Explore the vast range of titles available.

The concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems has been used as a framework to explain entrepreneurial activities within regions and industrial sectors. Despite the usefulness of this approach, the concept is under-theorized, especially with regard to the evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems. The current literature is lacking a theoretical foundation that addresses the development and change of entrepreneurial ecosystems over time and does not consider the inherent dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems that lead to their birth, growth, maturity, decline, and re-emergence. Taking an industry lifecycle perspective, this paper addresses this research gap by elaborating a dynamic entrepreneurial ecosystem lifecycle model. We propose that an ecosystem transitions from an entrepreneurial ecosystem, with a focus on new firm creation, towards a business ecosystem, with a core focus on the internal commercialization of knowledge, i.e., intrapreneurial activities, and vice versa. Our dynamic model thus captures the oscillation that occurs among entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs through the different phases of an ecosystem’s lifecycle. Our dynamic lifecycle model may thus serve as a starting point for future empirical studies focusing on ecosystems and provide the basis for a further understanding of the interrelatedness between and co-existence of new and incumbent firms.

The positive effect of public research on industrial innovations is beyond controversy: public research institutions produce knowledge that is subsequently transferred into product and process innovations by private businesses. Besides this rather passive role in commercializing inventions, public research institutions may also proactively exploit new knowledge through public sector entrepreneurship activities. Especially entrepreneurial universities are perceived as a conduit of knowledge spillovers; they serve as central actors of innovation networks and stimulate network activities. Whereas the linkages between network embeddedness and innovation activities have been largely explored, the determinants of patent quality in terms of radicalness, originality, and generality remain rather unclear. Considering Germany's diverse public research infrastructure (universities, polytechnics, and non-university research institutes), our findings reveal that the type of institution and the corresponding scientific orientation (basic vs applied research) matter for the quality of inventions. The centrality of respective institutions within innovation networks reinforces the radicalness of inventions. However, we do not find support for the general assumption that an entrepreneurial orientation of public sector entities augments the quality of inventions. We conclude the paper with policy recommendations and with future avenues of research. Plain English Summary This study explores the relation between network embeddedness, scientific orientation, entrepreneurial orientation, and the quality of inventions of public research. Our results imply that a basic research focus induces inventions that are more radical, and a more central network position reinforces the production of more radical, original, and general patents. In contrast, an entrepreneurial orientation does not seem to stimulate a higher quality of inventions. Our results give impetus to nuanced public sector entrepreneurship policies that take the type of institution and the optimal level of regional embeddedness into account. A sole focus on the entrepreneurial transformation of public research institutes may not be sufficient to leverage the full potential of knowledge created therein. Instead, more support and guidance for creating links with other network entities is needed along with incentives to commercialize new knowledge.

Entrepreneurial universities contribute directly and indirectly to supporting all stages of entrepreneurship. The challenge for entrepreneurial universities is how they can best support academic entrepreneurs through these stages of entrepreneurship. This has led to the creation of different and often ad hoc organizational units within an entrepreneurial university. The organizational challenge for entrepreneurial universities is the selection of the appropriate formal organizational architecture to support the stages of entrepreneurship. The purpose of this paper is to examine the organizational architecture of entrepreneurial universities and how it supports the stages of entrepreneurship — latent, emergent, launch, and growth. Our conceptual organizational framework conflates the stages of entrepreneurship with the actual needs of university-based entrepreneurs and how these needs are supported through different formal organizational units within the organizational architecture of entrepreneurial universities. Therein, we categorize three types of formal organizational units — those that focus on exploration stages of entrepreneurship, those that straddle exploration and exploitation stages of entrepreneurship, and those that boundary span all stages of entrepreneurship. We conclude by discussing the resultant organizational tensions for entrepreneurial universities and highlight future avenues of research.Plain English SummaryOne of the challenges that managers of entrepreneurial universities face relates to the necessary formal organizational structures that are needed to be put in place to support university-based entrepreneurs and meet their actual needs across the stages of entrepreneurship (latent, emergent, launch, and growth). We categorize three types of formal organizational units — those that have an exclusive focus on exploration stages of entrepreneurship, those that have a selective focus on exploration and exploitation stages of entrepreneurship, and those that have an overarching focus on all exploration and exploitation stages of entrepreneurship. We further highlight some organizational tensions as a result of these configurations that entrepreneurial university managers have to handle. Such tensions relate to resource, skill, and competence synergies, seamless organizational support for university-based entrepreneurs across the different stages of entrepreneurship, appropriate governance structures, alignment of organizational units with the wider entrepreneurship context, and the appropriate configuration and mix of organizational units to support the stages of entrepreneurship.

Previous studies have identified the importance of entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems, however, few have considered in an integrated multi-level way, the key influencing factors on technology transfer mechanisms within these ecosystems. In particular, none have considered such factors from a technology transfer office (TTO) perspective. To address this gap, this research examines how macro–meso–micro factors shape the role of TTOs within an entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystem. Taking an in-depth exploratory approach set in the New Zealand context, data for this study was collected over two time periods, 4 years apart, and included inputs from all eight university TTO offices. Incorporating the perspective of TTO executives, our study unearths novel insights on a range of macro, meso and micro factors influencing their office, and how TTOs respond by synthesizing and balancing these factors across levels. The primary contribution of our research is extending the framing of TTO executives as typically portrayed in the literature, beyond important intermediaries between universities and industry, to pivotal cross-level brokers within entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems.

Substantial research has been conducted towards understanding why and how universities shape regional wealth and competitiveness. In this paper we extend this literature to examine empirically causal relationships between university-induced knowledge spillovers and regional wealth using a hand collected panel data set from 1998 to 2012. Literature has identified three possible effects of causality, namely that a university exogenously fosters and spurs regional wealth, second that universities are endogenously shaped by regional wealth and finally that regional wealth and universities follow an interlinked and co-evolutionary path. Our findings support the latter direction in that universities and their regional endowment are linked together.

Social innovation has increasingly become an issue of policy and particularly given the policy focus on societal grand challenges. As anchor institutions, the challenge for entrepreneurial universities is to effectively respond and contribute to both technological and social innovation through knowledge and technology transfer. The current conceptualization of entrepreneurial universities is predominately focused on technological innovation. This paper argues for a mission-reorientation of entrepreneurial universities that extends the current technological innovation based conceptualization to incorporate social innovation that effectively addresses environmental and societal challenges and responds to calls in the society for more sustainable and inclusive growth. While current business models that underpin entrepreneurial universities and underlying knowledge and technology transfer mechanisms mainly incentivize the commercialization and transfer of economic knowledge, an incorporating of social dimensions of innovation allows the conceptualization of a broader and more extensive role of entrepreneurial universities.

Within the technology transfer field, there have been numerous empirical studies taking US data and context that have examined the impact and effect of government legislation aimed at supporting effective technology transfer, particularly from universities and federal research laboratories to the market. However, there is a paucity of such studies in other geographical domains. Existing studies have further not focused on examining the simultaneous effects on entrepreneurial and innovative outcomes of university focused technology transfer policies. We address these research gaps by examining the effects of a far-reaching legislation change in Germany, reforming the old ‘professor’s privilege’ (Hochschullehrerprivileg). The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether regional entrepreneurial and innovative outcomes have been affected by this legislative change in intellectual property rights of inventions made by scientists. Our results suggest that this legislative change did have an initial positive effect on universities as measured by start-ups and patents. The effect yet changed over time, leading to some unintended consequences. Our paper argues that policy makers and legislators need to give consideration to the replication of policy and legislative instruments from other contexts along with the criteria that are used to measure success.

Universities play a crucial role in social, economic, and technological development. Over the last decades, higher education systems have experimented with multiple transformations due to social demands, socioeconomic paradigms, and external shakeouts. Even though teaching and research are still the core functions of universities, other activities are emerging within/beyond the universities’ scope and boundaries to configure the “third mission.” Despite the increasing importance of universities’ third mission, little is known about the role of dynamic capabilities underpinning the configuration of the third mission across higher education systems. Using a unique longitudinal dataset that captures the German higher education landscape from 2000 to 2016, we investigate the effect of dynamic teaching/research capabilities for achieving the third university mission (knowledge transfer and technology commercialization). Our results reveal tensions between complementary and substitution effects when pursuing universities’ three missions (teaching, research, and knowledge transfer and technology commercialization), requiring university managers’ and policymakers’ strategic decisions. We provide implications for university managers and the university community as well as policymakers during the re-configuration process of becoming more entrepreneurial and innovative, highlighting the relevance of effectively managing universities’ dynamic capabilities.Plain English SummaryUniversities have undergone significant transformations in recent decades, responding to societal demands, economic shifts, and external pressures. The third mission of universities thereby serves as a driving force and encompasses endeavors that go beyond traditional academic functions, such as knowledge transfer and technology commercialization. Despite its increasing importance, little is known about the underlying mechanisms that lead to third mission outcomes. To shed light on this crucial topic, this paper delves into the impact of dynamic teaching and research capabilities on achieving the third mission’s goals. Our findings reveal goal conflicts that universities face in balancing their three missions, requiring university managers and policymakers to make strategic decisions to navigate these tensions effectively. As universities aim to become more entrepreneurial and innovative, effectively managing dynamic capabilities and making strategic decisions becomes paramount during reconfiguration processes, enabling universities to unlock their full potential for economic, technological, and societal impacts.

Research on entrepreneurial ecosystems has largely taken a macro-perspective to better conceptualize and map the determinants and evolution of entrepreneurial ecosystems, yet has neglected the micro-level interactions of various entrepreneurial ecosystem actors. Recent criticisms of entrepreneurial ecosystems have centered on the lack of explicit case and effect relationships, attribution, units of analysis, the different use of network definitions as well as the static nature of existing frameworks. The purpose of our paper is to present a micro level principal investigator (PI)-centered governance framework that addresses these posited criticisms and in doing so identifies the value creation indicators (benefits), PI capabilities, the problem categories (costs), and solving mechanisms that PIs can use to govern effectively and efficiently large-scale publicly funded research programs. In leading such research programs, PIs interact with different actors within entrepreneurial ecosystems and manage governance issues, conflicts, and tensions effectively at the micro level to deliver the anticipated benefits and costs for each actor. Our framework provides the basis for future empirical research on entrepreneurial ecosystem as we have attributed cause and effect at an individual actor level and conceptualized the governance challenges at a micro rather than at the macro level that overcomes the static nature of previous frameworks.