Open 2013:   An Insider's Perspective on Entrepreneurial Program Development at a Small and a Large Institution
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Open 2013: An Insider's Perspective on Entrepreneurial Program Development at a Small and a Large Institution

on

  • 573 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
573
Views on SlideShare
572
Embed Views
1

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
9
Comments
0

1 Embed 1

http://bumc-devhpp.ad.bu.edu 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Open 2013: An Insider's Perspective on Entrepreneurial Program Development at a Small and a Large Institution Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Exponential growth of entrepreneurship courses…300 universities in the 1980s  over 1,050 institutions in the 1990s (Solomon et al. 1994)by 2005, over 2,200 courses in entrepreneurshipat over 1,600 universities throughout the UnitedStates (Kuratko 2005; Katz2003)Concomitant increase in the number of academicinstitution-based entrepreneurship centers (Kuratko 2005)
  • 2. Despite this growth, Katz (2008) and Kuratko(2005) maintain that complete academiclegitimacy of entrepreneurship has not yetbeen reached.While funds continue to flow to develop andpromote entrepreneurship education,outcome objectives for the use of thesedollars are often poorly defined (Cope et al.2005).
  • 3. Opportunity for new entrepreneurialprograms to paint a clear picture from theirinception.Opportunity to learn from entrepreneurshipprograms, both at small colleges and largeuniversities, that have already sprouted upand experienced growth, challenges, failuresand ultimate successes.
  • 4. An  Insider’s  Perspec.ve        on  Entrepreneurial  Program  Development              at  a  Small  and  a  Large  Ins.tu.on    Michael  S.  Lehman,  MD,  MBA    Published  in:    Annals  of  Biomedical  Engineering    The  Journal  of  the  Biomedical  Engineering  Society    ISSN  0090-­‐6964        Ann  Biomed  Eng    DOI  10.1007/s10439-­‐013-­‐0778-­‐6    hRp://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=ar.cle&id=doi:10.1007/s10439-­‐013-­‐0778-­‐6    
  • 5. 4-year undergraduate private liberal arts1,400 students and 14,000 alumni
  • 6. Sill Business Student Seed Incubator Capital Fund Academic Economic Services Development
  • 7. The  University   of  PiRsburgh   15  schools   25,000  undergraduates   (2,000  in  business)    10,000  graduate  students   (900  in  business)    
  • 8. quiet  culture  of  entrepreneurship  no  formal  student  degree  program  emerging  entrepreneurial  ini4a4ves  
  • 9. Lessons Learned
  • 10. I Institutional Champions
  • 11. When change in higher education is not theresult of a major crisis or outside pressure, avigorous and farsighted leader not only gets theball rolling, but also helps to provide momentumas the team is built (Rosser and Penrod 1991).The champion considers the resource pipeline topay for any new programs or programmaticchanges (Rowley et al. 1997).
  • 12. Faculty champions appear to be more successfulwhen resources are stable or expanding andissues are seated in one department with littleconnection across other academic units oroutside the university setting.Administrative champions are key when resourcebuilding is in the growth phase and issues cutacross departments or are not related to oneprimary unit. (Shmidtlein 1990)
  • 13. EconomicEducation Development
  • 14. Secure a triad of institutional champions:•  a political champion•  a course champion•  an administrative champion (Hills 1988)
  • 15. II Supply Chain
  • 16. A key part of implanting the newentrepreneurship program on campus isintegration with the ‘student supply chain’.
  • 17. A key part of implanting the newentrepreneurship program on campus isintegration with the ‘student supply chain’. ?
  • 18. A key part of implanting the newentrepreneurship program on campus isintegration with the ‘student supply chain’.Supply chain…set of three or more entitiesdirectly involved in flows of services to acustomer (Mentzer et al. 2001).The management of this supply chain shouldinclude integrated behavior (Bowersox and Closs1996) and cooperation among its members,mutually sharing information (Mentzer et al.2001).
  • 19. Supply chain: admissions academic advising career services alumni office development office
  • 20. The findings of Petersen et al. (2005) suggest thevalue of seeking and utilizing input from selectsuppliers during the development of newproducts; the result is not only a better finalproduct design but also improved financialperformance.Supply chain members should work together onnew product development (Drozdowski 1986),recognizing that a “supply chain succeeds if allthe members of the supply chain have the samegoal and the same focus on servingcustomers.” (LaLonde and Masters 1994, inMentzer et al. 2001, p.9).
  • 21. Develop a formal organizational structure ormechanism for communication withenrollment, advising, career services andalumni development.Involve key members in the supply chainduring the planning and implementationphases when looking to create newprograms, or even refine existing ones.
  • 22. Develop a formal organizational structure ormechanism for communication withenrollment, advising, career services andalumni development.Involve key members in the supply chainduring the planning and implementationphases when looking to create newprograms, or even refine existing ones.
  • 23. III Diverse Non-Credit, Experience-Based Opportunities
  • 24. Participation in experience-based activities has alow barrier to entry, affording students withopportunities to sample the entrepreneurialculture.These activities increase awareness ofentrepreneurial career opportunities throughpractical, real-life scenarios, provide anopportunity to facilitate interdisciplinary teams,and often increases confidence and interest instarting a business (Collins and Robertson 2003).Finally, these activities serve as an entrée todeciding to enroll in a more formal course ofentrepreneurial study.
  • 25. Leverage the excitement generated bystudents participating in these non-credit,experience-based activities Schedule interviews upon the completion of these activities for print or strong, video pieces can capture powerful messaging for use along the supply chain.
  • 26. Exposure of students to entrepreneurshipstimulates a desire to start one’s own business,according to Peterman and Kennedy (2003), thisexposure does not necessarily impact theparticipants’ perceptions of the feasibility ofstarting a business.This supports the model of launching experience-based opportunities to stimulate initial interest,while offering for-credit courses to provide therigorous academic exercises necessary toevaluate feasibility as the next step in theprocess.
  • 27. IV DynamicFor-Credit Courses
  • 28. Entrepreneurs relish independence, flexibility andinnovative ways of doing things.Students in entrepreneurial classes are nodifferent.They thrive on learning followed by immediateapplication to either their own ventures or a livecase study.
  • 29. Gartner and Vesper (1994) presented a summaryof successes and failures in entrepreneurshipcourses (survey of entrepreneurship facultyteaching 445 entrepreneurship courses at 177institutions)+ bringing to class former students and otheralumni with a proven track record inentrepreneurship- bringing in guest speakers without providing an outline of assigned topics and goals for thevisit
  • 30. + early feedback on a business plan to allow for refocusing and refining+ dynamic teaching methods, such as ‘livingcases’ followed by networking dinners+ having students present their ownentrepreneurial experiences+ creating in-class ‘right-brained’ exercises to examine barriers to creativity-  simply using films, videos, and straight lecturing by the instructor (Gartner and Vesper1994)
  • 31. Include a guest lecture from an entrepreneurwhose business failed and a third party such asan accountant or lawyer who witnessed theentrepreneur’s distress (Shepherd 2004).A contingency-based model for teachingentrepreneurship is also useful, wherebystudents either implement solutions from eitheractual business activities they may be involved inor assist firms they are consulting (Honig 2004).
  • 32. Many smaller schools have one faculty memberteaching all of the entrepreneurship courses+ coordination among the syllabi and coursecontent as the students progress through coursesequence - limited perspective on the field leverage a rich variety of coordinated livecase studies and guest lecturers arrange for periodic external reviews byentrepreneurial faculty from peer and aspirantschools
  • 33. At a large university a number of faculty membersmay teach different entrepreneurship courses:+ breadth of styles and research experience-  lacks a coordinated effort to provide progression from course to course with little redundancy  identify a faculty member to lead the charge in coordination of content, particularly during periods of new course and curriculum development
  • 34. V Faculty Partnerships
  • 35. Leverage the liberal arts environment totailor and deliver mini-curricula onentrepreneurship in non-business classes.Cross-list courses across different schools.Develop advisory boards for studentventures with faculty experts from businessand non-business.
  • 36. VI Designated Advisory Boards
  • 37. Inclusion of trustees, faculty, studentsand a robust contingency of regional andalumni entrepreneurs provides aneffective balance of theory and practice.A focus on student entrepreneurship in thecontext of regional economicdevelopment provides specific financialresources and connections for thestudent entrepreneurs.
  • 38. Tap into university-developedtechnologies by faculty, even in theabsence of an office of technologymanagement.Connect to alumni with venture-backed, scalable companies, even if itappears that the local portfolio of companies isadequate.Encourage interdisciplinary teamformation.
  • 39. VII Bootstrapping Skills
  • 40. Bootstrapping, a necessary process for moststart-ups, can bridge the gap until theventure develops a market-valued product orservice (Auken 2004; Windborg andLanstrom 2000).Much like the new business venture, newentrepreneurship programs go through abootstrapping phase in the start-up andgrowth stages.
  • 41. Ensure accrued interest from seedcapital funds or capital project accounts isreinvested back into the studententrepreneurship program.Designate gift and pledge paymentsspecifically to student entrepreneurshipactivities.
  • 42. Hills  (1988)  countered  an  argument   made  by  naysayers  that  entrepreneurship  educa4on  was  a   passing  fad;   this  ‘fad’  not  only  has  become  a  mainstay  in  business  educa4on  but  also  a  driving  factor  for  job  crea4on   and  economic  growth.  
  • 43. I.  Institutional ChampionsII.  Supply ChainIII.  Diverse Non-Credit, Experience-Based OpportunitiesIV.  Dynamic For-Credit CoursesV.  Faculty PartnershipsVI.  Designated Advisory BoardsVII. Bootstrapping Skills
  • 44. Lehigh.edu/innovate
  • 45. An  Insider’s  Perspec.ve        on  Entrepreneurial  Program  Development              at  a  Small  and  a  Large  Ins.tu.on    Michael  S.  Lehman    Published  in:    Annals  of  Biomedical  Engineering    The  Journal  of  the  Biomedical  Engineering  Society    ISSN  0090-­‐6964        Ann  Biomed  Eng    DOI  10.1007/s10439-­‐013-­‐0778-­‐6    hRp://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=ar.cle&id=doi:10.1007/s10439-­‐013-­‐0778-­‐6