendency has an important effect since instead of presenting a cohesive ecosystem, it is showed as independent sub-ecosystems around each unit. As a result, the ecosystem is complicate and difficult to operate if not familiar with it. Accordingly, this section focuses on a proposal for facilitating the navigation through the ecosystem from a student perspective and tries to define strategies for making the external communication clearer along the way.
After analyzing the ecosystem through different student perspectives, several strategies were identified regarding the communication of I&E offerings. The main challenges of the students that are new to the ecosystem are related to finding introductory initiatives. Even though DTU has many low-key initiatives, it is sometimes hard as a new member of the ecosystem to identify them. One of the reasons is that the information is dispersed in different webpages. In the case of students who are already involved in the ecosystem, their main challenge arises when their journey through DTU’s ecosystem is completed and they need to continue their work outside this ecosystem.
The main limitations identified from which the proposal initiates are that:
1. There is a high complexity in finding the available offerings since each unit uses its own webpage with its own structure. However, all the information is already available in the internet. 2. There is no unified classification of the initiatives based on specific criteria. - Type of initiative: course, program, accelerator, event… - Targeted customer: student, researcher, startups… - Involvement stage: unaware or interested but new to the ecosystem (low), involved in many initiatives (medium) or experienced entrepreneur (high). Inspired by (Preisz, A. 2016). 40 Master Thesis
A possible solution is to define a unique webpage that gathers all the initiatives’ information and displays the ecosystem as a hole unit rather than sub-ecosystems around each I&E actor. The main requirements that were identified are showed in Table 4.
Table 4. Definition of requirements. Source: (own).
ID Definition R1 Common site to gather all the I&E ecosystem's initiatives. R2 Define a common template for displaying all the initiatives’ information. R3 Present communications, events & news in the same place. Share community’s experiences & talks. R4 Even a FAQ page with the most asked questions. R5 Show examples of other entrepreneurs' pathways through the ecosystem. R6 Connect initiatives to formal webpages to keep the information updated. R7 Display the information based on pre-selected criteria. R7.1 Present options based on customer: Student; Faculty/Researcher; Startups; Corporates/Business; Alumni/Friends R7.2 Present options based on type of initiative Area: Commercialization; Student Innovation; Startups; Collaboration Type: I&E courses; I&E programs; Accelerator & incubator; Access to events
& competitions; Access to capital; Access to support; Student club & societies R7.3 Present options based on stage of customer’s formation/interest: Low; Medium; High R8 Present a next-step section with information of possible connections. R9 Present external opportunities within the regional ecosystem.
This solution will have a greater impact on the students if it is complemented with the same kind of coordination between the physical units. A clear obstacle this solution would face is the need of constant update as the ecosystem is continuously changing. Consequently, regularly monitoring would be required.
The information needed to develop this solution is gathered in Appendix [0_Ref 1. Sheet: Initiatives]. Moreover, some examples of the design for the webpage are presented in Appendix [0_Ref 3. Section: Webpage examples].
Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 41
7.2.2. Integration of EEd
As stated in Section 6, the integration of entrepreneurship education in the curriculum doesn’t have a clear path towards developing I&E capabilities in all programs which complicates its gradual evolution.
One way of capturing more students could be by increasing the entrepreneurial options in the General and Specialization blocks, such as in the Design and Innovation program where more than 50% of the courses have I&E capabilities. This strategy would ensure the completion of a number of limited courses about I&E, still it would not assure the gradual development of these capabilities. Moreover, this approach is not an optimal way of using the resources, as students might end up unmotivated, frustrated and disappointed as their capabilities might still not be gradually developed.
Accordingly, a better strategy could be to analyze the current offering to classify each course by type and level of entrepreneurial teaching in order to define a logical order to take these courses. This information should be presented to students as a recommendation in the course’s description, e.g. in the previous courses section.
Furthermore, learning I&E skills while simultaneously meeting the rigorous requirements of an engineering degree is a challenge that should be considered when designing a course. Therefore, the collaboration between DTU’s departments and DTU Entrepreneurship ought to be promoted since the center has the knowledge about how to teach entrepreneurship and could assess the specific courses’ needs.
A parallel option could be to build more links between curricular and extra-curricular initiatives in order to increase the students’ engagement within the ecosystem. These links could be created through fixed tracks such X-Tech with the Ignite program or through the combination of courses in the ecosystem’s infrastructure.
A preliminary analysis of the current offering is presented in Appendix [0_Ref 1. Sheet: Courses] from which the categorization can be reviewed.
42 Master Thesis
7.2.3. Monitoring of the I&E impact on students
In order to understand an ecosystem, the evaluation of the effect of the interaction between the activities of the various stakeholders is needful (Simatupang, T. et al. 2015, p. 392). Independent metrics have been defined by each of the I&E actors to measure their own performance. However, there is no common monitoring strategy established within the ecosystem.
Inspired by Auerswald, P. (2015) relational map, a tracking model for the entrepreneurial ecosystem is proposed in this section. The goal of the model would be to evaluate the students’ path through the ecosystem in order to measure the changes obtained through the I&E activities in their motivation and in the level of competence. The collection of data should be across all the initiatives to track who participates in such initiatives and how they benefit from their participation. This macro-level information would help understand which students are best served by the existing network of resources and target impactful areas.
The MSc program in Technology Entrepreneurship could be used as a pilot test for defining the requirements and testing the results of the model. The reason to choose this program as a start point is that having a pre-established path towards developing entrepreneurial competences helps set a preliminary direction with specific goals. Moreover, the number of students is enough to identify similitudes and deviations and it involves more than one course and initiative from the ecosystem through a two-year period.
The source for data collection could be specific surveys passed through the students. These surveys should be passed at the beginning and at the end of each I&E activity in order to compare each students’ evolution and to identify changes in their motivation and level of competences (Bigelow, J. 2004) & (Karlsson, T. 2013).
The process should be a continuous evaluation of the results, gathering all the information in a common database for global comparation. Therefore, a common structure for all initiatives ought to be defined, see a draft in Appendix [F].
Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 43
Finally, from the identified metrics in Appendix [B], a proposal of KPIs to evaluate the ecosystem’s performance is displayed in Table 5.
Table 5. KPIs for evaluating the ecosystems’ performance. Source: (own).
I&E expenditure as % How much funding does I&E receive in the
of total expenditure university in absolute terms?
Venture capital How easy is it for startup entrepreneurs with
availability risky projects to obtain equity funding? Finance Finance
perspective How easy is to take credit in terms of legal right Ease of Credit and credit information?
Entrepreneurial On what basis do students participate in I&E intention initiatives? What is the share of individuals that declare that Attitudes towards
they would rather take a risk and start a new Entrepreneurial Risk business than work for someone else? What is the share of the student population that Fear of failure indicate that fear of failure would prevent them from setting up a business? What is the share of the adult population that Entrepreneurship as a agrees with the statement that most people
Culture perspective Culture Good Career choice consider starting a business as a desirable career choice? High Status to What is the share of population that agrees with Successful the statement that in their country successful Entrepreneurs entrepreneurs receive high status?
Availability of latest Is the access to research advancements
technologies available for students? Production Process Is the work mostly done using leading and most Sophistication efficient processing technology??
What is the share of utilization of the I&E perspective
Infrastructure Infrastructure Utilization of support infrastructure by students’ entrepreneurs? What is the quality of EEd perceived by Quality of EEd students? What number of students are participating in the Number of students I&E ecosystem? What is the share of the student population that Entrepreneurship perspective believe they have the required skills and Human capital capital Human perceived capabilities knowledge to start a business?
University procurement Can the university create demand for the of advanced technology developed technologies? University-industry
What is the degree of such collaborations?
Networks Networks Markets & & Markets
perspective research collaborations 44 Master Thesis
7.3. Selection of the proposals
This section is presented in order to decide which area ought to be endeavored first.
Accordingly, three criteria were selected required resources (level of means needed to develop the proposal), difficulty of solving (level of knowledge required to develop the solution) and required time (amount of time until implementation).
An evaluation one-on-one between each criterion was made in order to determinate their weights. Assigning 1 if X >= important than Y; and 0 if X < important than Y, the following matrix can be formed, resulting in the weights showed in Table 6.
Table 6. Evaluation matrix for assigning weights to the criterion. Source: (own).
Criteria 1 2 3 Weight Considerations (1) Required resources - 1 1 2 (1) > (2) & (1) ≥ (3) (2) Difficulty of solving 0 - 1 1 (2) > (3) (3) Required time 1 0 - 1
Finally, a criteria-based matrix method was used for the selection of one of these areas, see Table 7. The columns show the criteria used to assess each area with their evaluation scale, and the rows represent each improvement area. An explanation of the punctuation is added in each space. With the current wording, a low rating on each criterion defines a state that would encourage selecting the problem.
Table 7. Decision Matrix for selecting the improvement area. Source: (own).
Decision Required resources (2) Difficulty of solving (1) Required time (1) Matrix (1 = low, 2 = medium, 3 = high) (1 = low, 2 = medium, 3 = high) (1= short, 3 = long) Total Short - There are High - It involves a deep Low - The analysis & already mechanism in analysis and Ecosystem’s information is gathered place for the understanding of the 6 configuration within the project. cooperation between ecosystem. 1 x 2 = 2 units. 3 x 1 = 3 1 x 1 = 1 Medium - It requires High - The introduction analyzing each course of I&E capabilities in Long - It requires Integration of and its specific I&E some study-lines will cooperation between 10 EEd necessities and defining depend on each units. proper solutions. department purpose. 3 x 1 = 3 2 x 2 = 2 3 x 1 = 3 High - It involves High - A further analysis understanding the Long - It requires ought to be carried out Monitoring of differences between agreement between in regards to each units' 12 the I&E impact units & defining a units. specifications. purpose. 3 x 1 = 3 3 x 2 = 6 3 x 1 = 3
Consequently, the area to attempt first would be the Ecosystem’s configuration. Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 45
7.4. Validation of the proposals
Before implementing any solution, it is advisable to test and validate the proposal with the affected stakeholders in order to discuss and readjust the defined requirements. Therefore, this section discusses the aspects that should be deemed when approaching the execution of these ideas.
The first step would be to decide the relevant stakeholders with whom the solutions ought to be tested. The same interviewees could be considered as an initial barrier of validation since it involves both actors that affect the ecosystem and individuals that are affected by it (students). For this reason, a special summary with the evaluation from Section 6 and the proposals from this section was sent to these individuals with the goal to receive feedback, see this document in Appendix [0_Ref 4].
Once a preliminary draft is validated, a pilot test should be launched where a second round of validation could be held. This time a larger number ought to be sought in order to collect a broader feedback to perfectionate the solutions.
Moreover, these proposals are based on the continuous coordination of all the actors which, as stated in previous sections, is an ongoing challenge in the ecosystem. Therefore, a high management position should agree and enforce the solutions.
Finally, in terms of implementation and monitoring, a responsible should be defined for each solution. This actor would serve as a connector across the wide range of stakeholders dedicated to innovation and entrepreneurship. This position could be portraited by one of the working groups formed by most of the I&E actors of the ecosystem.
46 Master Thesis
8. Conclusions
This section presents the main conclusions extracted from the project. It is organized in relation to the conducted hypotheses to allow the reader to obtain a better understanding of the concepts.
Through the analysis of the five investigation areas from Section 3, DTU’s I&E ecosystem has been defined and evaluated as shown in Section 5 and 6. The above study has driven to the following conclusions about the established hypotheses.
Hypothesis a) DTU’s ecosystem has been evolving during these past years organizing its structure around all the relevant actors.
DTU’s ecosystem has been iteratively evolving during the last ten years creating new initiatives, centers and units with the intention of positioning itself as a leading entrepreneurial ecosystem amongst technical universities. Furthermore, an entrepreneurial ecosystem is essentially incomplete; by nature, it is always ready to accept new initiatives (Garud, R. et al. 2008) & (Malecki, E. 2017). This being said, partnerships and collaborations are being potentiated in order to provide a full experience to stakeholders.
The current configuration of the ecosystem is sustained by five main units: DTU Entrepreneurship, Skylab, Science park, DTU Tech Transfer and DTU Link. These actors work independently, however they are governed in such a way that allows entrepreneurial value to thrive (Stam, E. 2015). Each actor has a high degree of autonomy and freedom in terms of initiative creation, meaning that the ecosystem can evolve fast, discarding proposals that are futile and focusing, instead, on those that have a high potential. This has entailed an ecosystem where the infrastructure seems unconnected nonetheless it is capable to operate adequately.
Considering that building a self-sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem can take a minimum of twenty years (Rice, M. et al. 2014), and that DTU has only been active for the past ten years, a chaotic ecosystem can be expected. However, the current situation demonstrates that a prolonged lack of cooperation between the units can create competitive dynamics that could lead to a counterproductive effect. Therefore, the method has to change towards a more balanced coopetition strategy where the competition approach is preserved to improve the current and future initiatives, and where a collaborative dynamic is embedded within the main actors. Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 47
It is important to bear in mind that while each actor upholds its individual goals, the involvement of all relevant stakeholders into the current working groups would minimize the supremacy gap between the actors, forcing to create an ecosystem that is considered as a whole instead of being individualized. Based on the obtained feedback from members of these working groups, it should be pointed out that having a unique agent coordinating the entire ecosystem would not be a proper solution for managing its interdependence, because of the dominance of each actor and the complexity of the current ecosystem.
To summarize, DTU’s ecosystem hasn't reached a stage where it is deemed self- sustainable. Despite this, it does display a structure that is working towards building a comprehensive ecosystem through the five powerful actors.
Hypothesis b) DTU’s entrepreneurial ecosystem is perceived by stakeholders as a good environment that allows students to develop an entrepreneurial behavior.
Considering DTU’s ambition towards entrepreneurship, the development of many events in recent years such as the creation of Skylab and DTU Entrepreneurship, displays the university’s intentions.
The daily operation of the ecosystem is based on the assumption that all stakeholders know, understand and support innovation and entrepreneurship. From the interviews, it can be interpreted that there is a commitment towards innovation and entrepreneurship within all levels of DTU’s workforce. However, not all departments have the same approach. The focus varies from business collaboration to building startups. Such differences can lead to problems arising within departments regarding cooperation. This factor is directly related to the lack of a specific set of objectives in entrepreneurship within DTU's global strategy.
Therefore, it is inferred that DTU is perceived as a good environment to develop entrepreneurial behavior. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that the understanding of the entrepreneurial approach can not be completely reliable until a specific survey about their commitment and attitudes towards entrepreneurship is taken in all departments or until specific entrepreneurial objectives are determined.
Hypothesis c) DTU has EEd integrated within its curriculum which is aligned with DTU’s mission and policies.
The current set of I&E offerings, which represents around 3% of the total courses, has a high impact in terms of number of students since 73% of these courses attract more than 48 Master Thesis
15 students. Yet, regarding the number of ECTS credits, the impact decreases as the maximum credits per course obtainable is limited to 10 ECTS. In other words, a lot of students will experience some EEd during their education, but the number of credits invested in entrepreneurship depends on each student. Therefore, the gradual development of entrepreneurial competences is not guaranteed by the actual educational infrastructure.
With regards to strategy, it has been seen that DTU’s approach allows the creation of several I&E courses without defining a common goal through the departments. This policy is aligned with DTU’s global way of working, it is the students who define their own path through the programs by choosing from a wide variety of options. However, it is not the most effective way to use the available resources, as it requires a large I&E infrastructure while it only assures the completion of certain number of credits in entrepreneurship.
It must not be forgotten that DTU is indeed a technical university, thus innovation and the development of technical skills will always be prioritized over the progress of entrepreneurial capacities within the curriculum. Hence, the ecosystem plays a crucial role in shaping the students’ entrepreneurial mindset through the participation in extracurricular activities.
Finally, the combination of the proposals explained in Section 7.2 would facilitate the introduction of new initiatives to develop the missing competences in the curriculum. The comparison of the evolution of the students’ ambition and competences in the ecosystem with the expected outcome for each activity, can help identify the gaps and overlaps regarding capability advancements.
From a personal perspective, characterizing the situation of an unknown and unfamiliar phenomenon has been challenging. For this reason, the interviews have been a crucial part of the project to acquaint with the dynamics and the culture of the ecosystem. The familiarity gained through the interviews has permitted the author to work on the concepts that recognize the specific values and culture of DTU. Despite this, the validation of the proposals has been a priority to gain feedback, so the proposals could be further adapted. However, due to the lack of availability regarding communication requirements, some difficulties have risen when following the original plan.
Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 49
8.1. Recommendations for future work
This project permits the understanding of the current situation of DTU’s I&E ecosystem from seven different angles; Leadership & Governance, Finance, Culture, Infrastructure, Human Capital, Markets & Networks and Metrics. The results of the evaluation presented in Section 6 can be used to analyze in depth the roots of the present challenges. A thorough study of one of these conflicts would entail the improvement of the overall ecosystem.
However, from a student’s scope, the recommendation would be to conduct a specific study on one of the several proposals presented in this document. Starting by corroborating the identified problem with relevant stakeholders and working on the definition and implementation of a solution within the ecosystem.
In the first place, the design of a unified webpage is strongly encouraged as it is a straightforward solution that does not require extra information to be implemented. Given that a first draft of the webpage can easily be attainable from this project, the endeavor should be focused in designating a responsible agent to manage the implementation and posterior monitoring of the site as the ecosystem is constantly evolving and the data should be regularly updated.
On the other hand, the already existing MSc program in Technology Entrepreneurship defines a specific path for entrepreneurship, therefore, the implication of an explicit entrepreneurial track amongst all other programs through the educational curriculum would not be recommended. However, the existing educational infrastructure should be categorized so the expected outcome from each course is clear for students.
Moreover, the design of a tracking model based on the proposal explained in Section 7.2.3 would not be endorsed as a first step, because it is too ambitious and complex. Instead, the determination of a smaller group of students could be aimed in order to define, implement and test the model. If the idea were to be effective, the viability of a broader model should be assessed.
Finally, a clearer focus ought to be placed on monitoring the influence of the ecosystem concerning the students’ mindset if a real impact is to be achieved.
50 Master Thesis
9. Reflections
The following section discusses the most essential limitations brought by the choices that were made along the way and explores their implications on the findings. Moreover, it discusses the personal limitations brought by the author’s profile. Finally, a review of the project’s process is detailed.
9.1. Research limitations
The design and methodologies chosen for the project imply certain limitations on how the findings can be used.
As a first limitation, the literature review design has many citations and is slightly biased by the author towards specific papers. Considering that this section has served to design the evaluation framework, the findings might be inclined towards the opinions extracted from those articles.
Furthermore, the semi-structured interviews were limited to eleven respondents across the ecosystem. Even though the meetings were addressed to the different actors across DTU, both affected and affecting the ecosystem, some units weren’t reached. Consequently, the findings might be influenced by those actors’ perspectives. However, the project being focused on students and the interviewed actors being the most influential towards them, the findings can be said to be accurate to determine improvement areas in that field.
In the comparison of DTU’s ecosystem with the rest of universities two main implications can be emphasized. Firstly, other features could have been identified if different institutions were to be evaluated. Secondly, the analysis was made using the internet's information which only captures the objective aspect of the ecosystem; therefore, the culture and dynamics could only be sensed from articles or quotations.
Finally, as the ecosystem is constantly evolving and the ideas haven’t been fully validated, a confirmation or rejection of the findings and their impact might be possible in the future.
9.2. Personal limitations
It is also important to recognize the author’s profile along with the given circumstances when talking about possible implications.
First of all, due to the author’s novice in the topic some time had to be reserved to learn about new concepts as well as to acquaint with the ecosystem. Additionally, the fact that Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 51 the author was new to DTU’s ecosystem forced the necessity of a deeper analysis in order to evaluate its dynamics. However, being external to the ecosystem led the project to be more objective as there was no pre-obtained opinion about it.
Beyond the author’s limitations, this project has been developed in unprecedented conditions which have shown the ecosystem in a very different way. This situation has reduced the evaluation to a desk-research analysis and perceptual interviews, preventing the examination of some initiatives from a presential perspective. On top of that, the situation has forced an online interaction between the author and the stakeholders which has hindered the number of contacts and informal communications during the project.
9.3. Project process
At the beginning of the thesis, a project plan was defined in order to set certain milestones. Events, meetings, key activities and objectives were also designated a timeframe in order to facilitate the time management. While this was the overall process, the project was in practice an iterative process that had to be modified during its execution.
Firstly, the literature review required a bigger commitment than first anticipated due to the fact that the author was an amateur as an academic researcher and as a new practitioner in the topic.
Second, the case study plan for analyzing DTU’s ecosystem was reconsidered since the situation changed dramatically. Originally, the project aimed to analyze the ecosystem by attending many events and having informal chats with participants and organizers, a part from the desk-research analysis. However, this plan had to be abandoned and a new strategy was settled. The ecosystem was analyzed through semi-structured interviews with relevant stakeholders to get a better understanding of the ecosystem’s dynamics and culture through their perspective as well as the desk-research analysis.
Finally, the report process has been carried out through the hole project as a daily-base job.
The original project plan can be found in Appendix [0_Ref 1. Sheet: Gantt_Initial Version], and the updated project plan can be found in Appendix [0_Ref 1. Sheet: Gantt_Final Version].
52 Master Thesis
10. Bibliography
Articles
Aalto University VP. (2018). Co-creative Entrepreneurship Education For All Aalto Students. Aalto Venture Program. Retrieved from https://avp.aalto.fi/wp- content/uploads/2018/06/AVP-Short-Presentation-2018.pdf Aalto University Strategy. (2018). Vision, Mission and Strategies 2016-2020: Shaping the future. Aalto University. Retrieved from https://www.aalto.fi/sites/g/files/flghsv161/files/2018-04/aalto- yliopisto_strategy_english.pdf
Acs, Z. & Stam, E. (2017). The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small Business Economics, Volume 49, Issue 1, 1 June 2017. DOI 10.1007/s11187-017-9864- 8
OECD. (2012). A Guiding Framework for Entrepreneurial Universities. European Commission. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/site/cfecpr/EC- OECD%20Entrepreneurial%20Universities%20Framework.pdf
Alvedalen, J. & Boschma, R. (2017). A critical review of entrepreneurial ecosystems research: towards a future research agenda, European Planning Studies, 25:6, 887-903, DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2017.1299694
Ardichvili, A. Cardozo, R., & Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(1), 105-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(01)00068-4
Auerswald, P. (2015). Enabling entrepreneurial ecosystems. In D. B. Audretsch, A. N. Link, & M. L. Walshok (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of local competitiveness (pp. 54–83). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://www.kauffman.org/wp- content/uploads/2019/12/enabling_entrepreneurial_ecosystems.pdf
Autio, E., Kenney, M., Mustar, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2014). Entrepreneurial innovation: The importance of context. Research Policy, 43, 1097–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.015
Bigelow, J. (2004). Using problem-based learning to develop skills in solving unstructured problems. Journal of management education, Vol. 28 No. 5, October 2004 591-609. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562903257310
Bosma, N. & Hill, S. & Ionescu-Somers, A. & Kelley, D. & Levie, J. Tarnawa, A. (2020). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2019/2020: Global Report. Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, London Business School, Regents Park, London NW1 4SA, UK. Retrieved from https://www.gemconsortium.org/report Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 53
Bramwell, A. & Wolfe, D. (2008). Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research Policy, 37, 1175–1187. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.016
Budden, P. & Murray, F. (2017). A systematic MIT approach for assessing ‘innovation- driven entrepreneurship’ in ecosystems (iEcosystems). MIT’s Laboratory for Innovation Science & Policy. MIT Innovation Initiative. Retrieved from https://innovation.mit.edu/assets/BuddenMurray_Assessing-iEcosystems-Working- Paper_FINAL.pdf
Budden, P. & Murray, F. (2015). Innovation Ecosystems and the University. MIT’s Laboratory for Innovation Science & Policy. MIT Innovation Initiative. Retrieved from https://innovation.mit.edu/assets/MIT-Kendall-Sq.-Case_10.22.15.pdf
Copenhagen Business School Strategy. (2020). CBS STRATEGY. Copenhagen Business School. Retrieved from https://www.cbs.dk/files/cbs.dk/call_to_action/cbs_strategy_2017.pdf
Cukier, D., Kon, F., & Krueger, N. (2015). Towards a software startup ecosystems maturity model. Technical report RT‐ MAC‐2015‐03. São Paulo: University of São Paulo, Department of Computer Science. Retrieved from http://ccsl.ime.usp.br/startups/files/MaturityModelTechReport_0.pdf
Curtin, R. & Reynolds, P. (2018). Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics, PSED II, United States, 2005-2011. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37202.v1
Denyer, D. and Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a Systematic Review. In: Buchanan; D. and Bryman, A., Eds., The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods, Sage, London, p 671-689.
Desai, M., Berger, B., & Higgs, R. (2016). Critical thinking skills for business school graduates as demanded by employers: a strategic perspective and recommendations. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, Volume 20, Number 1, 10-32, 2016. Online ISSN: 1528-2643.
DTU Startup Fair. (2019). DTU Startup Fair. DTU High Tech Summit. Retrieved from https://issuu.com/dtudk/docs/hts2019-dtu-startup-fair
DTU Strategy. (2020). Strategy 2020-2025 Technology for people. Annual report for 2020. Retrieved from https://www.dtu.dk/english/About/strategy-policy
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 14(4), pp.532–550.
Feldman, M. & Francis, J. (2006). Entrepreneurs as agents in the formation of industrial clusters. In B. Asheim, P. Cooke, & R. Martin (Eds.), Clusters and regional development: Critical reflections and explorations (pp. 115–136). London: Routledge. Retrieved from https://books.google.dk/books?hl=ca&lr=&id=sZyo2sP5A8kC&oi=fnd&pg=PA115&dq=Feldman,+ M.,+%26+Francis,+J.+L.+(2006).+Entrepreneurs+as+agents+in+the+formation+of+industrial+clus 54 Master Thesis ters.&ots=S4BHGUpSIv&sig=RGN0lelc6KiIMcpcveFiv5gRJfI&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Feldm an%2C%20M.%2C%20%26%20Francis%2C%20J.%20L.%20(2006).%20Entrepreneurs%20as% 20agents%20in%20the%20formation%20of%20industrial%20clusters.&f=false
Feld, B. (2012). Startup communities: Building an entrepreneurial ecosystem in your city. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. ISBN: 978-1-118-48331-2
Fredrickson, G. (1997). The comparative imagination: On the history of racism, nationalism, and social movements. Univ of California Press.
Gartner, W. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. The Academy of Management Review, 10, 696-706.
Gartner, W. (1988). Who is an entrepreneur? Is the wrong question. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, (summer), 47-67.
Garud, R., Jain, S., & Tuertscher, P. (2008). Incomplete by design and designing for incompleteness. Organization Studies, 29, 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607088018
Gibb, A. (2003). In pursuit of a new entrepreneurship paradigm for learning: creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing thing and new combinations of knowledge’. International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol 4, No 3, pp 233–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2370.00086
Startup Genome (2020). Global Startup Ecosystem Report 2019. Startup Genome LLC. Retrieved from https://startupgenome.com/reports/global-startup-ecosystem-report-2019
Graham, R. (2014a). Creating university-based entrepreneurial ecosystems: evidence from emerging world leaders. MIT Skoltech Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.rhgraham.org/resources/MIT:Skoltech-entrepreneurial-ecosystems-report- 2014-.pdf
Graham, R. (2014b). DTU Skylab: evaluation and early impact analysis. Report.
Harrington, K. (2016). Is your entrepreneurial ecosystem scaling? An approach to inventorying and measuring a region's innovation momentum. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 11, 126–142.
Harrington, K. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystem momentum and maturity: The important role of entrepreneur development organizations and their activities. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
Haase, H., & Lautenschläger, A. (2011). ‘The ‘‘teachability dilemma’’ of entrepreneurship’, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol 7, pp 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-010-0150-3
Harrison, R. & Leitch, C. (2010). Voodoo Institution or Entrepreneurial University? Spin- Off Companies, the Entrepreneurial System and Regional Development in the UK, Regional Studies, 44, 1241-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400903167912 Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 55
Heinonen, J. & Hytti, U. (2010). Back to basics: the role of teaching in developing the entrepreneurial university. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 11(4), 283e292. http://dx.doi.org/10.5367/ijei.2010.0006.
Hollanders, H. & Merkelbach, I. (2019). European Innovation Scoreboard. Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/growth/sites/growth/files/ris2019.pdf
IRIS Group. (2018). Entrepreneurship at DTU through two decades – initiatives, results and socio-economic impact. Analysis prepared for DTU. Retrieved from https://www.dtu.dk/english/news/2018/09/dtu-behind-two-new-companies-a- week?id=d3808ff0-216e-4994-abee-9d22e43a3016
Isenberg, D. (2011, a). The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a new paradigm for economy policy: principles for cultivating entrepreneurship. Babson Entrepreneurship Ecosystem Project, Babson College, Babson Park: MA. Retrieved from http://www.innovationamerica.us/images/stories/2011/The-entrepreneurship-ecosystem- strategy-for-economic-growth-policy-20110620183915.pdf
Isenberg, D. (2011, b). When big companies fall, entrepreneurship rises. Harvard Business Review. http://blogs.hbr.org/2013/03/when-big-companies-fall-entrep/
Jack, S., Drakopoulou Dodd, S., & Anderson, A. R. (2008). Change and the development of entrepreneurial networks over time: A processual perspective. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 20, 125–159.
Jamrisko, M. & Lu, W. (2020). Germany Breaks Korea’s Six-Year Streak as Most Innovative Nation. Bloomberg Innovation Index. Bloomerg. Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-01-18/germany-breaks-korea-s-six-year- streak-as-most-innovative-nation
Jeppesen, K. (2012). Marianne Thellersen; new innovation director at DTU. DTU University. Retrieved from https://www.dtu.dk/nyheder/2012/11/pressemeddelelse_marianne-thellersen-ny- innovationsdirektoer-paa-dtu?id=ae5d50d0-c59f-4faa-b746-52f6d93156a1
Karlsson, T. (2013). Improving perceived entrepreneurial abilities through education: Exploratory testing of an entrepreneurial self-efficacy scale in a pre-post setting. The International Journal of Management Education. Volume 11, Issue 1, March 2013, Pages 1-11. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2012.10.001
Kumar, A. (2013). Entrepreneurial ecosystems around the world. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sloan School of Management. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/81086
Lester, R. (2017). A Global Strategy for MIT. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/globalstrategy/A_Global_Strategy_For_MIT_May2017.pdf 56 Master Thesis
Liguori, E. & Bendickson, J. & Solomon, S. & McDowell, W. (2019). Development of a multi-dimensional measure for assessing entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development — 2019, Volume 31, Issue 1-2, pp. 7-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1537144
Lowe, N. & Feldman, M. (2017). Institutional life within an entrepreneurial region. Geography Compass, 11(3), e12306. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12306
Lüthje, C. & Franke, N. (2001). The "making" of an entrepreneur: Testing a model of entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT. R&D Opportunity & Technology Entrepreneurship, The R&D. Management Conference 2001, Dublin: National Institute of Technology. 295-306. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00288
Malecki, E. (2017). Entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial ecosystems. Geography Compass — 2018, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp. e12359. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12359
Mason, C. & Brown, R. (2014). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and growth-oriented entrepreneurship. Background paper prepared for the workshop organized by the OECD LEED Programme and the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs on Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Growth Oriented Entrepreneurship, The Hague, Netherlands. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/Entrepreneurial-ecosystems.pdf
Mason, C. & Arshed, N. (2013). Teaching entrepreneurship to university students through experimental learning. INDUSTRY & HIGHER EDUCATION Vol 27, No 6, December 2013, pp 449–463. DOI: 10.5367/ihe.2013.0180
Miller, D. & Acs, Z. (2017). The campus as entrepreneurial ecosystem: the University of Chicago. Small Business Economics, (2017) 49:75-95. DOI 10.1007/s11187-017-9868-4
MIT Innovation Ecosystem MAP. (2020). MIT Innovative Initiative. Retrieved from https://innovation.mit.edu/assets/MIT-Innovation-Ecosystem-Map.pdf
Nielsen, K. & Thuesen, A-M. & Lundsgaard, A. & Sesti, C. & Cruz, C. & Kirknel, L. (2018). ROSKILDE FESTIVAL 2018 POWERED BY DTU STUDENTS. DTU Management. Report.
Motoyama, Y., Konczal, J., Bell‐Masterson, J., & Morelix, A. (2014). Think locally, act locally: Building a robust entrepreneurial ecosystem. Kansas City, MO: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2425675
Motoyama, Y. & Knowlton, K. (2016). From resource munificence to ecosystem integration: The case of government sponsorship in St. Louis. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 28, 448–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2016.1186749
Neck, H. M., Meyer, G. D., Cohen, B., & Corbett, A. C. (2004). An entrepreneurial system view of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42, 190–208. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-627X.2004.00105.x Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 57
Preisz, A. (2016). Flight of the baby eagles. The ecosystem of entrepreneurship on DTU ant the effect on students. Master Thesis. Institute of Engineering Management. Technical University of Denmark.
Raagmaa, G. & Keerberg, A. (2017). Regional higher education institutions in regional leadership and development. Regional Studies, 51, 260–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1215600
Rice, M., Fetters, M. L., & Greene, P. G. (2014). University‐based entrepreneurship ecosystems: A global study of six educational institutions. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 18, 481–501. DOI: 10.1504/IJEIM.2014.064722
Robson, C. (1993) Real World Research. A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner Researchers. Blackwell Publishers Inc., Oxford.
Schwab, K. (2019). Insight Report - World Economic Forum. Retrieved from http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2019.pdf
Simatupang, T. M., Schwab, A., & Lantu, D. C. (2015). Introduction [special issue on building sustainable entrepreneurship ecosystems]. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 26, 389–398. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3161598
Spigel, B. (2015). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. DOI:10.1111/etap.12167
Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: a sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies. 1–11. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484
Stam, E. & Spigel, B. (2017). Entrepreneurial ecosystems. In R. Blackburn, D. De Clercq, J. Heinonen, & Z. Wang (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of small business and entrepreneurship. London: SAGE. Retrieved from https://us.sagepub.com/en- us/nam/the-sage-handbook-of-small-business-and- entrepreneurship/book245753#features
Szerb, L. & Lafuente, E. & Márkus, G. & Acs, Z. (2020). Global Entrepreneurship Index 2019. The Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute (GEDI), Washington, D.C., USA. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17692.64641 Szerb, L. & Acs, Z. & Autio, E. & Ortega, R. & Komlósi, E. (2014). The Regional Entrepreneurship and Development Index: measuring regional entrepreneurship. Publications Office of the European Union, 2014. DOI: 10.2776/79241
Tækker, C. (2018). Grand Opening of DTU Entrepreneurship. DTU University. Retrieved from https://www.dtu.dk/english/news/2018/12/grand-opening-of-dtu- entrepreneurship?id=43caa123-e5f9-4830-8ec6-fe924b043503
Theodoraki, C. (2020). Understanding entrepreneurial ecosystems. TBS Business School. Webinar attended at https://register.gotowebinar.com/recording/3884902641379075854 58 Master Thesis
Turner, F. (1894). The significance of the frontier in American history. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin. Retrieved from http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/gilded/empire/text1/turner.pdf
Vogel, P. (2013a). Building and assessing entrepreneurial ecosystems. Presentation to OECD LEED Programme Workshop on Entrepreneurial ecosystems and Growth-oriented entrepreneurship, The Hague, 7 November. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/fr/cfe/leed/entrepreneurialecosystemsandgrowth- orientedentrepreneurshipworkshop-netherlands.htm
Vogel, P. (2013b). The employment outlook for youth: building entrepreneurial ecosystems as a way forward. An essay for the G20 Youth Forum 2013, St Petersburg, Russia. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2357856
Warhuus, J. & Vaid Basaiawmoit, R. (2014). Entrepreneurship education at Nordic technical higher education institutions: Comparing and contrasting program designs and content. The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 317-332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.07.004
Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.33524/cjar.v14i1.73
Skylab Report. (2020). Annual report for 2019. Retrieved from https://www.skylab.dtu.dk/about/about-dtu-skylab
Science Park Report. (2020). Denmark’s leading community for deep tech companies. Annual report for 2019. DTU. Retrieved from https://dtusciencepark.com/
Webpages
Aalto University Webpage. (2020). Aalto University webpage. Retrieved from https://www.aalto.fi/en/entrepreneurship-and-startups
DTU Entrepreneurship Webpage. (2020) Centre for Technology Entrepreneurship. DTU Webpage. Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneurship.dtu.dk/
DTU Science Park Webpage. (2020). DTU Science Park webpage. Retrieved from https://dtusciencepark.com/
DTU Skylab Webpage. (2020). DTU Skylab webpage. Retrieved from https://www.skylab.dtu.dk/
DTU Tech Transfer Webpage. (2020). DTU Tech Transfer webpage. Retrieved from: https://tt.dtu.dk/about-us
DTU Innovation Webpage. (2020). Innovation – Start-ups and Entrepreneurship. Retrieved from https://www.dtu.dk/english/innovation
Ewalt, D. (2018). Reuters Top 100: Europe's Most Innovative Universities – 2018. Reuters Technology News. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-emea-reuters- Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 59 ranking-innovative-unive/reuters-top-100-europes-most-innovative-universities-2018- idUSKBN1HW0B4
Gómez, S. (2020). Creating engineers fit for the 21st century: The challenges and opportunities for systemic change in engineering education. Educational Policy Advisor. Applied Physics and Electrical Engineering (TU/e). Retrieved from https://www.4tu.nl/cee/en/news/!/1636/ruth_graham_visits_tue/
Juneja, P. (2015a). Case Study. Management Study Guide Content Team. MSG Content Team comprises experienced Faculty Member, Professionals and Subject Matter Experts. ISO 2001:2015 Certified Education Provider. Retrieved from https://www.managementstudyguide.com/case_study.htm Juneja, P. (2015b). Desk Research - Methodology and Techniques. Management Study Guide Content Team. MSG Content Team comprises experienced Faculty Member, Professionals and Subject Matter Experts. ISO 2001:2015 Certified Education Provider. Retrieved from https://www.managementstudyguide.com/desk-research.htm Lynn, K. (2020). Know the Difference! Systematic Review vs. Literature Review. MLIS, University of Southern California - Norris Medical Library. Retrieved from https://guides.libraries.psu.edu/c.php?g=319063&p=5222056 MIT University Webpage. (2020). MIT Webpage. Retrieved fom http://www.mit.edu/education/ MIT Innovation Initiative. (2020). Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Website Design by Jackrabbit. Retrieved from https://innovation.mit.edu/education-community/
MSc Technology for Entrepreneurship Webpage. (2020). DTU Entrepreneurship. Retrieved from https://www.dtu.dk/english/education/msc/calling-all-change-makers QS World University Rankings. (2020). QS World University Rankings 2020 - Table information. QS Quacquarelli Symonds Limited 1994 – 2020. Retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2020
Steensboe, C. (2020). DTU’s Rankings. Retrieved from https://www.dtu.dk/english/about/facts-and-figures/rankings
THE World University Rankings. (2020). Times Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings
Toft, K. (2018). Gender Equality and Diversity. DTU University. Retrieved from https://www.dtu.dk/english/about/strategy-policy/policies/diversity-and-gender-statement
Tonsberg, C. (2019a). Innovation: Facts and Figures. DTU University. Retrieved from https://www.dtu.dk/english/about/facts-and-figures/innovation
Tonsberg, C. (2019b). CV Biography President Anders O. Bjarklev. Retrieved from https://www.dtu.dk/english/about/organization/office-of-the-president/cv-biography
Top 25 Best Graduate Programs for Entrepreneurs in 2020. (2020). Entrepreneur Media, Inc. Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/slideshow/341175#1 60 Master Thesis
CBS Entrepreneurship Platform. (2016). CBS Entrepreneurship Platform: A Brief Introduction. CBS Entrepreneurship Platform in Youtube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAe_4pbd6fz9jQTMUEka5IQ CSE Entrepreneurship Platform. (2020). CSE Copenhagen School of Entrepreneurship. Retrieved from https://cse.cbs.dk/
Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 61
Appendices
0. External appendices
The project is supplemented with external data that is provided in four different documents. Each document has one name: Ref1, Ref2, Ref3 and Ref4. In each document, there might be more than one section or sheet with specific names that are cited through the project.
An example would be Appendix [0_Ref1_Sheet: Initiatives], the lecturer would have to open the document called [Ref 1]_Excel_Appendices and open the Sheet called Initiatives.
A brief summary of each document is presented below.
[Ref 1]_Excel_Appendices.xlsx is an Excel with all the information collected during the development of this project. It is composed of 9 sheets.
Sheet: Literature Review has the information of the articles used in the literature review categorized by topic, year and authors. Sheet: Evaluation results has the information of the followed process when evaluating the data. Sheet: Initiatives has all the identified I&E initiatives of DTU’s ecosystem with the relevant information used for the project. Sheet: Courses has all the identified I&E courses of DTU’s curriculum with the relevant information used for the project. Sheet: Courses Chart has the main data used for the analysis of the EEd curriculum in Section 5.3.2 and Appendix [D.2]. Sheet: Universities has the full list of considered universities with their information. Sheet: Gantt_Initial Version has the initial project plan. Sheet: Gantt_Final Version has the final project plan.
[Ref 2]_Interviews_Information.pdf is a pdf document with all the information in regards to the interviews. It is structured in three sections.
Section 1: Interview template has the guide-line used for the interviews. Section 2: Schematic transcripts has the transcriptions of all the interviews. Section 3: Aggregation of the answers has the main answers grouped in the several sub-groups of each domain. 62 Master Thesis
[Ref 3]_Diagrams&Figures.pdf is a pdf document with information that couldn’t be added to this document because of the size.
Section 1: Diagram_1 presents a representation of DTU’s ecosystems. Section 2: Diagram_2 presents another representation of DTU’s ecosystems. Section 3: Webpage examples presents some examples that were created inspired in several sources.
[Ref 4]_DTU’s_Evaluation.pdf is a pdf document that was sent to the interviewees in order to try to receive some feedback on the solutions.
Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 63
A. Initial questions
These are the main questions used in order to find relevant literature.
What is an entrepreneurship ecosystem? Types, characteristics, definition, motivation?
How is created an ecosystem? How should its growth be managed?
What are the metrics for an entrepreneurship eco-system?
Are university’s entrepreneurial ambitions and profile reflected in the curriculum?
What is the main role of the founder? Is the continued involvement of him a key factor for the program/initiative/course?
Are external and internal (the university management) support for the ecosystem development a significance difference?
Is the student entrepreneurial movement a consequence of the EEd imparted at the University? Where does it come from?
Is interdisciplinary interaction an effective factor to promote innovative solutions? Do we mix teachers with entrepreneurs? Do we mix students from different ambits?
64 Master Thesis
B. Metrics
In this section, several metrics to measure the entrepreneurial ecosystem’s performance are presented with a short description, their scope and source.
Starting with metrics for evaluating the whole ecosystem, see Table 8.
Table 8. Summary on different metrics for an entrepreneurial and innovative ecosystem.
Name Short description Scope Source Multidimensional Assess the areas of strengths and weaknesses Any (Liguori, E. et al. Entrepreneurial Ecosystem within an ecosystem from the perception of the level 2019) Scale (MEES) community using Isenberg's six domains. Focus on studying the environment and its Global Entrepreneurship outputs, looking at a wide number of parameters Global (Szerb, L. et al. Index (GEI) to define attitudes, abilities and aspirations of level 2020) individuals & institutional factors affecting those. Global Startup Ecosystem Focus on demographics, performing, funding Global (Startup Genome, Report and infrastructure. level 2020) Focus on sets of institutions, policies, and factors Global Competitiveness National that determine the level of productivity of a (Schwab, K. 2019) Index (GCI) level country. Bloomberg Innovation Focus on rating 6-7 parameters to define the National (Jamrisko, M. & Lu, Index (BII) most innovative countries. level W. 2020) Focus on a collection of over 80 various singular European Innovation National (Hollanders, H. & and composed indicators to study the innovation Merkelbach, I. Scoreboard (EIS) level and its environment. 2019) Global Entrepreneurship Focus on understanding the environment for National (Bosma, N. et al. Monitor (GEM) entrepreneurship. level 2020) Panel Study of Entrepren. Focus on the person (entrepreneur) and process National (Curtin, R. & Dynamics (PSED) (business formation). level Reynolds, P. 2018) Regional Entrepren. & Measure progress in entrepreneurship at a Regional (Szerb, L. et al. Development Index subnational level throughout the EU. level 2014) (REDI) Regional Competitiveness Measure and examine the various Regional (Szerb, L. et al. Index (RCI) levels of competitiveness at the regional level. level 2014) Incorporates the several aspects of the regional Regional Innovation innovativeness such as creative workers, life- Regional (Szerb, L. et al. Scoreboard (RIS) long learning, hi-tech sectors, R&D and level 2014) patenting Quality of Government Regional (Szerb, L. et al. Index (QoG Index) & Evaluate corruption on a regional level. level 2014) Regional Corruption Index Regional Entrepreneurship Structured around six themes: people, funding, Regional (Mason, C. & Accelerator Programme infrastructure, policy, rewards and norms, and level Brown, R. 2014) (REAP) demand.
Structured around three levels: individual, Regional (Vogel, P. 2013a & Ecosystem index organization and community. level 2013b) Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 65
As second option to measure the ecosystem’s performance is to use metrics to evaluate each domain. Therefore, in the following tables some metrics are presented.
Finance Table 9. Metrics to evaluate the finance aspects of an ecosystem. Source: (Budden, P. & Murray, F. 2017).
Name Question answered R&D expenditure as a % How much funding does R&D receive in
GPD your country as a % of GDP? R&D expenditure in ‘000 How much funding does R&D receive in current PPP$ your country in absolute terms? Public R&D Expenditure How much R&D is supported by the as % of total R&D government through grants or education? expenditure Business Expenditure as
Innovation capacity Innovation How much R&D financial support is % of total R&D carried out by private sector? expenditure How easy is it for businesses to obtain a
Easy Access to loans bank loan? How easy is to take credit in terms of Ease of Credit legal right and credit information? How easy is it for startup entrepreneurs Venture capital availability with risky projects to obtain equity funding? What is the share of VC investment to VC investment your country’s GDP? As an index, how common is VC in the Entrepreneurial capacity Entrepreneurial VC deals location? How many deals take place per year?
Culture Table 10. Metrics to evaluate the culture aspects of an ecosystem. Source: (Budden, P. & Murray, F. 2017).
Name Short description High prestige and high quality of scientific
Quality of scientific research institutions can attract talent research institutions from the country and the international scope.
capacity Graduates in science & How alluring is it to be choosing a degree Innovation Innovation engineering (%) in science and engineering? On what basis do buyers make purchase Entrepreneurial intention decisions, price or performance?
What is the share of individuals declaring Attitudes towards that they would rather take a risk and start Entrepreneurial Risk a new business than work for someone
else? capacity What share of the adult population who
Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial Fear of failure indicate that fear of failure would prevent them from setting up a business? 66 Master Thesis
What share of the adult population agrees Entrepreneurship as a with the statement that most people Good Career choice consider starting a business as a desirable career choice? High Status to Successful What share of population agrees with the statement that in their country successful Entrepreneurs entrepreneurs receive high status? How limited is an individual’s ability to Business Freedom establish and run an enterprise without undue interference from the state?
Infrastructure Table 11. Metrics to evaluate the infrastructure aspects of an ecosystem. Source: (Budden, P. & Murray, F. 2017).
Name Short description Is it easy to have access to internet and ICT access communications technologies? Could the innovation pace be hampered Internet Bandwidth by the internet speed? That could limit capacity communication variety and speed. Production Process Is the work mostly done using leading and Sophistication most efficient processing technology?? Availability of latest Not having access to these Innovation Innovation advancements may be a disadvantage to technologies a region’s capacity to conduct research Electricity & telephone Is the electricity supply sufficiently stable? How many telephones are there per infrastructure inhabitants? What is the share of Internet users in a Number of internet users
region? capacity How well developed is the logistics Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial Logistics performance performance?
Human Capital Table 12. Metrics to evaluate the human capital aspects of an ecosystem. Source: (Budden, P. & Murray, F. 2017).
Name Short description Higher quality of STEM education leads to Quality of STEM education a higher ratio of more advanced
technological breakthroughs made
STEM Graduates per Are there enough graduates to sustain the capita innovative work? New PhD graduates per Are there enough graduates trained in capita research for the analytical work? Availability of Scientist & Are there enough scientific and engineers staff available to be engaged in scientific
Engineers work? Innovation capacity Innovation Researchers/Professionals engaged in R&D per Are there enough researchers engaged? million population Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 67
% School grads in tertiary What portion of people have completed secondary education? How many are education enrolled in universities or equivalents?
What share of the adult population believe capacity Entrepreneurship they have the required skills and perceived capabilities Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial knowledge to start a business?
Markets Table 13. Metrics to evaluate the markets aspects of an ecosystem. Source: (Budden, P. & Murray, F. 2017).
Name Short description Governments can create demand for Government procurement technologies, e.g. via military or civil of advanced technology contracts, that support innovation in direct or indirect ways. University-industry What is the degree of such collaborations research collaborations in your region? Is there a domestic market large enough Trade, Competition and for new innovations?
Innovation capacity Innovation Market scale How large are the barriers to entry for new innovation?
On what basis do buyers make purchase Buyer sophistication decisions, price or performance?
capacity Domestic Market Scale How large is the domestic market size? Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial
68 Master Thesis
C. I&E Actors
In this section a short description of the main actors of DTU’s I&E ecosystem is presented.
C.1. DTU Entrepreneurship
DTU Entrepreneurship is a center of research and curricular programs centered on entrepreneurship and innovation. It aims to strengthen the I&E ecosystem within the institution providing opportunities to develop these capabilities for all students and staff at DTU. It provides a portfolio of courses that foster both technical skills and capabilities to recognize needs, innovate, productize and commercialize new technology. On the other hand, research at the center is focused on building an effective feedback loop between research and practice (DTU Entrepreneurship, 2020).
Webpage https://www.entrepreneurship.dtu.dk/
C.2. Skylab
DTU Skylab is a place where innovation and entrepreneurship are promoted together with the collaboration within different departments. Skylab was founded in 2013 by three employees, being Mikkel Sørensen the actual head of Skylab. Nowadays, it is part of the DTU Office for Innovation and it has a total of 25 full time staff in its workforce (DTU Skylab Webpage, 2020).
The culture is ambitious since it encourages the exploration of new ideas with passion and allows taking risks: “we try, fail, and learn repeatedly, and we dare to push boundaries” (Graham, R. 2014b). Moreover, as in any other I&E ecosystem, there is a strong belief in openness, sharing and learning from others (DTU Strategy, 2020). The convergence of technologies and talent from different fields, combined with an entrepreneurial mindset, creates a unique culture of innovation and learning for everyone involved in the community (Skylab Report, 2020).
The goal is to equip students with an entrepreneurial mindset and a skillset to tackle real world problems. Moreover, it aims to be an internationally leading hub for technology- based innovation and entrepreneurship, as it promotes the development of new technologies for the solution of real-world challenges through teams from different disciplines (Skylab Report, 2020).
Overall, Skylab brings together three key activities (Skylab Report, 2020): Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 69
• Academic courses: developing a practice-based learning by offering classroom space for the hosting of university courses in I&E and by providing access to the workshop space for course participants; • Entrepreneurship support: providing open-access and office space, workshop access and informal support to students developing new product ideas or a startup. • External collaboration: developing the relations with the external world by working on, for example, projects where students are able to develop an innovative solution to real industry problems.
Metrics
The metrics used by Skylab are the following, see Figure 6.
Figure 6. Skylab metrics. Source:(Skylab Report, 2020).
Webpage https://www.skylab.dtu.dk/
C.3. DTU Tech Transfer
DTU’s Technology Transfer unit helps commercialize ideas, inventions, and technology from DTU through the sale and licensing of rights. It has a full overview of the existing inventions and technologies in DTU’s portfolio. For that reason, it can help ensure that these technologies benefit society by providing commercialization agreements with companies who can utilize the results of these researches. DTU Tech Transfer’s focus is on creating impact from excellent research by spinning out technologies to startups and established companies.
70 Master Thesis
Metrics
The metrics used by DTU Tech Transfer are the following, see Figure 7.
Figure 7. Metrics from DTU Tech Transfer. Source: (DTU Tech Transfer Webpage, 2020).
Webpage https://tt.dtu.dk/
C.4. DTU Link
DTU Link is an innovation hub that facilitates I&E programs for small and medium-sized enterprises and also works as an incubator for tech start-ups. It creates a mutually beneficial research-based collaboration as it unites knowledge and entrepreneurship. At DTU Link, researchers, SMEs, start-ups and spin-outs share competences to focus on innovation and technological breakthroughs.
The program offers exchange of knowledge and ideas with the foremost academic minds in technology, research and innovation. Also infrastructure such as: innovation processes, workshops, laboratories, desk/office-renting facilities and access to prototyping facilities. And finally, networking.
Webpage https://link.dtu.dk/
C.5. Science Park
DTU Science Park is a space that gathers together a Deep Tech community formed by startups, scaleups and established companies where they exchange knowledge and experience. Their main ambition is to stimulate deep tech companies towards development and growth: facilitating collaborations with the right DTU researchers or setting up complete mentor teams to support the growth of the company.
DTU Science Park was established in 1962 and it is one of the biggest science parks in Europe (IRIS Group, 2018). The head of the Science Park is Steen Donner. It is located in DTU Lyngby, which enables to attract the top talents of the community, providing the Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 71 network and the physical settings for deep tech companies. The infrastructure provided goes from a desk in Future Box, laboratories to workshop facilities. The network created stimulates and supports each business, providing resources and credibility.
The importance of a strong and innovative research base as well as having a durable business model are understood. “You become part of an international innovation community where everyone lives and breathes deep tech, and where other deep tech companies –– working within hardware, biotech, cleantech, and medtech –– often face the same challenges as you” (Science Park Report, 2020).
Deep tech evolves from strong research talent, disruptive solutions, and advanced industrial technologies. Deep tech is characterized by lengthy time-to-market, high capital intensity, and a complicated way into a market that may not even exist yet. At DTU Science Park, support to start-ups to maintain their development focus, assistance to scale-ups to go to market and stimulation to established companies with a dynamic development community are provided (Science Park Report, 2020).
Metrics The metrics provided by the site are shown in Figure 8 and in Figure 9.
Figure 8. Metrics provided by Science Park. Source: (DTU Science Park Webpage, 2020).
Figure 9. Metrics provided by Science Park. Source: (Science Park Report, 2020).
Webpage https://dtusciencepark.com/ 72 Master Thesis
D. EEd Curriculum
D.1. Program’s structure
The main structure for the BSc program is divided in two main blocks. The block of Science courses which are mandatory courses. The next block is Technology Core Courses which are chosen during second and third semesters in order to specialize in one of the four main specializations: Living Systems, Cyber Systems, Cyber Materials and Future Energy.
The main structure for the MSc program is divided in four main blocks. The block of general competences is designed to offer students a wide range of skills necessary to meet the complex challenges of an engineering career. The next group of courses gives the student the academic and technological knowledge necessary for obtaining specific competences within a field of engineering. The third block being the electives that provide the student the ability to pursue its own scientific and professional interests. Finally, the research project includes elements of fundamental research, innovation and application.
Students have the ability to create their own inspiring and highly individual study program by combining the technological specialization course with appropriate elective courses.
The main educational structure for the PhD program is based on a block of 30 ECTS credits that must be taken within the first eighteen months of study. The courses are elective, except of 42750 “Sustainability evaluation and communication". A lot of freedom is given to the PhD students in this part. Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 73
D.2. EEd Evaluation process
When identifying the I&E courses, specific strings were used in the Course Data Base, such as entrepreneurship, innovation and/or project-based focus. Once a course was selected, its description was quickly scanned to validate its relevance. Additionally, the Previous Course’s section was used to identify possible candidates. It is important to consider that some courses with the typical pedagogy of an entrepreneurial university might have been left out.
Following, four aspects were highlighted to classify each course in order to analyze DTU’s I&E curriculum.
The first categorization is based on the question “when is best to educate STEM students in entrepreneurship”. It can be read from authors such as (Warhuus, J. & Vaid Basaiawmoit, R. 2014) that EEd programs are often at the master's level since it is important for STEM students to work up their vocational/professional identity and subject matter skills prior to embarking on an EEd program. That leads to the first classification of each initiative: “BSc, MSc, Phd, not defined” level.
The second categorization is about the impact of the course. The reach (number of students) and scope (number of ECTS) are used for evaluating this aspect. Following the literature, the result should be a like a pyramid: “the more credits a program offers the less students it reaches” (Warhuus, J. & Vaid Basaiawmoit, R. 2014).
Another interesting debate is related to the way I&E capabilities are learned in the course: from the traditional sense of entrepreneurship as an academic subject to a general understanding of the phenomenon (Warhuus, J. & Vaid Basaiawmoit, R. 2014). That leads to the third classification of each course: “about, for, and through” EEd.
Finally, depending on the approach taken in the definition of a program, it can have a different level of autonomy. That leads to the fourth classification of each initiative: “Lower autonomy, Higher autonomy” program.
The characterization has been made by many fields such as ID number, Course’s title, Prerequisites, Department, ECTS, Nb Students, Type of EEd, Level, Autonomy, Indicated Goal, Related Initiatives and Mandatory?. This information and different charts analyzing it are provided in Appendix [0_Ref 2. Sheet: Courses Chart].
74 Master Thesis
Following, the most relevant charts are defined.
Evaluating the impact of the courses, it can be seen in Chart 1, that many of them seem to have a low impact as they are positioned in the left – bottom corner (low reach – low scope). However, the main reason is because Mandatory, General Competences and Specialty courses are mixed, which make the number of students increase greatly, distorting the axes of the chart. In the case of the MSc program, of course, the fact that it is a complete program gives it a lot more credits.
Chart 1. Diagram for program impact based on the level of education. Source: (Appendix [0_Ref 2. Sheet: Courses Chart]).
At this point is important to take into account the structure of the different programs: having General Competences, Specialization and Elective courses. For that, all mandatory and general competences courses are not considered and treated separately.
In Chart 2, a separation is defined in 30 students (as it is considered a maximum in many I&E courses in other universities) and 15 credits ECTS (as it is half the maximum recommended in one semester). It can be seen that approximately 63% of the courses are positioned in the low – left quadrant, which indicates that the courses have a low impact. However, it is important to highlight that 77% of them capture more than 15 students, which can also be considered a high number.
In conclusion, the courses have quite high impact in terms of number of students. It is worth mentioning that the number of students change every year, increasing in some and decreasing in other. Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 75
Chart 2. Diagram for program impact based on the level of education without mandatory courses. Source: (Appendix [0_Ref 2. Sheet: Courses Chart]).
Continuing with the classification, it is interesting to see that there is the distribution of the type of entrepreneurial teaching in relation with the level of the education program doesn’t vary very much, in Chart 3.
Chart 3. Distribution of the type of teaching for each course and program. Source: (Appendix [0_Ref 2. Sheet: Courses Chart]).
76 Master Thesis
D.2.2. MSc in Technology Entrepreneurship
The MSc in Technology Entrepreneurship is a MSc program of 120 ECTS (two years). The first year of this program will be September 2020 with a maximum of 30 participants. The main goal of the program is to develop the student entrepreneurial abilities so she/he can become an: entrepreneur, an intrapreneur, an innovation manager or challenge maker.
The aim of the program is to “understand technology, but mainly the impact it can have on society, in other words: what are the needs of society and how can they be resolved?” all guided by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (MSc Technology for Entrepreneurship Webpage, 2020).
Different backgrounds and different attitudes are sought in the program. The backgrounds are from the Art and Design, Humanities, Business and Technology fields. For that, three different tracks have been defined: Technology Design, Finance and Legal and Strategy and User Insight. Each team will have a person in each track, who will be considered the “expert on the field”. An important feature about the program is that it allows to have students from outside the MSc program within the teams.
The type of EEd is a combination of “about”, “through” and “for” entrepreneurship since it is a combination of content and pedagogical skills and it will require the development of a project (learning through doing). As a result, the MSc program will conclude with a Degree and a Startup project which will be highly developed.
The structure is as follows:
1. DISCOVERY: teach about entrepreneurship so everyone gets on the same page while forming the teams. a. Different kind of projects within different groups will be carried out in order to define the kind of entrepreneur each student want to become. 2. DEVELOPMENT: decide the track to follow and specialize in it, but, having on mind the project that will be developed. a. X-Tech course will be taken. 3. VENTURING: get a global mindset by travelling abroad to specializes universities to develop further the project within its sector. All the team goes together. 4. LAUNCH: write the Master Thesis on individual aspects of the project so it can be developed further. Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 77
Event evaluation
Objective: Introduce the MSc program and explain its structure Date: 20/02/2020 Location Skylab Assistants 30 people Host Two teachers and one assistant
Agenda Items
i Actions 1 Brief introduction into EEd 2 Goal of the program, policies and strategy 3 Study program, prerequisites, career… 4 How to apply
Other notes
i 1 People from outside DTU, DTU students and others.
The hosts were DTU professors who would explain how the program will run and 2 what the goals are. 3 Lots of questions could be asked and were answered.
78 Master Thesis
E. University evaluations
A description of each university is presented highlighting their strategy and the main initiatives of their ecosystem.
E.1. Copenhagen Business School
CBS is an international business university funded in 1920 in Copenhagen, Denmark. CBS combines elements from conventional business schools and the “full university” model. It maintains a focus on its impact on the society and a commitment to research and research- based education. It has around 20,000 students and 2,000 employees.
The new strategy is focused in three new transformational strategies; entrepreneurship and innovation, the program portfolio and the collaboration with the business community (Copenhagen Business School Strategy, 2020). This strategy aims I&E to permeate all of the institutions’ activities such as the way of teaching, doing research and disseminating knowledge. To maximize the impact of their education, CBS trains students to think in an entrepreneurial and innovative fashion, regardless of their specialization and their occupation after graduation.
CBS has an initiative called Entrepreneurship platform that coordinates the departments and actors as well as it makes CBS more present in the regional ecosystem. The platform helps advance EEd at the institution by improving existing I&E teaching and creating new I&E material; and by organizing external events to create a strong community. It supports several kinds of activities of relevance to entrepreneurship research, education and outreach at CBS (CBS Entrepreneurship Platform, 2016).
CBS’s main mechanism for bringing entrepreneurship into society is by its students (CBS Entrepreneurship Platform, 2016). For that reason, it spends a lot of effort in providing their faculty members with formation through workshops where they can exchange thoughts and experiences as well as workshops from external researchers and entrepreneurs who can give them some inputs in how they can build up new I&E courses.
The Entrepreneurship Platform complements the research base by facilitating collaboration with industry, by supporting fundraising for research, and by securing a strong and living connection between research and CBS' many EEd programs (CSE Entrepreneurship Platform, 2020). Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 79
EEd Curriculum
CBS has seven MSc programs with focus on entrepreneurship; four in Business Administration (Management of Innovation and Business Development, Strategic Market Creation, Business economics and Psychology and Bio-entrepreneurship), and three in Social Science (Management of Creative Business Processes, Organizational Innovation and Entrepreneurship and Public Management and Social Development). Moreover, CBS has an I&E offering of around sixty courses.
From the point of view of networking, the university has worked to establish further opportunities for students to get a truly international education. These options are for instance the double degree programs (MSc) with partners such as Queen’s School of Business, Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi and The University of Mannheim Business School, among others. Moreover, CBS is the Danish member of the CEMS, the Global Alliance in Management Education, which is a strategic alliance of leading business schools and companies whose goal is to set a global standard of excellence for Master's in management.
In order to potentiate the internationalism of the institution further, CBS participates in Business Case Competitions. This is a great opportunity to apply the knowledge and skills students gain during their studies and to create a network around the participant universities.
I&E Infrastructure
The Copenhagen School of Entrepreneurship (CSE) was founded in 2007 and is located on campus. It is the unit at CBS supporting practical based entrepreneurship and value creating for society through entrepreneurship. It provides help to student entrepreneurs who want to develop their ideas into sustainable businesses through an incubator and accelerator program. Some of the most relevant initiatives are presented below.
Entrepreneurship programs
The RISE Programme is an entrepreneurship talent program for female students at CBS and partner universities. Its goal is to make entrepreneurial souls rise above the challenges that can appear when creating business and rise above inner barriers that puts a thorn in revealing the talent and potential within.
The CSE Match UP is an internship in one of the startups within the community, being able to gain ECTS credits for it. 80 Master Thesis
University accelerator and incubator
The Proof program is split into several phases depending on the stage of the startup. The first step on the journey is the Proof of idea program which is about getting feedback about the idea. The next step is the Proof of Concept program which provides the entrepreneurs with a 3 months test to iterate their hypotheses. In this phase the team can develop proto/pretotypes and approach potential customers to learn about their problems. Finally, entering the Proof of Business which is a 6 months program that allow the team to stay at CSE where they can build the concept into a viable and sustainable business.
The Go Grow Startup Accelerator is an experience-based educational program. It is driven by mentorship, access to a wide range of sources such as financing, CSE & CBS extended network. It aims at helping early stage startup companies grow their companies towards international scale. The supportive alumni network continues into the startups' post-Go Grow Accelerator lifespan.
Digital Growth Path (DGP) it is a specialized program for manufacturing-tech entrepreneurs (an Industry 4.0 focused) by educational modules and peer- interaction. It is developed in cooperation with the Danish Industry Foundation and a range of university and business partners.
Access to events and competitions
CSE Start-up Hacks take place 3-4 times a year and consists of one day of solving challenges provided by 5 early-stage startups from universities across Copenhagen.
Access to capital
CBS StartUp’s primary focus is to ensure that the student startups from CSE and CBS are granted the needed early venture funding, to support their growth into sustainable business ventures.
Others initiatives
CSE Research aims to uncover startup patterns and to ultimately provide entrepreneurs at CSE with insights into how their startup develops over time.
CSE Teaching Center whose goal is to support practical and case-based entrepreneurship teaching at CBS. Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 81
E.2. Aalto University
Aalto University was established in 2010 through a merger of three renowned universities in the Helsinki metropolitan area in Finland (Aalto University Webpage, 2020). Aalto University is a multidisciplinary community where science and art meet technology and business. The university has six schools with nearly 13,000 students and 4,000 employees.
Its strategy is based on three elements research and innovation; art and creative practices; and education. The university states how they pretend to implement the strategy through a quest for quality, multidisciplinary collaboration, the creation of an entrepreneurial culture, and the production of tangible added value for society (Aalto University Strategy, 2018).
EEd Curriculum
In Aalto there is Aalto Ventures Program which is an entrepreneurship education program that prepares students for high-growth entrepreneurship through top-level education and curricular activities. Students work in multidisciplinary teams, do hands-on exercises and gain tools of mass disruption. The goal is to prepare the students to either construct a startup or to renovate an existing company from within.
There is another program called AENT (Developing Entrepreneurship) which provides support to introduce EEd to other departments. For example, Aalto Business School which is provided by the department of Entrepreneurship who offers EEd and a research program on entrepreneurship. Or, Aalto Design Factory provided by the department of Mechanical Engineering which develops creative ways of working, spatial solutions and enhanced interdisciplinary interaction to support world-class product design in educational, research and practical application contexts.
I&E infrastructure
At Aalto university there are two types of initiatives; the ones driven by the university and the ones that are student-led, as it can be seen in Figure 10. Both have a specific actor that develops further I&E initiatives; A Grid from the university perspective and Startup Sauna from the student-led movement. A Grid is one of the largest community spaces in Nothern Europe housing startups and accelerators. Startup Sauna is a co-working space which represents a focal meeting point in Northern Europe for entrepreneurs and investors alike. Some of the most relevant initiatives are presented below. 82 Master Thesis
Figure 10. Aalto’s entrepreneurial ecosystem. Source: (Aalto University VP, 2018).
Entrepreneurship programs
Talk The Talk is a program to train the students in public speaking.
Aaltoes Ambassadors takes team members to the most blossoming startup ecosystems of the world to network and learn from peer-to-peer.
University accelerator and incubator
Aalto Startup Center runs as a business generator program, helping research-based and other startups to scale their business.
Kiuas provides early-stage startups in their journey from idea to first revenue, and forward with its incubator, accelerator and bootcamp programs. It is run by Aaltoes and it aims to increase the quality and quantity of startups established in Finland.
Ignite is a program that helps potential future founders on their very first steps towards entrepreneurship by offering them assistance and financial aid.
Access to events and competitions
Junction is one of the world’s largest hackathons for thousands of students and entrepreneurs where the teams have 48 hours to create solutions to real-life challenges.
Dash is a hackathon for design-minded people which connects the talents from all different fields of art, tech and business to come up with creative solutions for various companies focusing on the design process. Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 83
FallUp is an event which brings students valuable insights from passionate people in the industry, fresh ideas for the future and tools to succeed.
Revive creates multiple inspiring events throughout the year that foster discussion and raise important questions around the challenges students and young professionals face in today’s competitive work environment.
Student clubs and societies
Aaltoes is Aalto Entrepreneurship Society one of Europe’s largest and most active student- run entrepreneurship community. Their vision is to make the new generation the most entrepreneur-minded generation ever seen.
Slush is a student-driven, not-for-profit movement originally founded to change attitudes toward entrepreneurship.
Access to support
Aaltoes Mentorship aims to boost personal and career development for students who are interested in learning from people more experienced in the field of entrepreneurship through their story, work experience and knowledge learnt on the way.
European Innovation Academy is an accelerating program that takes place in Nice & Turin for 3 weeks in July.
And finally, a in-between initiative is Startuplifers which is an internship program that provides students a unique chance to work in startups in Silicon Valley and Asia.
84 Master Thesis
E.3. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also known as MIT, is an American university situated in Boston. It was founded in 1861 as a small community of problem-solvers and science lovers eager to bring their knowledge to the world. Today, MIT has more than 2.500 faculty members and more than 11,000 undergraduate and graduate students. (MIT University Webpage, 2020)
The mission of MIT is to advance knowledge and educate students in science, technology, and other areas. MIT University is a community driven by a shared purpose: to make a better world through education, research, and innovation (Lester, R. 2017).
The MIT Innovation Initiative is a collaboration between the five schools (architecture and planning; engineering; humanities, arts, and social sciences; management; science). Its mission is to connect the varied pathways and networks to equip the MIT community and its partners to move powerful ideas from conception to impact (MIT Innovation Initiative, 2020). Its main roles are:
• Serving as a connector across the wide range of student groups, programs, and campus centers dedicated to innovation and entrepreneurship. • Supporting MIT’s most successful innovation and entrepreneurship programs to reach more students and external partners. • Filling gaps in the landscape through the creation of new educational programs, research efforts, and physical infrastructure that will position MIT to thrive for years to come. • It also offers examples of different pathways the founders of startups have followed through the MIT resources and also external content. It can be analyzed through these pathways that many initiatives are repeatedly used by many of the startup teams.
EEd Curriculum
The MIT Innovation Initiative administers the interdisciplinary Entrepreneurship & Innovation Minor which is an interdisciplinary program with a coherent combination of conceptual and practical elements. Some of the mandatory courses are Engineering Innovation: Moving Ideas to Impact (how to bring an innovation to market in start-ups and in large organizations) or Venture Engineering (an integrated approach to the development and growth of new innovative ventures). It also has some optional courses about understanding the role of I&E within various contexts, leadership of teams and Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 85 organizations and some experimental courses where students are prepared to maximize the impact of their projects (MIT Innovation Initiative, 2020).
Another course worth mentioning is Innovation Ecosystems for Regional Entrepreneurship-Acceleration Leaders. It is aimed at students who wish for a research- based but action-oriented understanding of how to accelerate innovation-driven entrepreneurship and build vibrant regional economies. MIT also offers I&E subjects within other Minors which have no formal relation to the I&E Minor as well as extra-curricular courses to further develop these competencies.
I&E Infrastructure
The top resources are related to stimulating and supporting an academic environment for innovation. The ecosystem offers classes, mentorship, programs and facilities aimed at students, faculty, postdoc and alumni entrepreneurs. Some of the most relevant initiatives are presented below (MIT Innovation Ecosystem MAP, 2020).
Entrepreneurial programs
IDEAS Global Challenge is an innovation and social entrepreneurship program. It is related to the PKG Center which goal is to enrich the MIT education for students through hands-on, real-world opportunities that complement the innovative culture of MIT. It offers different programs and activities.
Legatum Center for Development & Entrepreneurship empowers the MIT community to accelerate social and economic progress across the developing world through innovation- driven entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Internship is a 10-week paid internship program designed for MIT undergraduates who want to try the experience of working at a startup full time.
Gordon-MIT Engineering Leadership Program is established to educate and develop the character of outstanding MIT students as potential future leaders in the world of engineering practice and development.
Access to events and competitions
MIT Solve is a marketplace for social impact whose mission is to advance lasting solutions from tech entrepreneurs to address the world’s most pressing problems. 86 Master Thesis
MIT $100K Entrepreneurship Competition is a contest that unites students and researchers from across MIT and Greater Boston to launch their talent, ideas, and technology into leading companies.
Lemelson-MIT Program celebrates outstanding inventors and inspires young people to pursue creative lives and careers through invention.
Accelerator and Incubator
MIT delta v is an educational accelerator for MIT student entrepreneurs to help them accelerate growth in building viable, sustainable ventures.
Innovation HQ is a hub for student I&E activity and a welcoming entrance to MIT’s east campus.
MIT I-Corps is a National Science Foundation program offering training aimed specifically at researchers considering a startup.
Design X is an entrepreneurial accelerator program that empowers a select group of ventures with funding, vigorous entrepreneurship curriculum, mentorship and business plan preparation for student ventures, with a vision to transform the built environment, media and design.
Access to capital
Sandbox Innovation Fund provides meaningful seed funding for student-initiated ideas. It also offers mentoring from within MIT and from a broad network of committed partners.
The Engine bridges the gap between discovery and commercialization by empowering disruptive technologies with the long-term capital, knowledge, network connections, and the specialized equipment and labs they need to thrive. Tough Tech companies are companies that are based on research that may take up to 15 years to develop and be able to bring to market, but when they do, they have an enormous impact on society // develop breakthrough innovations and deliver them to the world) have historically been underserved and underfunded, leaving many breakthrough inventions stuck inside the lab.
The Undergraduate Giving Campaign provides funding to send MIT students abroad and continue work initiated in D-Lab to benefit emerging communities.
Investigating University ecosystems as a key factor for entrepreneurial education and behavior Page 87
Access to support
Martin Trust Center for MIT Entrepreneurship provides the expertise, support, and connections MIT students need to become effective entrepreneurs.
MIT Startup Exchange actively promotes collaboration and partnerships between MIT- connected startups and industry, principally members of MIT’s Industrial Liaison Program.
MIT D-Lab works with people around the world to develop and advance collaborative approaches and practical solutions to global poverty challenges.
MIT Entrepreneurs Hub is a compass for students and alumni to navigate MIT’s vast entrepreneurial network and find teammates, partners, and supporters.
Sloan Tech Club educates members about the high-tech industry and offers opportunities to interact with companies in this field.
MIT Venture Mentoring Service (VMS) supports innovation and entrepreneurial activity throughout the MIT community by matching both prospective and experienced entrepreneurs with skilled volunteer mentors
Project Manus its goal is to maximize the impact of ‘making’ upon academic and extracurricular life in order to foster student communities around maker-based learning.
Cypress Engineering Design Studio is a space dedicated to teaching, designing, and building both a classroom and makerspace.
Other labs.
Student club and societies
TECHX is a student-run organization that aims to empower MIT students by bringing cutting-edge technology, new ideas, and top tech-innovators to campus. They organize several events including HackMIT, xFair, MakeMIT, Blueprint, THINK, and ProjX.
88 Master Thesis
F. Considerations for the survey’s structure
The draft of the structure proposed in this project is:
Student’s profile
Profile Information:
Gender, Level of Education, Study-line, Level of I&E involvement
Previous I&E competences
“Have you participated in previous I&E activities?” “If yes, state which ones”: (present a list) “How would you grade your I&E competences at the moment?”
Current aspirations
“What do you expect to gain from this activity?”
Evaluation of the competences that the activity introduces
Final I&E competences
“How do you feel in regards to …. ?” “The course fosters the social and leadership skills needed by entrepreneurs” “The course provides students with the knowledge required to start a new company”
Evolution of I&E “Do you feel this activity has helped you advance X competence?”
Evaluation of the ecosystem’s performance
Evaluation of the activity
Some questions could be: “The activity supports building multi-disciplinary student teams” “The activity provides a strong network of new venture investors” “The activity actively promotes the process of founding a new company”
Source of some of the questions Lüthje, C. & Franke, N. (2001).