Entrepreneurship training in tertiary education: Its development and transfer

Abstract

Self-employment is becoming an increasingly viable option for growing numbers of young people entering the labour market, so it is important to identify and develop good practice in the delivery of entrepreneurship training. Not only will this enhance the quality of its provision, but it will also serve to ensure that the economic benefits from larger numbers of start-ups and innovatory new businesses are fully realised. The development and transfer of training in entrepreneurship are examined. Recent studies indicate that its provision at the tertiary education level boosts new business formation, and that experiential learning in entrepreneurship provides students with more incentives to start their own enterprises on graduating than formal enrolment in business programmes. These studies further suggest a strong positive correlation between those European universities that have adopted strategies, resources and institutional infrastructures explicitly targeted towards entrepreneurial objectives and the quality of their entrepreneurship training provision. On this basis, tertiary education institutions need to adopt a holistic cross-disciplinary approach, which commits them fully to promoting opportunities for training students in the formation of enterprises and the translation of innovatory ideas into operational businesses. To be effective, this should involve campus-wide provision, as well as outreach and engagement with the community and its businesses. Evidence demonstrates a number of alternative pathways for the transfer of good practice entrepreneurship training to less developed countries. Bottom-up models depend on the establishment of centres of excellence. These need to develop the capacity to engage with their own government policy-makers in shaping national training initiatives along their own good practice lines. Top-down models depend on creating a policy-framework and funding sources sufficient to encourage the adoption of effective entrepreneurship training programmes across the national educational framework. Here the crucial issue is the ability of existing institutions to respond to such opportunities. Between these extremes, the German dual VET system offers an ‘off-the-shelf’ option for the transfer of vocational entrepreneurship training to less developed countries, which still requires extensive adaptation to local conditions.

Keywords

current trends in OECD entrepreneurship training tertiary sector entrepreneurship training transfer of entrepreneurship training good practice

Introduction

An intriguing aspect of the recovery in employment recorded in Britain and America in the aftermath of the recent global recession is the significant contribution made by self-employment (Buttonwood, 2014). As in previous recoveries, this is partly attributable to the scarcity of alternative forms of employment for job seekers. This time, however, non-cyclical factors have also been boosting self-employment levels (The Economist, 2014a). These include technological innovations that have reduced the costs of starting and operating small enterprises; shifts in consumer spending patterns also facilitated by technological innovation, which have opened up markets for products and services developed by small businesses; expanding funding opportunities for innovatory start-ups and growing recognition by the tertiary education sector that many of their students now regard training in entrepreneurship as an important adjunct to the standard disciplines to which they are exposed as they acquire the necessary skills and knowledge to embark on a career.

This paper explores the development and transfer of entrepreneurship training in tertiary education. Its delivery is bound up with increasing appreciation by colleges and universities of the economic significance of their activities for the surrounding community. Acceptance by these institutions of the need to promote a more ‘entrepreneurial’ stance in the delivery of their services can be seen as part of a general recognition that the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge generates spillovers and innovations that create business opportunities. Recent research evaluating the pedagogy offered in business schools in the light of such entrepreneurial needs is considered. The paper assesses the impact of less formal forms of training in entrepreneurship being developed for students on a campus-wide basis rather than confined simply to those accepted for management courses, using a case study to demonstrate how these can be delivered. It then reviews what has been identified as good practice in entrepreneurship training and ways of ensuring effective transfer of such training.

Promotion of entrepreneurial skills in tertiary education

Rothaemerl et al. (2007) identify the main characteristics of the growing academic engagement with entrepreneurial activities. The most tangible evidence of this process has been the creation of technology transfer offices on many of the academic campuses within OECD nations, followed by investments in incubators or science and business parks to diffuse the resulting technological advances. During the 1980s, an increasing number of tertiary education institutes began to place greater emphasis on new firm creation, creating campus spin-offs and equity investment in start-ups, some of which were founded by their own staff or graduates. In addition to establishing their own networks of innovation, this shift in the perception of their role saw the approval of specialised degree programmes together with dedicated teaching units which focused on promoting effective entrepreneurial education.

Marginson and Considine (2000) note the financial, legal, economic and academic pressures that have combined to force academics out of their ivory tower. On the financial side, OECD governments have increasingly pressed their universities and colleges to accept more students without providing matching increases in public funding, obliging them to seek additional income streams through commercialising more of their research and teaching. The commercial success of many business schools (The Economist, 2013) has helped reduce academic resistance to the teaching of entrepreneurial skills, although most of their programmes remain targeted at students who intend to seek management posts with larger corporations. Growing financial pressures have been reinforced by new legal obligations obliging universities and colleges to patent and license their publicly funded scientific or technological advances, a move triggered initially in the USA by its 1980 Bayh-Dole Act and subsequently emulated by most other OECD nations (Mowery and Sampat, 2005). These considerations have also made academic research increasingly reliant on private sector funding sources, with some research groups being configured to respond to commercial needs (Etzkowitz, 2003).

Government attention has started to focus on the capacity of the tertiary education sector to stimulate business formation through its delivery of student teaching. A recent United Kingdom Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (UKBIS) study on the economic impact of entrepreneurship training in tertiary education defined enterprise as ‘the application of creative ideas and innovations to practical situations’ (Williamson et al., 2013: 15). Such training is seen as producing individuals ‘with the mindset and skills to respond to opportunities, needs and shortfalls, with key skills including taking the initiative, decision making, problem solving, networking, identifying opportunities and personal effectiveness’ (Williamson et al., 2013: 15). To deliver this, the study asserts, the tertiary education sector must focus on ‘developing skills and applying an enterprising mindset in the specific contexts of setting up a new venture, developing and growing an existing business, or designing an entrepreneurial organisation’ (Williamson et al., 2013: 15).

The UKBIS study explored the linkages between the growth of entrepreneurship training in UK higher and further education and any tangible economic impacts that might be attributable to this. Table 1 summarises the model created for this purpose. Although specific transmission mechanisms were hard to identify, after surveying the literature the researchers reported that such training did provide a positive stimulus to economic development, citing ‘strong evidence that enterprise and entrepreneurship education is linked to the propensity to establish a new business’ (Williamson et al., 2013: 35).

Table 1.

Linking tertiary sector entrepreneurship training to economic development.

Processes	Activities
Inputs: learning/training activity	Business studies courses focused on management skills to start up and run new business and develop the mindset for being creative and innovative; club or group focused on new business set up skills.
Outputs: new knowledge, skills and competencies	Knowledge, skills and competences gained to start a business (on one's own or in partnership); or managing or developing a micro-business; or developing a new market in a larger business.
Short-term outcomes: useful knowledge, skills and competences	Knowledge, skills and competences recognised to be of future value; more adaptive, creative and risk-taking; ambitions to start a business or manage/develop a micro-business growing; contacts made recognised to be of future value.
Medium-term outcomes: knowledge, skills and competences used	Use of any knowledge, skills and competences in an activity related to developing and growing a business; use of any knowledge, skills and competences in business to grow a business; use of any knowledge, skills and competences to gain employment role which uses these.
Impacts: knowledge, skills and competences applied with economic and social effects	Establish a new business (self or with others); create employment; contribute to survival and growth of a business; increase employability and earnings; sustainable economic growth (GVA).

Source: Adapted from Williamson et al. (2013).

An earlier large-scale analysis of UK data came to similar conclusions, with Cowling (2009: 20) stating that the increasing availability of such training ‘had an effect on entrepreneurial activity rates’. In a study for the European Commission, Gibcus et al. (2012: 7) surveyed a sample of graduates from universities across Europe delivering entrepreneurship programmes, concluding that ‘entrepreneurship education has a positive effect on the entrepreneurial mindset of young people, their intentions towards entrepreneurship, their employability and finally on their role in society and the economy’. In North America, Bramwell and Wolfe (2008) attribute much of the economic impact generated by innovatory businesses established in the Waterloo, Ontario area of Canada to the local university's extensive entrepreneurial education programme.

Formal versus informal training in entrepreneurship

The UKBIS study (Williamson et al., 2013) also considered whether the type of entrepreneurship training provided by the tertiary sector made any difference to its subsequent economic impact. It concluded that students exposed to experiential learning processes and actively participating in campus enterprises acquired more business-related knowledge, skills and competences than those who simply confined their involvement to the completion of formal academic programmes in such areas. For higher education graduates, the impact of placements further enhanced such effects.

These observations echo the conclusions of similar studies, such as two reports undertaken for the European Commission: Gibcus et al. (2012) and NIRAS Consultants (2008). Following a major survey of entrepreneurship training provision in 200 European universities, the NIRAS study reported doubts by universities that formal training programmes in entrepreneurship promoted better overall outcomes, explaining that:

during the interviews with good practice institutions it was voiced that offering degrees in entrepreneurship was not necessarily better than offering no degrees. The argument was that it is more important to embed the entrepreneurial vision in all courses to get in touch with all students instead of just students that probably already have a positive notion of entrepreneurship because they have actively chosen an entrepreneurial degree. (NIRAS Consultants, 2008: 26).

Gibcus et al. (2012) found that experiential engagement through the active content (seminars, simulations, group projects) of tertiary entrepreneurial programmes had a more positive effect on students' intentions than enrolment in non-active learning processes. Offering formal teaching programmes in entrepreneurship did not necessarily deliver greater subsequent engagement with business formation. They tested experiential learning by surveying the opinions of graduates of nine European university enterprise courses based on reflective/formal curricula. Their own perception of their skills, knowledge and attitudes were then compared with graduates who had been involved in active/informal student enterprise programmes operating under the auspices of the European Confederation of Junior Enterprises (JADE). Both sets of responses were set against those from a control group of graduates who had no participation in either formal or non-formal enterprise programmes.

Table 2 summarises some of the results of this exercise. Graduates with active/non-formal JADE involvement reported the highest scores on almost all skills categories. This study also found that a greater proportion of graduates from all forms of entrepreneurship training (16%) were self-employed (either as entrepreneurs or as sole traders) compared with those in the control group with no exposure to enterprise and entrepreneurship education (10%). Support for these findings is provided by Jones and English (2004: 422), who argue from an Australian context that entrepreneurial education needs ‘to be conducted in a different education environment’, offering ‘a teaching style that is action-oriented, supportive of experiential learning, problem-solving, project-based, creative, and involves peer evaluation’.

Table 2.

Scores of self-perception of some key entrepreneurship competences by EU graduates of enterprise programmes; graduates involved with junior enterprises during their studies and control group graduates.

Skill or knowledge *highest medium *lowest	Entrepreneurship graduates	Junior Enterprise graduates	Control group graduates
Skills:
Creativity	**	**	*
Analysis	**	***	*
Motivation	**	***	*
Networking	**	***	*
Adaptability	**	***	*
Knowledge:
Understanding role of entrepreneur	**	**	*
Knowledge of entrepreneurship	**	***	*

Source: Adapted from Gibcus et al. (2012).

The recommendations made by Gibb (2005) in his capacity as academic adviser to the UK National Centre for Entrepreneurship in Education incorporate such views. Table 3 lists the set of characteristics he identified as forming the basis for an effective delivery of university training in entrepreneurship. Gibb's report stressed the need for a more student-oriented and experiential delivery of university enterprise training, as distinct from what he regarded as an inappropriate traditional approach, in which the ‘context is dominantly that of business, the culture is that of corporate business, the pedagogic range used is narrow and over-focused upon cases’ (Gibb, 2005: 18).

Table 3.

A fully integrated higher education entrepreneurship model.

• University-wide application of entrepreneurship teaching

• Joined with office of technology transfer

• Innovative pedagogic support for every department

• Lifelong learning approach in all departments

• All departments and subjects covered

• Professorial status for Research and Development excellence

• ‘Development’ sabbaticals for staff wishing to commercialise intellectual property

• Professors of Practice, Adjunct Professors, Visiting Development Fellows

• Entrepreneur teams invited in to harvest ideas

• Social integration of entrepreneurs and status awarded to them

• Entrepreneurship as an office of the vice-chancellor/principal

• All activities academic-led but in partnership with external stakeholders

• Research and Development activity rewarded in all departments

• Active stakeholder participation with university staff in joint ventures

• Open approach to intellectual property and investment in university ventures

• Staff of departments trained to develop and offer entrepreneurship courses

Source: Gibb (2005).

A case study of informal entrepreneurship training: The University of Dundee Enterprise Gym

The Enterprise Gym (EG) run by the University of Dundee (UoD) offers an example of the less formal, student-oriented approach to entrepreneurship training now being widely advocated (University of Dundee, 2014). The university is a research-oriented institute providing a multidisciplinary set of undergraduate and post-graduate programmes, ranging from pure science and medicine, through social sciences, engineering, law and humanities to art and design. Some of its disciplines, such as biochemistry and medicine, electronic animation and forensic science, have developed spin-offs from research output deemed world class. The current university principal started his biochemical career in industry before switching to academic research, and he remains the university's strongest champion in its promotion of enterprise and entrepreneurship education.

The EG is run as an independent unit within the university reporting to a high-level committee chaired by a senior academic. Its director and assistant director are on full-time contracts, recruited from backgrounds in new enterprise support rather than from academia. Its management team is drawn from a voluntary group of students, comprising a president and two vice-presidents (one in charge of events, the other responsible for communications) and five student ambassadors appointed from the four university colleges. This core group is augmented by an extensive number of patrons and associates from the local and national business and financial communities, including the university's own ‘entrepreneur-in-residence’. Many of these mentors offer their own services freely as coaches and trainers, providing the bulk of the hands-on training undertaken by the EG, with others giving financial support or sponsoring internships.

The EG is set up to be accessible to students taking any degree programme, and participation in its activities is entirely voluntary: none of the formal degree programmes offered to students require their engagement with its offerings. The management board has to design its programme of events to attract student interest and enthusiasm as a supplement to their normal study obligations. The key entry level activity is the Discovery Challenge (alluding to the motto used by Dundee as being the ‘City of Discovery’). This is a semester-long competition open to all students at local tertiary education institutes (including Abertay University and Dundee College). Places in the competition are allocated on a first-come basis. Each team is made up of two to five student members, who must come up with a business idea involving either a new product or service, or a novel development of an established idea. Each team is assigned a business mentor.

The teams selected for this competition face a set of seven weekly training workshops which take students through the stages of planning a business, including generating ideas, financial projections, marketing and writing a business plan. Each of these workshops is delivered by a ‘super-coach’ drawn from Scottish and EU business entrepreneurs, who takes charge of a ‘workout’ session designed to build up student business skills and knowledge. The teams earn marks for attending these workshops and attaining specific goals at various stages. There are five rounds to the competition, weighted as follows:

‘Getting Ideas’ – training workshop 2 (5%)

‘Your Marketing Plan’ – due week of workshop 4 (10%)

‘Financial Planning’ – training workshop 6 (10%)

‘Your Business Plan’ – due prior to ‘Lions Den’ (50%)

THE LIONS DEN – (25%)

The final workshop involves each team pitching its idea to a live audience with judges termed a ‘Lions Den’ (based on the television programme Dragon's Den). The prizes for the successful teams are awarded in person at an annual awards ceremony and range from £500 for the winners, £250 for second and £100 for third place. The overall winners are given a six-month period of incubation space within the university to help them start and develop their business.

The Discovery Challenge competition demonstrates the overall ethos adopted by the EG, which attempts to emulate the teamwork ethic found in university sports clubs. EG students are awarded ‘blues’ (equivalent to representing your university in a sporting activity) for taking part in the introductory competition. If they then complete the next stage, a start-up competition termed Virtual Enterprise, they gain an ‘Iron Man’ award, which counts as a ‘double blue’. Informal teaching of enterprise theory is also designed in a competitive fashion, with a series of online theory quizzes designed to raise student awareness of enterprise, for which students can earn points which attract EG awards.

For students who decide to progress further, a more formal EG qualification delivered over two semesters is provided by the Advanced Certificate in Enterprise and Entrepreneurship. This certificate offers an extra-curricular addition to a student's normal degree programme, supplementing any ‘blue’ or ‘Iron Man’ and other ‘Marathon’ credit point awards the students may already have obtained from engaging in the competitive elements offered by EG. Open to students across all disciplines from life and pure sciences to arts and humanities, the Advanced Certificate programme charges a small fee (currently £234) and combines reflexive/formal with active/informal types of learning. The majority of the teaching input is provided by honorary lecturers recruited from local entrepreneurs running their own businesses, and there is continuous assessment using multiple choice tests, essays and a group project.

In addition to these formal training elements, the EG provides its student participants with one-off specialist surgeries, regular business surgeries, networking opportunities, an annual conference and a summer boot camp. There are also opportunities to participate in projects which are targeted at specific academic disciplines, such as history, law and engineering. A recent initiative is a new Student Start-up scheme jointly run by the EG and the Dundee University Students Association, which offers students a chance to ‘earn while they learn’, by promoting and supporting student start-ups. Finally, the EG provides competitively judged year-long Graduate Enterprise Fellowships, which offer incubator space accommodation and mentoring, coupled with private sponsors who offer a financial contribution to living costs while graduate enterprise ventures are rolled out.

An example of the results of this approach is provided by a post-doctoral life scientist who decided to enrol in an award-winning post-graduate electronic animation programme run by the university's Art and Design School in order to further her innovative concept of producing and marketing animated electronic lectures in science subjects. Impressed with her subsequent proposal, the EG awarded her a Graduate Enterprise Fellowship which came with an incubator opportunity, financial and mentoring support together with legal advice on intellectual property rights. This has now been translated into the commercial renting of university start-up premises. She has already won two awards: one as the Scottish Businesswomen of the Year and the other as providing the most innovative start-up in Scotland. She now employs a small team to help her produce and market her animated electronic science lectures on a global basis, using the premises provided under the university's Greenhouse Plus initiative.

In terms of future developments, the EG's assistant director¹ stresses the importance of maintaining a multidisciplinary approach, but he would also like to engage more closely with students from specific colleges (faculties) and disciplines. Here the aim would be provide training for students in their own professional degree programmes (such as dental practice and nursing; art and design; architecture and engineering; law and accountancy), which would be focused on strengthening the knowledge, skills and competences involved in operating a business in such disciplines. This acknowledges that many graduates from these professional programmes may find themselves freelancing or working as sole employers or in small partnerships. Another development being contemplated would see enterprise training extended to academic staff. Such training would not simply be confined to assisting those contemplating spin-offs from scientific and technological advances. It would include academics in any discipline wanting to explore the possibilities of starting ancillary enterprises associated with their area of expertise, designed to provide consultancy mechanisms for marketing the advice and guidance they already offer public and private sector clients.

Identifying good practice entrepreneurship training

Studies indicate that the delivery of effective tertiary sector training in entrepreneurship is not simply a matter of investing in a stand-alone teaching facility, which is then added-on to other current academic offerings. Bercovitz and Feldman (2006) cite extensive research indicating that good practice in this field requires the adoption of broader university strategies and institutional frameworks that support an entrepreneurial ethos across the whole campus and beyond. A major investigation undertaken for the European Commission (NIRAS Consultants, 2008) tested this issue in considerable detail. It assessed the quality of entrepreneurship training provided by 200 higher education institutions across Europe, and then compared this with the quality of their overall institutional framework supporting its delivery, to see whether a significant relationship could be identified.

The performance of individual institutions with regard to entrepreneurship training was determined using three indicators: learning, practice and knowledge transfer. Learning was assessed by calculating the proportion of students taking entrepreneurship courses; the proportion engaged in extra-curricular entrepreneurship activities and the proportion becoming acquainted with entrepreneurship during the course of their studies. Practice was measured by calculating the proportion of students exposed to entrepreneurial experience during their studies. Knowledge transfer was determined by establishing the number of such activities in which the institution engaged: spin-offs, licensing agreements, patents, products or process design, consultancy work, etc. (NIRAS Consultants, 2008: 76).

These performance scores were then regressed against an index designed to assess the institutional framework underpinning the delivery of entrepreneurship training in each of the sampled universities, derived from the composite set of indicators summarised in Table 4. This produced a positive regression coefficient of 0.6, indicating that 32% of the performance variation across the institutions could be attributed to differences in the quality of an institution's academic framework underpinning the delivery of entrepreneurship training (NIRAS Consultants, 2008: 82). In other words, those universities that had established a more conducive institutional framework for supporting entrepreneurship training could on average also be expected to deliver a better standard of performance in providing such education for their students.

Table 4.

Framework conditions for entrepreneurial education.

Strategy	Resources	Institutional infrastructure	Teaching and learning	Outreach	Development
Entrepreneurship goals; Entrepreneurship policies; Strategic embeddedness	Budget allocation; Income generation; Type of funding	Approaches; Entrepreneurship appointments; Research in entrepreneurship; Cross-discipline structures	Courses; Degrees; Curriculum; Teaching methods; Extra-curricular activities	Alumni; Links with stakeholders; Community engagement	Evaluation; User-driven improvement; Human resource development and management

Source: NIRAS Consultants (2008).

Interestingly, when the regression exercise was broken down into the six separate framework categories listed in Table 4, the study found that institutional differences in teaching and learning factors across the sample provided the least important framework contribution to overall variations in performance. This led the authors to conclude that their strategies, resources and institutional structures were the key elements differentiating the best performing universities from the weakest in respect of entrepreneurship training (NIRAS Consultants, 2008). Gibb et al. (2009) identify a range of elements of good practice that contribute to the strategies, resources and institutional structures which support effective entrepreneurship training in the tertiary education sector. These include:

cultivating entrepreneurial attitudes across the whole campus, rather than focusing them purely within a business or management school;

promoting opportunities for applied research in all university academic departments;

establishing a technology transfer office;

seeking funding for a campus business and/or science park;

providing incubator facilities for staff and students;

offering enterprise training across the campus on a multidisciplinary basis;

encouraging university outreach to business and financial sectors;

supporting income-generating activities to fund such activities.

Active support from public sector funding bodies, government departments and the private sector is crucial in encouraging the tertiary education sector to create institutional frameworks which support effective delivery of entrepreneurship training. A report produced for the World Economic Forum's Global Education Initiative recommended that:

academia needs to work with ministries, the private sector and other stakeholders to rethink the educational systems in their countries to develop entrepreneurial societies. Embedding entrepreneurship and innovation, cross-disciplinary approaches and interactive teaching methods all require new models, frameworks and paradigms. (Volkmann et al., 2009: 15)

The NIRAS Consultants (2008: 4) report, which drew on extensive interviews with a selection of the institutions surveyed, states that

[i]n particular, the study has made it apparent that the acknowledgement among the top management at the HEIs of the importance of teaching entrepreneurship, both in terms of value for their institution and for society as a whole, can be a key driver of entrepreneurial education.

However, inculcating good practice in this respect is never straightforward. A simple template for implementing institutional framework improvements remains elusive, because academic institutions vary in their capacity for change even within a single nation. Existing provision of entrepreneurship training in many OECD countries remains patchy: the NIRAS Consultants (2008: 3) survey estimated that ‘more than half of Europe's students at higher education level do not even have access to entrepreneurial education’. As Rothaemerl et al. (2007: 709) observe, ‘there is no smooth path for any paradigm change: the shift of the university system from an ivory tower focusing on (basic) research and teaching into a collective entrepreneurial source of technology is no exception’.

While not necessarily as crucial in creating a supportive institutional setting for the delivery of effective entrepreneurship training, the teaching and learning, outreach and development aspects of the institutional framework elements listed in Table 4 remain vital aspects of good practice. Table 5 summarises the key teaching objectives underpinning an initiative to teach entrepreneurship skills at the University of Tasmania, selected from a worldwide survey of university entrepreneurship programmes. Jones and English (2004) reflect that these development objectives differ considerably from the syllabus taught in a typical university business school.

Table 5.

Personal and enterprise development objectives in university entrepreneurship education.

Personal development	Enterprise development
Concept of entrepreneurship Characteristics of an entrepreneur Value of entrepreneurship Creativity and innovation skills Entrepreneurial and ethical self-assessment Networking, negotiating and deal making	Identifying and evaluating opportunities Commercialising a concept Developing entry strategies Constructing a business plan Finding capital Initiating the business Growing the business Harvesting strategies

Source: Jones and English (2004).

These conclusions are supported by the findings from the extensive survey undertaken by NIRAS, which resulted in the following observation on the current state of university education in entrepreneurship across Europe:

one of the major differences and areas for improvement is related to the experience of entrepreneurial teachers. It does not seem to be very widespread that staff teaching entrepreneurship have personal experience with entrepreneurship. Consequently, many students are being taught by teachers that have a theoretical knowledge about entrepreneurship, but lack the practical knowledge. However, since entrepreneurship to a large degree is a practical, hands-on subject, the teaching of it will likely be improved if the teachers have their own practical entrepreneurial experience that they can take advantage of. (NIRAS Consultants, 2008: 28)

The case study outlined earlier indicates that an effective delivery system can engage both its students and the wider community in the delivery of entrepreneurship training. Identifying suitable practitioners is a key element both in imparting the necessary skills to students and also in cultivating the outreach and development aspects of good practice. Practitioners from the business, financial and charitable sectors offered the chance to become involved in project- and skills-based teaching of student entrepreneurship education will normally appreciate the opportunity to give something back to the university, especially if they are themselves alumni. A concerted effort to turn away from traditional ‘ivory tower’ attitudes by cultivating the role of a good neighbour through enterprise and entrepreneurship educational activities makes it easier to generate income from business, financial and charitable sources, helping to fund and improve such education.

UoD created the honorary post of university ‘entrepreneur-in-residence’, initially filled by someone with a wide experience in starting and expanding businesses in local and subsequently national markets. As part of his non-pecuniary contract with the university, in addition to offering coaching sessions through the university's EG and helping to judge the Discovery Challenge, he held monthly meetings with the university principal, providing the opportunity to exchange views on the progress of the EG. When asked to explain his willingness to make such an unremunerated commitment of time and effort,² he referred to the response he encountered when discussing similar activities with academics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who argued that such voluntary efforts amounted to ‘paying it forward’: in other words, offering an investment in the next generation of entrepreneurs. He also reflected on the evangelical commitment to entrepreneurship education he found amongst MIT staff and his desire to cultivate a similar attitude at UoD.

Community engagement opportunities, ideally cultivated through the corps of voluntary business patrons and associates involved in entrepreneurship training on campus, not only enhance outreach but provide an important additional incentive for students seeking effective learning opportunities. Most students keen on honing their entrepreneurship skills quickly perceive whether the university offering is designed to provide broader benefits to the community as a whole, and generally respond better to the tasks set for them if this can be shown to be the case. Good practice suggests that student projects should be integrated as far as possible with initiatives designed to benefit the broader community, with an emphasis on sustainable development rather than simply generating income for the institution, its staff or the student body. In turn, such outreach activities will strengthen the network on which student education in enterprise and entrepreneurship can draw and encourage more sponsorship of their own business proposals.

In terms of creating a suitable institutional framework for the long-term development of an institution's entrepreneurship training, continual evaluation of its programmes is crucial, ideally undertaken on a comparative basis benchmarking against good practice elsewhere. In this respect, having a dedicated national body focused on promoting tertiary student training in entrepreneurship, to which individual universities and colleges can affiliate, is invaluable. In the UK, the National Centre for Entrepreneurship in Education offers expertise and limited funding for the tertiary education sector, as well as serving as a repository of good practice and guidance. Other such UK bodies include the National Association of College and University Entrepreneurs, which works to promote student enterprise societies. At a pan-European level, there is the JADE, which is a non-profit umbrella organisation of enterprises established and managed by students.

Transferring good practice in entrepreneurship training

Although there is strong evidence that the practice of entrepreneurship training by tertiary sector institutions in OECD nations does not consistently reach a standard that qualifies as good (NIRAS Consultants, 2008), the governments of these countries are increasingly being encouraged to include such knowledge and skills in the technical assistance and development aid they offer under bilateral and multilateral agreements with less developed nations. As a result, there is growing interest in identifying models of entrepreneurship training which can be transferred successful to the tertiary education sector of countries in receipt of such support. It is doubtful whether there is an ‘ideal’ model of entrepreneurship training which is universally capable of being effectively transferred. Instead, in this section we consider examples of some of the main elements that one would expect to encounter in entrepreneurial training programmes packaged for transfer through such means. These demonstrate that markedly different approaches can prove equally successful under the right conditions.

The process of transfer can be divided into two elements. One involves the actual entrepreneurship training provision itself; the other involves the administrative structures needed to support this. Neither of these two stages necessarily requires access to major funding sources, but they both need competent technical assistance. The European Training Foundation (ETF) is a European Union agency set up to help transition and developing countries adopt effective training systems. This includes practical guidance on entrepreneurship training at the level of vocational education and training (VET). ETF has recently road-tested a framework for scoring good practice in the provision of such training (Gribben, 2013). This involves getting the training unit to institute a scoring process which establishes criteria for assessing each stage in a VET training cycle:

training needs analysis;

training design;

training delivery;

monitoring and evaluation;

improvements to training;

marketing.

Table 6 indicates the type of score sheets involved in undertaking the first stage in this cycle: the training needs analysis. The descriptors alongside each element refer to the evidence required to support assessment, with the higher numbers identifying better practices. Good practice is established not by relying on outside accreditation, but through using peer reviews, either face-to-face or online, which allow feedback to be provided to good practitioners. This provides a cost-effective system of external review, encouraging the process of networking and facilitating innovatory practice. The ETF offers its own international good practice online platform and is currently road-testing online peer reviews in three areas: youth entrepreneurship, women's entrepreneurship and skills for internationalisation of small businesses.

Table 6.

ETF good practice score sheet for training needs analysis.

Training level:	Training needs analysis
1.	• evidence of proxy TNA process: data and analysis borrowed from other training environments with risk that training design is less relevant to local market • TNA tools borrowed and not adapted to local training market
2.	• evidence of TNA is confined to ad hoc or one-off data/intelligence gathering related to the training provision under review with no defined plans to update TNA knowledge • evidence that TNA is driven by actors external to the training environment (e.g. donors)
3.	• clearly defined links between training provider and private sector specifically addressing TNA • at least one TNA tool (e.g. survey/focus group) exploited for training design and delivery • at least one example that TNA training tools and analysis for project under review are sensitive to specific target groups (e.g. women, youths, special needs, minorities)
4.	• TNA reflects scale of training provision in terms of numbers involved in training pro vision and geographical spread • TNA is core feature of training provider's business plan or strategic organisation and includes a dedicated staff member responsible for TNA • at least one example shared which convinces peer reviewers of innovation in the TNA process • at least one example of an agreement established between training provider and general industry or sector-specific TNA developments
5.	• TNA includes analysis of sector trends (trade, turnover, employment, skills) using primary and secondary data • evidence that TNA intelligence from the project has been provided by training provider for wider policy debate, e.g. sector-specific, government policies (education, training, employment, enterprise, economic development) • at least one example shared which convinces peer reviewers of innovative use of technology for TNA process (e.g. e-surveys)
Final result: Score of 1. Score of 2. Score of 3. Score of 4. Score of 5.	Comments:

Source: Gribben (2013).

Establishing an institutional environment conducive to the growth of entrepreneurial universities and effective training in entrepreneurship is more of a challenge, since this normally requires active intervention by government policy-makers. China offers an interesting case study in how to promote such an environment starting from a very low base over a short period of time, without recourse to any outside assistance. Chen and Kenny (2005) outline the policy measures adopted in China to foster interfaces between universities and regional innovation systems. Their research indicates that, even within such a highly centralised national policy and legal framework, disparities in resource endowments between regions can influence the pathways followed by universities in pursuing entrepreneurial activity.

Since the 1980s, the Chinese government has adopted a policy of encouraging university spin-offs, which is supported by legislation allowing the university sector to enjoy tax-exempt status for its own profit-making firms (Chen and Kenny, 2005). At the same time, Chinese industrial policy has sought to stimulate the development of innovative scientific and technological zones, such as those developed in and around Shenzhen. The convergence of these efforts has seen a surge in patents, spin-offs and start-ups by Chinese universities, accompanied by a focus on training in entrepreneurship and the development of campus-based science and technology parks.

Chen and Kenny (2005) show how variations in regional capacity have had a major influence in shaping the pathways pursued to this end. Universities in Beijing were able to draw on their existing stock of human and technological expertise to form a national centre of excellence for promoting enterprise training and activity, boosted by the excellent supply of entrepreneurial expertise provided by the region's university sector. By contrast, Shenzhen started from a position prior to 1985 of having no universities to assist the creation of its special enterprise zone. The subsequent creation of local linkages to entrepreneurial universities and training facilities in Hong Kong and further afield was in response to demand for such expertise from Shenzhen's booming high-technology developments. In turn, this organic growth enabled the establishment of an effective regional innovation system.

In both these regions, the Chinese Academy of Science has been used by the government as a catalyst for promoting entrepreneurial activity on the part of Chinese universities. The effectiveness of this approach is demonstrated by the creation of Lenovo and its emergence as a world-class ICT spin-off business in which the Academy retains a controlling interest. As Chen and Kenny (2005: 26) observe:

this enterprise model is referred to as ‘one academy, two systems’: a symbiosis between the system of scientific research and the system of technology commercialisation under one roof. The Chinese Academy of Science supported Lenovo with preferential treatment, including full autonomy in managerial decision-making, financial budgeting, employee recruitment, full access to the Academy's resources, and use of the Academy's name in making business deals.

The model followed by Chinese universities places much less stress on training directed towards individual entrepreneurial activity than the approach adopted in good practice OECD universities, but this mirrors the more dirigiste overall approach taken towards economic development by Chinese policy-makers. For our purposes, China demonstrates the vital role of government policy in creating the conditions under which entrepreneurial activities and training in entrepreneurship within a university sector can quickly flourish from small beginnings, when operating in parallel with the pursuit of effective government development strategies.

In contrast to China's top-down approach, Jordan's Business Development Centre (BDC) provides a demonstration of bottom-up transfer of entrepreneurship training practice (Bibars, 2013). The BDC was established in 2004 with the support of development assistance from international donors. It has a remit to boost economic development by promoting youth entrepreneurship and employability and the development of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Its growth reflects the success of its own efforts in carving a niche for entrepreneurship training within a country that previously had no strategy for delivering such provision.

The BDC has managed to establish a role outside Jordan's existing public sector system of training which is of sufficient repute to offer entrepreneurship training to the country's own civil servants. At an early stage in development, it recognised that such training was crucial in ensuring effective government support for new business formation. Its portfolio of programmes currently covers:

public sector intrapreneurship;

corporate intrapreneurship;

youth entrepreneurship;

women entrepreneurship – home business;

entrepreneurship courses in universities, colleges and schools.

The BDC adopts an ETF approach to its training. Needs assessment through focus groups determines the design of its training programmes. The resulting delivery of its programmes together with marketing and outreach activities is monitored and evaluated in order to identify areas of improvement in the training provided. It reports that four-fifths of its 500 SME participants have seen an increase in their exports, and two-thirds of the individuals given entrepreneurship training have established their own business. The centre has pursued a partnership approach in contributing to Jordan's national employment strategy, serving as a member of the country's council for technical employment training and VET. It also enjoys observer status with the United Nation's Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). This allows it to participate in Trade and Development board meetings and in the public intergovernmental meetings organised by UNCTAD.

Between such top-down and bottom-up approaches, there are examples of off-the-shelf transfers of technical expertise and institutional support in entrepreneurship training. These are mainly to be found in those OECD nations that have their own structured system of VET capable of assimilating entrepreneurship skills, allowing them to offer technical assistance and development aid simply by creating transfer vehicles that draw on their national expertise in this area. The Germany dual VET system provides the clearest demonstration of this process and offers the nearest equivalent to a standard model for transferring training in entrepreneurship (Deißinger, 2013).

Formalised by federal law, the dual VET system offers German school leavers not qualified for university or polytechnic entry the opportunity of ongoing training on leaving school by enrolling in an apprenticeship. One-and-a-half days each week are devoted to theory and workshops taken at vocational college. The remaining three-and-a-half days are spent on in-company training and work experience. This system provides Germany with its primary means of skilled training for its non-graduating workforce and involves statutory engagement by Federal ministries engaged in education, training and research; trade unions; employers; chambers of commerce and university teacher training organisations.

In Germany in recent years, the Dual VET system has trained around 1.5 million young people mainly through three-year apprenticeships, compared with 2.4 million taking higher education programmes. There are more than 300 different occupational training schemes and 90% of initial training contracts are funded by employers. As the main funders, employers have extensive input into this system through their own organisations and the local chambers of commerce. This ensures that the training provision meets their needs, which provides a sharp contrast to the disjointed arrangements in many other OECD countries such as the UK (The Economist, 2014b). The German Vocational Training Act also offers statutory powers to enforce standardised provision of initial training. Variants of these arrangements have been created to provide entrepreneurship training for disadvantaged groups (Bommersheim, 2013).

The German Federal Government actively encourages the transfer of its national expertise in this system of training to less development nations. The main commissioning body is the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), which also accepts co-financing from third party donors. BMZ employs a staff of more than 3100 in Germany and is responsible for 16,000 employees worldwide, including 11,100 personnel from the nations it assists. These numbers include 890 development advisors and 1000 training experts. Countries with bilateral or regional projects supervised by BMZ include eight from sub-Saharan Africa, 10 from south and east Asia, 10 from Europe and central Asia, eight from Latin America and eight from the Middle East and North Africa, making this the world's largest co-ordinated training system for young people.

With experience, BMZ training experts have come to recognise the need to adapt the systems-based dual approach of German training arrangements to local conditions, and much of the assistance now provided focuses on supporting its key elements rather than offering a fully integrated framework. Even in Germany itself, this system of employer-led apprenticeships is not ideally designed for promoting VET in self-employment. As a result, when used as a way of transferring good practice entrepreneurship training, its scope has been widened to encompass the different requirements of developing labour markets. In addition to the establishment of a dual training system for the formal labour markets of recipients, GIZ now offers VET in informal labour markets, such as the self-employed and those in rural areas. These elements still draw on the basic principle of private–public cooperation in delivery of training; its emphasis on learning in the workplace; an acceptance of national training standards; the use of qualified VET staff and availability of institutionalised research and consultancy to monitor and enhance outcomes.

Conclusion

Given the evidence that self-employment is becoming an increasingly viable option for growing numbers of young people entering the labour market, it is important to identify and develop the good practice characteristics of entrepreneurship training. Not only will this enhance the quality of its provision, but it will also serve to ensure that the economic benefits from larger numbers of start-ups and innovatory new businesses are fully realised. Recent studies indicate that the provision of tertiary level training in entrepreneurship boosts new business formation, and that experiential learning in entrepreneurship provides students with more incentives to start their own enterprises on graduating than enrolment in formal business programmes.

Research also reveals that effective entrepreneurship training at a tertiary level is facilitated by efforts to make the establishment responsible for its delivery adopt a more entrepreneurial stance in its overall management. Good practice delivery requires a holistic cross-disciplinary approach which involves students and staff across the whole campus and reaches out to and engages with the community and its businesses. Tertiary sector educational establishments must commit themselves to promoting training opportunities in the formation of new enterprises and the translation of innovatory ideas into operational businesses.

There are a number of pathways available for the transfer of good practice training in entrepreneurship to less developed countries. Bottom-up models depend on the establishment of centres of excellence capable of disseminating good practice through their national education system. In this respect, a capacity for such centres of excellence to engage with their own policy-makers in shaping national training initiatives based on their own practice is crucial. Top-down models depend on creating a policy-framework and funding sources which are designed to encourage the adoption of effective entrepreneurship training programmes across the existing national educational framework. Here the crucial element is the capacity of their training institutions to respond to such opportunities. Between these extremes, the German dual VET system offers an ‘off-the-shelf’ option for the transfer of entrepreneurship training in less developed countries, which still requires extensive adaptation to local conditions.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was delivered to an international seminar on good practice exchange of vocational education and training and entrepreneurship training held in Frankfurt, 13–14 November 2013, which was organised by the German Federal Enterprise for International Cooperation Tunis together with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the European Training Foundation.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

References

Bercovitz

Feldman

(2006) Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer 31: 175–188.

Bibars R (2013) Building partnerships with vision. The international seminar on good practice exchange of Vocational Education and Training (VET) and entrepreneurship training, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) Tunis in cooperation with OECD and ETF, Frankfurt, Germany, 13–14 November.

Bommersheim E (2013) How to transfer vocational entrepreneurship training. In: The international seminar on good practice exchange of Vocational Education and Training (VET) and entrepreneurship training, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) Tunis in cooperation with OECD and ETF, Frankfurt, Germany, 13–14 November.

Bramwell

Wolfe

(2008) Universities and regional economic development: The entrepreneurial University of Waterloo. Research Policy 37: 1175–1187.

Buttonwood (2014) On their own. The Economist, 12 April, p. 78.

Chen

Kenny

(2005) Universities/research institutes and regional innovation systems: The cases of Beijing and Shenzhen. BRIE Working Paper 168, Washington, DC: World Bank.

Cowling M (2009) The Impact of Entrepreneurship Training and Small Business Experience on Future Entrepreneurial Activity in the UK. University of Sussex Institute of Employment Studies Working Paper WS21, Brighton, UK.

Deißinger T (2013) The German dual VET system as a good practice. The international seminar on good practice exchange of Vocational Education and Training (VET) and entrepreneurship training, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) Tunis in cooperation with OECD and ETF, Frankfurt, Germany, 13–14 November.

Etzkowitz

(2003) Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy 32: 109–121.

10.

Gibb A (2005) Toward the Entrepreneurial University: Entrepreneurship Education as a Lever for Change. Policy Paper 3. Coventry: National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (now National Centre for Entrepreneurship in Education).

11.

Gibb A, Haskins G and Robertson I (2009) Leading the Entrepreneurial University: Meeting the Entrepreneurial Development Need of Higher Education Institutions. Oxford: Saïd Business School for National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship (now National Centre for Entrepreneurship in Education).

12.

Gibcus

de Kok

Snijders

(2012) Effects and Impact of Entrepreneurship Programmes in Higher Education, Brussels: EIM Business and Policy Research for Directorate-General Enterprise and Industry, European Commission.

13.

Gribben AA (2013) What is good practice? In: The international seminar on good practice exchange of Vocational Education and Training (VET) and entrepreneurship training, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) Tunis in cooperation with OECD and ETF, Frankfurt, Germany, 13–14 November.

14.

Jones

English

(2004) A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education. Education and Training 46: 416–423.

15.

Marginson

Considine

(2000) The Enterprise University: Power, Governance and Reinvention, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

16.

Mowery

Sampat

(2005) The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and university-industry technology transfer: A model for other OECD governments? Journal of Technology Transfer 30: 115–127.

17.

NIRAS Consultants (2008) Survey of entrepreneurship education in higher education in Europe: Main report, Brussels: Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry, European Commission.

18.

Rothaemerl

Agung

Jiang

(2007) University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change 16: 691–791.

19.

The Economist (2013) Change management. Briefing Business Education, 12 October, pp. 78–79.

20.

The Economist (2014a) A Cambrian moment: special report on tech start-ups, 18 January.

21.

The Economist (2014b) Keeping up with the Schmidts, 26 April, pp. 25–26.

22.

University of Dundee (2014) Enterprise Gym. Available at: www.enterprise-gym.com (accessed August 2014).

23.

Volkmann

Wilson

Mariotti

(2009) Educating the next wave of entrepreneurs: Unlocking entrepreneurial capabilities to meet the global challenges of the 21st century, Geneva: A Report of the Global Education Initiative for the World Economic Forum.

24.

Williamson

Beadle

Charalambous

(2013) Enterprise education impact in higher education and further education: Final report, London: ICF GHK for Department for Business Innovation and Skills.