ENTREPRENEURSHIP FOR TECHNICAL STUDENTS

ENTREPRENEURSHIP FOR TECHNICAL STUDENTS

Introduction

In today's business economy a significant number of technical students are pursuing careers in technology entrepreneurial firms. The Engineering school offer an extensive curriculum in engineering and science and students graduating from these programs are extremely well grounded in their technical field of specialization. Unfortunately, these students have no access to managerial concepts associated with new venture creation despite their strong interests in this area.

To help prepare engineering and science students for careers in entrepreneurial organizations the Business School of Management in conjunction with the schools of Engineering and Science is pleased to offer the following entrepreneurial management curriculum focusing on providing an introduction to entrepreneurship for technical students.

They provide materials on business practices, opportunity recognition, entrepreneurial finance, entrepreneurial marketing and intellectual property. A key component of the program is a detailed examination of an actual technological innovation.

METHODOLOGY

As universities have embraced entrepreneurship education for their students in engineering and the sciences, how are these schools offering entrepreneurship to these students? What models of introducing engineering and science students to the principles and practice of entrepreneurship are currently in use? What role have key factors played in the development of these initiatives? These are the questions that we sought to answer in undertaking the current study.

The relative lack of information available about our research question led us to choose a qualitative, descriptive method. Multiple case studies using within-case and cross-case analysis are an appropriate method to provide description; this methodology usually employs a number of data-gathering techniques. To elicit the models and influential factors, we used a multiple case-study methodology. We collected our data with a combination of techniques such as site visits, review of internal documents, in-person and telephone interviews, and a follow-up survey.

The sample for this study was one of convenience, constructed in the following way: First, we evaluated the ten founding members of the National Consortium of Entrepreneurship Centers. Of the ten, we omitted five institutions-two non-university programs and three campuses without significant engineering and science programs. They are geographically diverse, each has a reputation for engineering and the sciences and each has a formalized center or program for entrepreneurship.

MAJOR FINDINGS

A. Models

In reviewing internal documents and site-visit notes, it became clear that five categories of actions define entrepreneurship education in general: (1) developing intellectual content, including scholarly research; (2) gaining institutional acceptance, with attention to curricular, structural and fiscal issues; (3) engaging students and alumni; (4) building relationships with the business community; and (5) showcasing success. We used this framework as the starting point for discussing different ways to conceptualize models of implementation.

The first action area follows from a simple premise: Entrepreneurship can be taught. Students can learn to recognize opportunities, to gather and deploy resources, and to create and harvest businesses. Further, entrepreneurship has a legitimate place in academic life as the subject of research. While the degree to which different universities focus on research activities varies (in comparison to teaching or outreach programs), each seeks a foundation of intellectual credibility. The focus of a given program is linked to the composition of the faculty, whether tenured/tenure-track or clinical or adjunct or a combination.

Secondly, none of the centers or initiatives in this study would exist without the work of either a single individual or small group of people. These "champions" are themselves entrepreneurs in that they recognized the opportunity that technological entrepreneurship education represents and sought ways to make it a reality at their institutions. These "champions" may advocate institutional acceptance in the curriculum arena, in the structure of the program, in financing, or in some combination of these areas.

Engaging students and alumni is the third guiding category of action for entrepreneurship education. Encouraging current students to enroll in entrepreneurship courses is important to growing programs. Alumni are essential as guest speakers and are often helpful for internship placements and direct financial support.

The fourth key area is building institutional relationships with the business community, including venture capitalists. For instance, every university in the study makes use of an advisory board composed of entrepreneurs and business leaders. These serve as a bridge between the university and the business community. Internships and continuing education courses are other "bridge" initiatives.

Lastly, the technological entrepreneurship programs we studied use the Internet, publications and special events to showcase their success. All six universities maintain a Web site that describes the activities of their program or center.

Each of the universities follows one of three models, which differ on the dimensions of location within the university, organizational design and approach to attracting students. To keep these models general, we avoided making subdivisions based on type of faculty: adjunct, clinical, tenured and tenuretrack, or a combination. Nor did we make separations based on whether courses count toward elective credits, a certificate or a minor. Follow-up exchanges led us to propose three models rather than the initial four.

For the Model A universities, the entrepreneurship initiatives for engineering and science students are based in or emanate from the business school, which are offers a structured technological entrepreneurship curriculum for undergraduates-either a two-course sequence or a four-course concentration. These courses are designed to act as a magnet, pulling engineering and science students out of their respective schools. These courses are same as MBA students.

The number of engineering and science students enrolled in entrepreneurship courses depends upon the university and the specifics of its initiative, an internal compensation system does not fund the Center for Entrepreneurship for educating non-business students. A remedy for this limit on course availability for engineering and science students is expected soon. In some universities, the university has a Ventures Program with a gatekeeping function that monitors and controls the number of engineering and science students who are permitted to enroll in entrepreneurship courses within the business School.
At the universities with a multi-school approach (Model C), this study shows that the balance tilts toward one school in the partnership. Currently, just 25-33 percent of the students in a given entrepreneurship course are engineering students, less than the number that the faculty in the College of Business would like to see.

As one would expect, these models are continually evolving. At University (Model B), for example, there is evidence of cross-pollination between the engineering and business schools. This winter, one MBA course reserved one-quarter of class seats for non-business students. Outside the classroom, engineering students participate in BASES, the Business Association for Engineering Students, which sponsors engineering and business school student dinners, events, and job fairs.

B. Goals

The universities participating in this study reported that teaching was a primary goal of their technological entrepreneurship initiatives, particularly those targeted to undergraduates. In addition, The universties creating new ventures and economic development are important objectives for their efforts. At universities this goal applies largely to its graduate and continuing education initiatives.

The range of responses on the primacy of research indicates some potential ambiguity in interpretation of our interview question. We asked: "At this time, what goals drive [university's] technical entrepreneurship initiative (e.g., new business creation, teaching, outreach, research)?" If respondents viewed this question from the level of the university, research would likely play an important role in curriculum-and legitimacy building. Rensselaer, for example, cited the importance of building a research faculty for its technological entrepreneurship program. However, if the frame of reference is instead the entrepreneurship center or the specific activity of linking engineering students to courses, research may be perceived as less critical.

C Factors

A final key finding of the current study is a synthesis of the factors that influenced the direction of technological entrepreneurship at our six participating universities. We asked a representative from each university these questions: "What circumstances have aided the development of your university's technological entrepreneurship initiative? What circumstances have been barriers?" Later, to confirm and summarize the responses we gathered during our telephone interviews, we designed a survey instrument to further define the role of those factors.

Our survey responses reveal four key assets in the development of technological entrepreneurship initiatives: (1) championing by the entrepreneurship center director (mean 2.00); (2) sufficient quality of courses (mean 1.83); (3) championing by alumni and current students (mean 1.67); and (4) using entrepreneurs as guest lecturers/mentors (mean 1.67). Respondents classified each of these influential factors as at least a "minor asset," and the overall rating had a standard deviation of 0.52 or less, meaning there was general consensus among respondents. The first, third and fourth factors point to the importance of broad-based support, from the external community and from the internal community. The second factor illustrates the importance of intellectually rigorous coursework.

Five factors in our survey yielded responses where the standard deviation met or exceeded 1.38: (1) championing by the dean of the business school; (2) championing by the dean of the engineering school; (3) availability of internal capital; (4) availability of qualified tenure and tenure-track faculty; and (5) acceptance of the entrepreneurship curriculum within the university. A high standard deviation-the maximum possible was 2.00-indicates considerable variation between each respondents perceptions of the role that factor played in the development of this university's efforts to introduce engineering and science students to entrepreneurship. These responses indicate that context and environment are themselves influential.

In addition, the survey results indicate that a lack of space or time for elective credits in most engineering degree programs is an obstacle to introducing engineering and science students to entrepreneurship. This factor alone received a negative net rating (-0.80), with all respondents indicating either a neutral stance or designating it as an obstacle. At the University, for example, students needed to stay an additional semester beyond their engineering program to complete a Technological Entrepreneurship Certificate. Faculty members in the College of Business are in the process of trying to persuade their engineering colleagues to address the situation.

Other obstacles mentioned by at least one university during our interviews are overcoming faculty resistance; dealing with low levels of support from campus administrators; finding entrepreneurs willing to make the commitment to teaching, raising money for technological entrepreneurship efforts; and negotiating bureaucracy.

D. Update

The universities participating in this study have continued to pursue implementation of their initiatives targeted at providing entrepreneurship education for their engineering and science students. At universities the Technology Ventures Co-op has been endowed and new undergraduate entrepreneurship courses are available for non-fellows. The University has undergone major leadership changes at the center and school level, which in turn has resulted in waxing and waning of momentum and commitment to entrepreneurship education activity as a function of leadership support. A number of students have completed the Technological Entrepreneurship Certificate Program. At this stage all the faculty affiliated with the Center are from the School of Business, and therefore the University, it maybe changing from a Model C to a Model A approach. An undergraduate certificate of entrepreneurial excellence has been implemented, which requires the student to achieve a minimum of 3.3 GPA, to complete of an approved internship, and to pass a certificate exam.

The study has demonstrated the most dramatic change in approach-reflecting turnover in all the key leadership positions (president, provost, dean of engineering and dean of management) since the initial study was completed. The implementation approach has changed from Model A to Model C. A curriculum proposal for a new engineering entrepreneurship degree program (developed by engineering and management faculty and funded by the provost's office) was approved by the curriculum committees of both the engineering and management schools. However submission to the institute wide curriculum committee was delayed when the strategic plan developed under the leadership of a new president called for a university-wide general curriculum requirement in entrepreneurship. Currently, a university-level committee, headed by the provost and including the dean of engineering and the director of the entrepreneurship center from the school of management, is developing novel curricular and extracurricular programs for implementing the university wide strategic focus on "scientific and technological entrepreneurship.

The four key assets cited above in the previous subsection on factors have continued to play an important role at each university in the development of these entrepreneurship education initiatives. However, as the programs have moved beyond startup, in the most dynamic cases additional factors have gained in importance, particularly senior leadership (president, provost, and deans), and external funding/donors.

IV. IMPLICATIONS

We hope that this discussion of the models and influential factors relevant to introducing engineering and science students to entrepreneurship provides guidance for other universities embarking on this process.

Given the newness of the field of technological entrepreneurship and its location at the boundary of academia and practice, legitimacy is clearly an issue. Our results suggest three legitimacy-enhancing strategies. First, a strong entrepreneurship center director is necessary to effectively champion the linking of engineering and science students to entrepreneurship courses. Second, a program that establishes links to practicing entrepreneurs will lend credibility to course content and, frequently, generate financial support for the program and the university. Lastly, ensuring that courses are well-constructed and rigorous will foster approval from the university community at large.

These findings validate and extend the strategies discovered by the second author in his study of infusing entrepreneurship into the core business curriculum: "Promote collaboration among entrepreneurship and non-entrepreneurship faculty.. recruit an entrepreneurship program director, as well as entrepreneurship faculty and program staff, who are effective champions both internally and externally build and leverage a network of entrepreneurs and other supporters of the entrepreneurship center and enlist the key administrative leaders as champions".

As is true with all multiple case-study research, this study captures only a defined period of time. Suggestions for future research include revisiting each of the six universities to note areas of progress and new and continuing obstacles. Additionally, this study could serve as a pilot for a wider study of technological entrepreneurship initiatives at all universities.