TRIPLE HELIX noms.pmd

O-140Analysing entrepreneurial architecturesTim Vorley, University Of Cambridge, UKJen Nelles, University Of Toronto, CEPS/INSTEAD, CanadaIt is widely accepted that the notion of the ‘ivory tower’ university is outdated. New imperatives have demanded universities to bemore economically and socially orientated and accountable institutions (Kerr, 1963). Etzkowitz (2008) has described thistransformation, which has seen universities emerge as key societal institutions, in terms of a ‘second academic revolution’.However, Jencks and Riesman (1968) identify the practice of universities engaging with industry to be as old as universitiesthemselves. However, the second academic revolution has marked the formalisation of this role, colloquially known as the ThirdMission(*), alongside teaching and research as a core mission of the contemporary university (Laredo, 2007).The Third Mission has been narrowly defined in terms of transfer technology (Hackett & Dilts, 2004), although come to includeall activities (involving social and economic engagement) that are not traditionally defined as teaching or research (Jongbloed etal., 2008). The extension and intensification of this mission has been largely driven by public policy, with a view to realising thewider socio-economic value of higher education institutions and public research organizations (Godin and Gingras, 2000). Morespecifically, this policy turn has required that publicly financed institutions demonstrate returns on investment by augmentingalternative revenue streams, disseminating knowledge and innovations to the market more effectively, and realising widersocietal benefits through community engagement.As a result higher education institutions and public research organizations alike have been confronted with the imperative tobecome more entrepreneurially orientated and socio-economically engaged. However, given the sector is highly heterogeneouswith wide-ranging research capacities and teaching foci across the spectrum of basic and applied research, responding to theimperative of the Third Mission can be seen to poses a major challenge. Indeed Nixon (2004) notes that there is no single modelor archetypal entrepreneurial university, but rather multiple models with common characteristics. As such, while the ThirdMission can be understood as a common imperative, the paper considers whether it has yielded institutionally specific responsesor whether there has been strategic convergence among the approaches of different types of institution and/or across the sectoras a whole? Moreover, the paper considers what implications these findings might have for public policy design and evaluation?Vorley and Nelles (2008, 2009) have recently introduced a framework with which to analyze institutional transformation inresponse to the Third Mission. They argue that the Third Mission has challenged higher education institutions and publicresearch organizations to develop their entrepreneurial architecture. Its effectiveness is predicated on the ability of an institutionto embed entrepreneurial activities within existing teaching and/or research capabilities, and emphasize the concurrentdevelopment of all missions by coordinating the different elements of the architecture: structures, strategies, systems, leadership,and culture. Therefore, while there is no single accepted model of an entrepreneurial university, entrepreneurial architectureprovides a common framework to guide and analyze internal change.This paper investigates whether there are similarities in how entrepreneurial architectures have evolved in different types ofinstitutions, and what this means for the Third Mission. Drawing on empirical evidence from a study of higher educationinstitutions and public research organizations in France, Germany and the UK, the paper considers the impact of the ThirdMission in an institutional context. The study identifies institutions and considers the impact of institutional difference, regionaleconomies, and policy contexts. In principle, entrepreneurial architectures should evolve to facilitate Third Mission engagementby developing structures, strategies, systems, leadership and culture to capitalize on institutionally-specific strength andcapacities. Consequently, we expect to find different patterns of architectural development and engagement by institution type– patterns that we anticipate hold to a certain extent across regional contexts. For instance, are certain aspects of entrepreneurialarchitectures weakly or relatively strongly developed in one regional setting compared to others? If so, what might account forsuch differences? Ultimately, this project aims to contribute a greater understanding of the effects of Third Mission policy oninstitutional change. If specific patterns emerge this may suggest a need to consider Third Mission policy (and expectations)differentiated by institutional types and highlight the strengths and weaknesses of different regional approaches to encouraginginstitutional entrepreneurship.Notes* The term ‘Third Mission’ is predominantly used in an Anglo-European context. In the US the third mission of the university isservice provision, and the forth mission is maximising the socio-economic benefit from government-funded research. While themissions do not map directly, the Anglo-European interpretation of the Third Mission includes those activities classified underthe third and fourth mission in US universities.Madrid, October 20, 21 & 22 - 2010359