This study of 15 UK universities explores the reality of university–industry liaison and service delivery roles. Contextualized within the role of universities in innovation and knowledge transfer, it confirms the views of previous analysts that tensions result from imposing third mission activities on organizations established for other purposes. Policy makers need to address the heterogeneity of the higher education sector if they are to achieve success with regard to UK competitiveness. Such an approach will include the recognition that internal collaboration may be actively discouraged while external links are simultaneously emphasized in institutional mission statements. Also, successful business engagement requires a flexible and responsive culture and an emphasis on external collaboration.
CaloriR.SarninP. (1991), ‘Corporate culture and economic performance: A French study’, Organization Studies, Vol 12, No 1, pp 49–74.
4.
CameronK. S. (1999), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture Based on the Competing Values Framework, Prentice Hall Series in Organizational Development, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
5.
ClarkB. R. (1998), ‘The entrepreneurial university’, Education and Management, Vol 4, pp 5–6.
6.
CollinsC. J.SmithK. G. (2006), ‘Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 49, No 3, pp 544–560.
7.
DTI (1998), Competitiveness White Paper, Building the Knowledge Driven Economy, December, DTI, London.
8.
DTI (2006), Productivity in the UK 6: Progress and New Evidence, DTI, London.
9.
DTI (2006a), Science & Innovation Investment Framework 2004–2014, Progress Against Indicators, July, HM Treasury and DTI, London.
10.
EstabrooksC. A. (2008), ‘Knowledge translation and research careers: Mode I and mode II activity among health researchers’, Research Policy, Vol 37, pp 1066–1078.
11.
EtzkowitzH. (2004), ‘The evolution of the entrepreneurial university’, International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, Vol 1, No 1, pp. 64–77.
12.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (2000), ‘The dynamics of innovation from national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations’, Research Policy, Vol 29, No 2, pp 109–123.
13.
FellerI. (2004), ‘Virtuous and vicious cycles in the contributions of public research universities to state economic development objectives’, Economic Development Quarterly, Vol 18, pp 138–150.
GibbA. (2005), National Council for Graduate Entrepreneurship Policy Paper #003, Towards the Entrepreneurial University: Entrepreneurship Education as a Lever for Change, 22 May, NCGE, Website: www.ncge.com.
16.
GodinB.GingrasY. (2000), ‘The place of universities in the system of knowledge production’, Research Policy, Vol 29, No 2, pp 273–278.
17.
HarlosM.PerryB. (2004), ‘Universities, localities and regional development: The emergence of the “mode 2” university?’International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol 28, No 1, pp 212–223.
18.
HEFCE (2009), HEFCE Strategic Plan 2006–11, June, 2009/21, HEFCE, London.
19.
HofstedeG. (1990), ‘Measuring organizational cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 35, No 2, pp 286–316.
20.
JacobM. (2006), ‘Utilisation of social science knowledge in science policy: Systems of innovation, triple helix and Vinnova’, Studies of Science, Vol 45, No 3, pp 431–461.
21.
JacobM.LundquistM.HellsmarkH. (2003), ‘Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish university system: The case of Chalmers University of Technology’, Research Policy, Vol 32, pp 1555–1568.
22.
JasanoffS. S. (1996), ‘Science and norms in global environment regimes’, in HampsonF. O.ReppyJ., eds, Earthly Goods, Environmental Change and Social Justice, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, pp 173–198.
23.
Lawton-SmithH.HoK. (2006), ‘Measuring the performance of Oxford University, Oxford Brookes University and the government laboratories' spin-off companies’, Research Policy, Vol 35, pp 1554–1568.
24.
LehrerM.NellP.GärberL. (2009), ‘A national systems view of university entrepreneurialism: Inferences from comparison of the German and US experience’, Research Policy, Vol 38, No 2, March, pp 268–280.
25.
LockettD. (2005), ‘The creation of managerial spin-offs at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications’, Research Policy, Vol 34, pp 981–983.
26.
MartinelliA.MeyerM.von TunzelmannN. (2008), ‘Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol 33, pp 259–283.
27.
MautnerG. (2005), ‘The entrepreneurial university, a discursive profile of a higher education buzzword’, Critical Discourse Studies, Vol 2, No 2, pp 95–120.
28.
PorterM. E.SternS. (1999), The New Challenge to America's Prosperity: Findings from the Innovation Index, Council on Competitiveness, Washington, DC.
29.
SubotzkyG. (1999), ‘Alternatives to the entrepreneurial university: New modes of knowledge production in community service programs’, Higher Education, Vol 38, No 4, pp 401–440.
30.
SzulanskiG. (1996), ‘Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm’, Strategic Management Journal (Winter Special Issue), Vol 17, pp 27–43.
31.
TsaiW. (2001), ‘Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 44, No 5, p 996.
32.
WeilerS. (2000), ‘Information and market failure in local economic development: A new role for universities?’Economic Development Quarterly, Vol 14, pp 194–203.
33.
WongS.-S.HoV. T.LeeHoon C. (2008), ‘A power perspective to interunit knowledge transfer: Linking knowledge, attributes to unit power and the transfer of knowledge’, Journal of Management, Vol 34, No 1, pp 127–150.
