An empirical investigation of entrepreneurship intensity in Iranian state universities

The purpose of this study is to propose a framework to evaluate the entrepreneurship intensity (EI) of Iranian state universities. In order to determine EI, a hybrid multi-method framework consisting of Delphi, Analytic Network Process (ANP), and VIKOR is proposed. The Delphi method is used to localize and reduce the number of criteria extracted from a deep literature review, according to the social and economic conditions of Iranian state universities by using an expert panel, including sixty-eight country-wide academicians and practitioners. After that, a group approach to ANP was utilized as an evaluation method to derive the weights of each criterion. Next, the evaluation data were gathered through a questionnaire, and, finally, the compromise ranking of universities was calculated using the VIKOR method. Moreover, this study applies weight-variance analysis (WVA) to suggest improvement actions. The paper proposes an evaluation framework for determining the performance of entrepreneurship development initiatives in universities. By using this framework, twenty-two Iranian state universities are evaluated in terms of their EI, and the results are discussed.

[1]  K. Motohashi,et al.  Are new technology-based firms located on science parks really more innovative?: Evidence from Taiwan , 2009 .

[2]  Ashok Jashapara,et al.  Knowledge Mobilization Through E-Learning Systems: Understanding the Mediating Roles of Self-Efficacy and Anxiety on Perceptions of Ease of Use , 2011, Inf. Syst. Manag..

[3]  T. Allen,et al.  Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities , 2005 .

[4]  Joseph Friedman,et al.  University Technology Transfer: Do Incentives, Management, and Location Matter? , 2003 .

[5]  Walter W. Powell,et al.  Careers and contradictions: Faculty responses to the transformation of knowledge and its uses in the life sciences , 2001 .

[6]  H. Etzkowitz Research groups as ???quasi-firms???: the invention of the entrepreneurial university , 2003 .

[7]  Maryann P. Feldman,et al.  Research Universities and Local Economic Development: Lessons from the History of the Johns Hopkins University , 2003 .

[8]  Adrien Presley,et al.  R&D project selection using the analytic network process , 2002, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[9]  F. Rothaermel,et al.  University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature , 2007 .

[10]  Y. Al-Sultan The concept of science park in the context of Kuwait , 1998 .

[11]  Scott Shane,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Organizational Endowments and the Performance of University Start-ups , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[12]  Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng,et al.  Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[13]  T. Chao,et al.  A study of the effect of humidification on temperature of incubators in the nursery in Taiwan. , 1989, Zhonghua yi xue za zhi = Chinese medical journal; Free China ed.

[14]  Peter Schulte,et al.  The entrepreneurial university: a strategy for institutional development , 2004 .

[15]  Scott Shane,et al.  Encouraging university entrepreneurship? The effect of the Bayh-Dole Act on university patenting in the United States , 2004 .

[16]  Maryann Feldman,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Equity and the Technology Transfer Strategies of American Research Universities , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[17]  Magnus Gulbrandsen,et al.  Industry funding and university professors' research performance , 2005 .

[18]  Sheila Slaughter,et al.  Academic capitalism and the new economy : markets, state, and higher education , 2009 .

[19]  John A. Martilla,et al.  Importance-Performance Analysis , 1977 .

[20]  H. Biemans,et al.  Entrepreneurship Education in Iranian Higher Education: The Current State and Challenges , 2010 .

[21]  Kristel Miller,et al.  The development of University Technology Transfer stakeholder relationships at a regional level: Lessons for the future , 2012 .

[22]  Joshua B. Powers,et al.  Policy orientation effects on performance with licensing to start-ups and small companies , 2005 .

[23]  Michael H. Morris,et al.  The concept of entrepreneurial intensity: Implications for company performance , 1996 .

[24]  Nikos C. Varsakelis,et al.  Science park, a high tech fantasy?: an analysis of the science parks of Greece , 2002 .

[25]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/network processes , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[26]  Cheng-Wei Lin,et al.  Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation , 2005 .

[27]  Hans Löfsten,et al.  Academic versus corporate new technology-based firms in Swedish science parks: an analysis of performance, business networks and financing , 2005 .

[28]  Marie C. Thursby,et al.  University–incubator firm knowledge flows: assessing their impact on incubator firm performance , 2005 .

[29]  D. Mowery,et al.  The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University–Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments? , 2004 .

[30]  Maryann Feldman,et al.  Academic Entrepreneurs: Organizational Change at the Individual Level , 2008, Organ. Sci..

[31]  Bo Carlsson,et al.  special issue: Technology transfer in United States universities , 2002 .

[32]  H. Khanifar,et al.  Identifying the challenges related to policymaking institutions for entrepreneurship formal education in Iran , 2011 .

[33]  D. Urbano,et al.  The development of an entrepreneurial university , 2012 .

[34]  Magnus Gulbrandsen,et al.  Initiatives to promote commercialization of university knowledge , 2006 .

[35]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[36]  Rod B. McNaughton,et al.  ENTRE-U: An entrepreneurial orientation scale for universities , 2011 .

[37]  Bill Bolton,et al.  Entrepreneurs: Talent, Temperament, Technique , 2004 .