Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Drivers & Barriers of Entrepreneurial Universities - Coggle Diagram

- - - - the environment provides critical resources p. 12
      - organizations are influences by those who control the resources they require p.13
      - To deal with these uncertainties, org. can avoid the influence from the environment or create new resources pp. 14-15
      - It is realistically assumed that
        the interests of powerful decision makers are more likely to be realized than other interests. p. 16
    - - To reduce uncertainties presented by externalities, organizations will attempt to become less dependent on them by stabilizing these interactions via the establishment of alternate relationships or dependencies. p. 5
      - A resource dependence perspective would argue that public institutions of higher education, faced with unstable and declining state support, would reduce this resource uncertainty by seeking more controllable resource options. p.5
    - - According to the resourcebased view (RBV), an organization is a unique set of valuable, rare, and imperfectly imitable resources and capabilities (Barney, 1991). (p.6)
  - - - The institutional approach challenges interpersonal approaches to organizational
        communication studies by offering explanations of behavior based on structural and environmental conditions. (p.2)
      - These concepts, the rational myth and field forces, laid the foundation for what has come to be known as neo-institutionalism, the study ofexternal forces that influence organizational strategy, change, and behavior (p.3)
      - Organizational communication and institutional scholars share territory as they examine how field forces influence organizational behavior, how organizations challenge or manage institutional forces, and how individuals understand, communicate, or seek to create institutions. (p.3)
    - - Institutional theory has arguably become a popular and powerful expla- natory tool for studying various organisational issues, including those in the context of higher education. p. 1
      - institutional theory in higher education research is dominated by the con- cepts of new institutionalism
    - - institutional theory and the three-pronged framework suggested by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) for understanding why organizations engage in isomorphic behaviour is useful. (p504)
      - Using Institutional Theory to Reframe Research on Academic Drift
    - - Organizations that success- fully incorporate environmentally-legitimated elements are more likely to succeed, grow, and survive over time than those that fail to conform. From this perspective, universities and colleges can be viewed as organizations seeking to conform with regulations and requirements mandated by external constituents. p. 205
      - Along with leadership characteristics (McBride 2010) and degree of inertia by isomorphic forces that exist in an organization (Greenwood and Hinings 1996), success in organizational change is affected by individual resistance to change (Lawrence 1954; Waddel and Sohal 1998). p. 206
    - - insitutional theory focused on the constrains in the environment of organizations that limit their ability to change p. 647
      - The greater the constraining pressures from the environment, the fewer the degrees of freedom for educa- tional change. In consequence, educational organizations become increas- ingly similar. p. 649
      - For the field of education, the outcome is a greater understanding of why educa- tional systems are so isomorphic (homogeneous) and commonly give the appearance of change without the reality of change. p. 653
      - In short, pressures to conform by organizations in an
        educational system’s environment result in changes in the direction of orga-nizational homogenization. Schools are pressured to look like other schools. p.654
    - - Isomorphism:
        
        Coercive (pressure for compliance)
        
        Mimetic (copy "best practices")
        
        Normatice (professionalization)
    - - networks are critical to mimetic processes: organizational decision-makers are more likely to mimic those organizations to which they have some interpersonal tie via boundary-spanning personnel. Organizations may mimic organizations that they think are particularly successful, but are more likely to emulate those that they trust
  - - - Teece, Peteraf, and Leih (2016) define dynamic capabilities as ‘an organization’s abilities to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies to address rapidly changing environments’. (p. 6)
      - Dynamic capabilities relate to the organizations ability to sense, seize, and transform, to generate and exploit internal and external organizational-specific competences, and to address the organization’s changing environment (Teece et al. 1997). (p. 9)
      - Rao and Weintraub (2013) note that the innovative determinants of resources, processes and success are easier to, and more often, measured than the people-oriented areas of value, behaviors, and climate. These determinants can be considered applicable to capturing the participants’ perception with regard to the dynamic capabilities of organizations. (p. 7)
    - - explores relationships between campus leadership and the organizationallevel dynamic capabilities that underpin the management of research universities.
      - the dynamic capabilities framework is a conceptual lens for understanding the critical managerial issues facing campus leadership. (p.187)
      - global education market, competition for top faculty and top students is stiff. The strength and global nature of this competition has changed the game.(p.188)
      - Dynamic ca- pabilities must be built because they cannot be bought. They can take the campus beyond best practices and enhance a university’s performance by modifying and augmenting its resources and redi- recting existing resources toward what is likely to matter most in the future.
    - - Large research universities bear many similarities to for-profit enterprises: budgets that can amount to billions of dol- lars, an array of stakeholders with conflicting goals, and unpredictable regulation. They are also engaged in vigorous competition with rival institutions for students, faculty, grants, donations, and government favors. Consequently, Dynamic Capabilities, a framework developed for the strategic management of the enterprise, can be usefully applied in the university setting (Teece, 2018b). It is fundamentally a framework to guide an organization or institution endeavoring to achieve and maintain evolutionary fitness.
      - The most important categories of dynamic capabilities have been grouped for pragmatic reasons into capabilities to (1) sense and shape opportunities and threats, (2) seize opportunities, and (3) maintain competitiveness through enhancing, combining, protecting, and, when necessary, reconfiguring the organization’s intangible and tangible assets (Teece, 2007: 1319).
      - Dynamic capabilities are rooted partially in organizational routines and partially in managerial decision making
        (Teece, 2014).
      - Strong dynamic capabilities are slow to build and must be maintained and, periodically, renewed because rou-
        tines, by their nature, gradually become less well adapted as circumstances change. The creation of strong capabilities typically involves decentralizing authority, fostering a collaborative organizational culture, and propagating a shared vision. These characteristics are particularly relevant to the university setting, where authority is inherently frag- mented between the faculty and the administration p. 5.
    - - Dynamic capabilities are an organization’s “ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external com-
        petences to address rapidly changing environments”
      - Dynamic ca- pabilities must be built because they cannot be bought
  - - - The importance of boundary spanning is raised by the need for leaders to engage across internal and external boundaries to formulate new strategic responses to a complex set of forces and pressures facing the sector (p.1)
      - evidence for the range of boundary-spanning activities proposed in previous literature and concludes in the present case that leadership achieves the ‘managing boundaries’ stage of the BSL nexus, but has more limited achievement at the highest ‘discovering new frontiers’ stage.
    - - This broader definition of boundary spanning suggests that institutional relationships with community partners are multilayered and may serve varous purposes at multiple levels p.638
    - - how universities should provide consistency in both the internal and the external interfaces, by the offer of a framework and key stakeholder insights.(p.1)
    - - For example, Allen and Cohen (1969) focus on those individuals who provide the other members of the organization with information, the so-called internal communication stars. Although it is assumed that these individuals are strongly connected to external sources of information it is not necessarily the case.
        Similarly, external communication stars may not always export information internally (Von Hippel, 1976). Boundary-spanners (or gatekeepers, as sometimes known), on the other hand, perform a number of functions for organizations, including exchanging information with the environment, reducing uncertainty, information processing, representing the organization and translating specialized knowledge between insiders and outsiders (Aldrich and Herker, 1977; Booz and Lewis, 1997; Tushman, 1977).
      - Boundary units in universities:
        
        Units and staff offering access to: technology: Technology Transfer Companies, Commercial Services, Contract/Legal Offices etc.
        
        Collaborative and contract research, problem-solving: Applied Research Centres, Consultancy units, Research Alliances representatives, KTPs Centres, etc.
        
        Space: Universities' Science Parks, Incubation Units etc.
        
        Facilities: Conference Offices, Administrators, etc.
        
        etc...
  - - - This paper has sought to update and revise prevailing conceptualizations of dis- ruptive innovation and to suggest opportunities for future research
    - - we demonstrate
        how the process view provides a dynamic understanding of DI by inte- grating existing findings on events and actions leading to a disruptive effect over time (p.166)
    - - Defining Disruptive Innovation: disruptive is how and to whom value is delivered in the marketplace—it’s the business model that makes an innovation disruptive. And often, the disruption is the business model (p.1)
- - - - Internal factors (organizational/governance structures, centers of small-university businesses, research facilities, research groups, quasi firms, TTOs, incubators, leadership talent, reputation...)
      - Environmental factors (university policies, university culture, attitude towards entrepreneurship, university entrepreneurs...)