Development of university entrepreneurship ecosystems based on strengthening technological startups

Masoumi, E.; Salehi, M.; Taghvaeeyazdi, M.

doi:10.22061/tej.2021.7450.2539

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

¹ Department of Entrepreneurship, Sari Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sari, Iran

² 2 Department of Educational Management, Sari Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sari, Iran

³ Department of Educational Management, Sari Branch, Islamic Azad University, Sari, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22061/tej.2021.7450.2539

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Today, given the capacity of developing economies, technological startups as start-up businesses play an important and considerable role, especially in the field of entrepreneurship. However, due to the lack of suitable platforms, both from the social perspective in terms of education and culture as well as from the economic perspective, they have many risks and this causes a lot of startups to have trouble in their commercialization process and eventually fail. Using entrepreneurial ecosystems at the university level is one of the approaches to effective development of startups, especially technological startups, which can provide the possibility of their effective development by recognizing the needs of the target market and considering the level of individual and collective capabilities of entrepreneurs and creating a balance between them. Thereofre, the purpose of this research is to develop university entrepreneurship ecosystems based on strengthening startups through rough set theories.
Methods: The methodology of this research is hybrid and to perform it, Meta-analyses, delphi and Rough Set Collection have been used. The target population in the qualitative sector comprised of similar research studies and academic experts at the entrepreneurial level. But the target population in the quantitative sector comprised of 20 managers and deputies at various academic levels in the Golestan province. Considering the requirement of using Rough theory analysis, this amount of the statistical population is acceptable.
Findings: In this study, first by screening the selected studies, 9 propositions for strengthening startups and 5 components of the entrepreneurship ecosystem at the university level were determined. Due to the confirmation of the theoretical adequacy limit based on Delphi analysis, they entered the analysis phase of Rough Set Theory. The findings in this section make it clear that the most influential propositions for strengthening startups are the existence of technological needs and the formulation of appropriate strategies. For their development in terms of entrepreneurship ecosystems at the university level, two educational / research and innovative functions should be considered as a platform for the development of startups.
Conclusion: The entrepreneurs operating in the form of technological startups need to obtain the reuired data for the development of their business through collecting ecological information and paying attention to social approaches so that they can meet the technological demands by selecting a codified strategy in this area. Moreover, based on Gery Vikor’s analysis it was determined that the most influentiasl role of the university as entrepreneurship ecology is strengthening the level of educational and research functions. This means that it is necessary for the university to lead the educational level and the promotion of scientific research in the direction of entrepreneurship in the form of entrepreneurial policies announced by the president’s deputy for technology and information. As a result, the university can be turned into a platform for the formation and flourishing of entrepreneurial ideas in the form of startups. In other words, the university can be effective in creating knowledge and developing capability and specialized entrepreneurial skills and cause the individuals to obtain appropriate entrepreneurial skills in the areas of enhancing their knowledge to start their own startup business. In fact, this finding reveals that in line with its defined nature and philosophy, the university should have educational and research functions that are aimed at the formation of entrepreneurial approaches especially in higher education levels and just avoid the development of theories that are impractical. The philosophy of the existence of entrepreneurial ecosystems at the university level means that for this purpose the students’ level of knowledge can be developed and improved so that as an entrepreneurer, they can play a considerable role in today’s unstable economic environment.

Keywords

20.1001.1.20080441.1400.15.4.11.2

Main Subjects

e-learning

COPYRIGHTS
©2021 The author(s). This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, as long as the original authors and source are cited. No permission is required from the authors or the publishers.

References

[1] Ali I., Ali, M, Badghish S. Symmetric and asymmetric modeling of entrepreneurial ecosystem in developing entrepreneurial intentions among female university students in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship. 2019; 11(4): 435-458.

[2] Thomsen B, Muurlink O, Best T. The political ecology of university-based social entrepreneurship ecosystems. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy. 2018: 12(2): 199-219.

[3] Isenberg DJ. How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard Business Review. 2010; 88(6): 40-50

[4] Moore JF. Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review. 1993; 71(3): 75-86.

[5] Elia G, Margherita A, Passiante G. Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem: How digital technologies and collective intelligence are reshaping the entrepreneurial process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2020; 150(3): 119-141.

[6] Etzkowitz H. Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science. Minerva. 1983; 21(2-3): 198-233.

[7] ACS Z, Stam E, Audretsch D, Connor A. The lineages of the entrepreneurial ecosystem approach. Small Business Economics. 2017; 44(1): 1-10.

[8] Valdez J. The entrepreneurial ecosystem: Toward a theory of new firm formation. San Antonio: University of Texas; 1988.

[9] Neck HM, Meyer GD, Cohen B, Corbett AC. An entrepreneurial system view of new venture creation. Journal of Small Business Management. 2004; 42(2): 190–208.

[10] McKeon TK. A college’s role in developing and supporting an entrepreneurship ecosystem. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement. 2013; 17(3): 85-90.

[11] Entezari Y. Building knowledge-based entrepreneurship ecosystems: Case of Iran. Procedia-social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015; 195(3): 1206-1215.

[12] Berger E, Kuckertz A. Female entrepreneurship in startup ecosystems worldwide. Journal of Business Research. 2016; 69(11): 7102-7102.

[13] Maysami A, Mohammadi Elyasi G, Mobini Dehkordi A, Hejazi S. [The Dimensions and components of technological entrepreneurship ecosystem in Iran]. Journal of Technology Development Management. 2018; 5(4): 9-42. Persian.

[14] Gnyawali DR, Fogel DS. Environments for entrepreneurship development: key dimensions and research implications. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 1994; 18(4): 43-62.

[15] Valdez ME, Richardson J. Institutional determinants of macro– level entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2013; 37(5): 1149-1175.

[16] Feld B. Startup communities: Building an entrepreneurial ecosystem in your city. The United State: John Wiley & Sons; 2012.

[17] Spigel B. The organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice. 2015; 41(1): 49-27.

[19] Padilla-Melendez A, Fuster E, Lockett N, Obra AR. Knowledge spillovers, knowledge filters and entrepreneurial university ecosystems. Emerging role of University-focused venture capital firms. Knowledge Management Research & Practice. 2020.

[20] Entezari Y. [Development requirements of university –based entrepreneurship ecosystems in Iran]. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education. 2019; 25(1): 1-25. Persian.

[21] Pool S, Van Itallie M. Learning from Boston: Implications for Baltimore from comparing the entrepreneurial ecosystems of Baltimore and Boston. Boston: Abell Foundation; 2013.

[22] Fernandez MT, Jimenez JB, Roura JR. Business incubation: innovative services in an entrepreneurship ecosystem. The Service Industries Journal. 2015; 35(14): 783-800.

[23] Thomsen B, Muurlink O, Best T. The political ecology of university-based social entrepreneurship ecosystems. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy. 2018; 12(2): 199-219.

[24] Lotz FJ. Technological entrepreneurship in an emerging economic region: A model developed from a multi-cultural provincial study. Pretoria: University of Pretoria; 2006.

[25] Byers TH, Dorf RC, Nelson AJ. Technology venture from Idea to enterprise. NewYork: McGraw-Hill; 2011.

[26] Venkataraman S. Regional transformation through technological entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing. 2004; 19(1): 153–167.

[27] Thérin. F. (Eds.) Handbook of Research on Techno-Entrepreneurship. Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. 2007; Chapter 2: 26–39.

[28] Shahrabi B, Ashrafi M, abbasi E. [Modeling factors affecting startups financing using DEMATEL technique]. Financial Management Strategy. 2019; 7(2): 61-89. Persian.

[29] Feiz D, Shaabani A. [Investigating the impact of social media marketing activities as growth hacking strategy on behavioral intention and oral promotion of customers]. New Marketing Research Journal. 2019; 8(4): 45-68. Persian.

[30] Dalecki L. Entrepreneurial selling in context. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship. 2019; 21(2): 103-125.

[31] Bask AH, Tinnilä M, Rajahonka M. Matching service strategies, business models and modular business processes. Business Process Management Journal. 2010; 16(1): 153-180.

[32] Dushnitsky G, Lenox MJ. When do incumbents learn from entrepreneurial ventures? Corporate venture capital and investing firm innovation rates. Research Policy. 2005; 34(5): 615-639.

[33] Elia G, Margherita A, Passiante G. Digital entrepreneurship ecosystem: How digital technologies and collective intelligence are reshaping the entrepreneurial process. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2020; 150(3): 119-141.

[34] Genc E, Dayan M, Genc OF. The impact of SME internationalization on innovation: The mediating role of market and entrepreneurial orientation. Industrial Marketing Management. 2019; 82(3): 253-264.

[35] Elia G, Margherita A, Romano A. Accelerating smart growth through collective intelligence: the conceptual foundation of the technology entrepreneurship “Eco-system.” Institute of Knowledge Asset Management. 2013; 12–14.

[36] Kordheydari R, Mansouri Moayyed F, Khodadad Hoseini H. [Metasynthesis of factors affecting to develop startups in new technology-based firms in entrepreneurial ecosystem]. Journal of Entrepreneurship Development. 2019; 12(1): 141-160. Persian.

[37] Nasrollahi M, Fathi M, shoshpari F. [Study of effective factors on the selection of collaboration strategy among (institutionalized companies) and startups (Case study: startups of Qazvin Science and Technology Park)]. Industrial Technology Development. 2019; 17(35): 63-72. Persian.

[38] Kohler T. Corporate accelerators: Building bridges between corporations and startups”. Business Horizons. 2016; 59(3): 347-357.

[39] Zhang Q, Xie Q, Wang G. A survey on rough set theory and its applications. CAAI Transactions on Intelligence Technology. 2016; 1(4): 323-333.

[40] Shyng J Y, Tzeng G H, Wang F K. Rough set theory in analyzing the attributes of combination values for insurance market. Expert System with Applications. 2007; 32(1): 56-64.

[41] Pawlak Z. Rough sets and flow graphs, Rough Sets, Fuzzy Sets. Data Mining and Granular Computing. 2005; 36(41): 1-11.

[42] Xu B, Zhang Sh, Chen X. Uncertainty in financing interest rates for startups, Industrial Marketing Management. Industrial Marketing Management. 2021; 94: 150-158.

[43] Kim HJ, Kim TS, Sohn SY. Recommendation of startups as technology cooperation candidates from the perspectives of similarity and potential: A deep learning approach. Decision Support Systems. 2020; 130(3): 113-139.

[44] Oliva FL, Kotabe M. Barriers, practices, methods and knowledge management tools in startups". Journal of Knowledge Management. 2019; 23 (9): 1838-1856.

[45] Park YJ, Park YW. Spinoffs versus non-spinoff entrepreneurs: Exploring post-bubble Japan’s entrepreneurial ecosystem. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 2018; 12(2): 146-164.

[46] Spender JC, Corvello V, Grimaldi M, Rippa P. Startups and open innovation: a review of the literature. European Journal of Innovation Management. 2017; 20(1): 4-30.

[47] Pattnaik PN, Pandey S C. University startups and special legislations: Genesis and developments in the United States of America, Japan and India. International Journal of Law and Management. 2017; 59(5): 718-728.

[48] Bandarian R. [Explaining the reasons for emerging tech startups in the upstream oil industry and their specific challenges]. Science and Technology Policy Letters. 2018; 08(3): 7-20. Persian.