Discover and prioritize the factors affecting the structure of the entrepreneurial university: the Proposal for success in the university's third generation tasks
Subject Areas : Entrepreneurship and Mnagement of Knowledge-based Firmsmesbaholhoda baqeri 1 , KHALIL NOROUZI 2 , MAHDI MOHAMMADI 3 * , JAVAD AZADI AHMADABADI 4
1 -
2 - University of Tehran
3 -
4 -
Keywords: University Entrepreneurial university Structural dimensions Delphi Method AHP,
Abstract :
With the passing of the era of the first and second generation of university that training-oriented universities and research-oriented universities are called, the third generation as an entrepreneurial university has been introduced. The aim of present article is Identifying and ranking Entrepreneurial University's Structure Dimension. Entrepreneurial university appearance as a center which focus on humanity knowledge and publication of that, investigation, preparation and university attendance on development of economic and social with more operational system, can be known as one of the most important events in recent years. By attention to necessity of developing these kind of universities, must examine structure basis of that and Iran,s universities should be noticed to this kind of university. In this investigation, researchers after library considerations, proceed to recognition of effective structural dimensions on entrepreneurial university using Delphi method in three rounds. then they ranked this dimensions by using AHP. After recognizing dimensions by using Delphi method they ordered by using networking process: integration, independence, professionalism, complexity, centralization and formality. The result of present article shows that scientific system of country should notice to a lot of structural dimension's in the universities especially in independence and integration and professionalism. Because Entrepreneurial University's Structure should persuade creativity and synergy. The leading role, combination of the components of the composition and independence, is the one of the most influential factors that affecting on the structure.
1- یحیی‌پور، امید؛ قاسم‌نژاد، مریم. بسترسازی فرهنگی در دانشگاه کارآفرین. نشریه کار و جامعه، شماره 142، صص 51-57، 1391.
2- بهزادی، نازنین؛ رضوی، سیدمصطفی؛ حسینی، سیدرسول. طراحی الگوی مفهومی دانشگاه کارآفرین با رویکرد کارآفرینی سازمانی. نشریه توسعه کارآفرینی، شماره 26، صص 697-714، 1393.
3- کردنائيج، اسداله. دانشگاه کارآفرين، آموزش عالي و نقش آن در ايجاد اشتغال. نشریه مديريت و توسعه، دوره هفتم، شماره 26، صفحات 33-17، 1384.
4- قناتی، سوسن؛ كردنائيج، اسداله؛ يزداني، حميدرضا. بررسی وضعیت فرهنگ سازمانی کارآفرینان در دانشگاه تهران. توسعه كارآفريني، سال سوم، شماره دهم، صص. 115-133، 1387.
5- فیروزیان، محمود و همکاران. ارائه مدلی برای شناسایی و تبیین الزامات تولید علم. تحقیقی پیرامون دانشکده مدیریت حسابداری دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد کرج، 1388.
6- آذر، عادل؛ رجب‌زاده، علی. تصميم‌گيري كاربردي رويكرد MADM. تهران: انتشارات نگاه دانش، 1389.
7- گودرزی، غلامرضا؛ نوروزى، خليل؛ نوروزى، محمد. شناسايى و اولويت‌بندى مؤلفه‌هاى فرهنگی- اجتماعى متأثر از انتقال فناورى با استفاده از روش تحليل سلسله مراتبى (AHP)، نشریه مهندسی فرهنگی، سال ششم، شماره 67 و 68، صص. 32-47، 1390.
8- دفت، ریچارد ال. تئوری و طراحی سازمان. ترجمه: علی پارسائیان و سید محمد اعرابی. تهران: دفتر پژوهش‌های فرهنگی، 1388.
9- رابینز، استیفن. تئوری سازمان. ترجمه: سیدمهدی الوانی و حسن دانائی‌فرد. تهران: انتشارات صفار، 1387.
10- هچ، ماری جو. تئوری سازمان: مدرن، نمادین- تفسیری و پست مدرن. ترجمه: حسن دانایی‌فرد. تهران: مؤسسه کتاب مهربان نشر، 1389.
11- Sterman D, J. Business Dynamics; Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World (Vol. 1). p. 2, 2009.
12- De Boer, M., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. Managing Organizational Knowledge Integration in the Emerging Multimedia Complex. Journal of Management Studies, 36(3), pp. 379-398, 1999.
13- Lars Øystein, W. Building entrepreneurial knowledge reservoirs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 12(4), pp. 595-612, 2005.
14- Andreas, P. Innovation networks in economics: from the incentive-based to the knowledge-based approaches. European Journal of Innovation Management, 5(3), pp. 152-163, 2002.
15- Tatiana, I., Lars, K., & Ute, S. Entrepreneurial intentions in developing and developed countries. Education + Training, 53(5), pp. 353-370, 2011.
16- Bernd Carsten, S., Neil, M., & Ibrahim, E. Development and emancipation: The information society and decision support systems in local authorities in Egypt. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 8(1), pp. 85-107, 2010.
17- Jake, W. Cyberspace, information literacy and the information society. Library Review, 54(4), pp. 218-222, 2005.
18- Michael, A., & Thierry, P. Knowledge-based organizations: perspectives from San Francisco Bay area companies. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(3), pp. 169-177, 2004.
19- Cunningham, J. B., Philip, G., Herbert, S., & Chung Lai, H. An entrepreneurial logic for the new economy. Management Decision, 40(8), pp. 734-744, 2002.
20- Clark, B. R. Creating Entrepreneurial Universities. Organizational pathways of transformation. Paris: International Association of Universities, 1998.
21- Clark, B. Delineating the character of the entrepreneurial university (Vol. 17): Higher Education Policy, 2004.
22- Bok, D. Universities in the Market Place: The Commercialization of Higher Education. Princeton University Press, 2003.
23- Aidis, R. Institutional Barriers to Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprise Operations in Transition Countries. Small Business Economics, 25(4), pp. 305-317, 2005.
24- El-Sayed, A.-Z. A knowledge management reference model. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(5), pp. 486-499, 2002.
25- Maija, R., Rodney, C. S., & Mark, S. Perception of entrepreneurial opportunity: A general framework. Management Decision, 50(7), pp. 10-10, 2012.
26- Ropke, J. The entrepreneurial university: innovation, academic knowledge creation and regional development in a globalized economy, pp. 3, 1993.
27- Etzkowitz, H., et al. The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29, pp. 313-330, 2000.
28- Etzkowitz, H. The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International Journal of Technology and Globalization, 1(1), pp. 64-77, 2004.
29- Dawson, M. D., Brucker, P.S. The utility of the Delphi method in MFT research. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 29, pp. 125-140, 2001.
30- Fink A., K. J., Chassin M. & Brook R. Consensus Methods: Characteristics and Guidelines for Use RAND. Santa Monica, California, 1991.
31- Woudenberg, F. An Evaluation of Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 40, pp. 131–150, 1991.
32- Helmer, O., Rescher, Nicholas. On the Epistemology of the Inexact Sciences. Management Sciences, 6(1), 1959.
33- Green, B., Jones, M., Hughes, D. and Williams, A. Applying the Delphi technique in a study of GPs information requirements. Health & Social Care in the Community, 7(3), pp. 198-205, 1999.
34- Beretta, R. A critical review of the Delphi technique. Nurse Researcher, 3(4), pp. 79-89, 1996.
35- Ziglio, E. (1996). The Delphi method and its contribution to decision making. In M. Adler & E. Ziglio (Eds.), Gazing into the Oracle: the Delphi Method and its Application to Social Policy and Public Health (pp. 3-26). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. pp. 3-26
36- Linstone, H. A., Turoff, M. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Application. London,: Addison-Wesley, pp. 3-16, 1975.
37- Guilherme Trez, F. B. L. Organizational structure and specialized marketing capabilities in SMEs. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 30(2), pp. 143 – 164, 2012.
38- Patricia J. Daugherty, H. C., Bruce G. Ferrin. Organizational structure and logistics service innovation. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 22(1), pp. 26 – 51, 2011.
39- Prodromos D. Chatzoglou, A. D. D., Eftichia Vraimaki, Stergios K. Vranakis, Dimitrios A. Kourtidis. Aligning IT, strategic orientation and organizational structure. Business Process Management Journal, 17(4), pp. 663 – 687, 2011.
40- Inocencia María Martínez-León, J. A. M.-G. The influence of organizational structure on organizational learning. International Journal of Manpower, 32(5), pp. 537 – 566, 2011.
41- Frantz Rowe, R. M., Cécile Clergeau. The contribution of information technology to call center productivity: An organizational design analysis. Information Technology & People, 24(4), pp. 336 – 361, 2011.
42- Eva M. Pertusa-Ortega, J. F. M.-A., Enrique Claver-Cortés. Competitive strategy, structure and firm performance: A comparison of the resource-based view and the contingency approach. Management Decision, 48(8), pp. 1282 – 1303, 2010.
43- Chia, R. Entrepreneurial Strategizing: The Tacit Mode. University of Exeter, pp. 3-21, 2006.
44- Eva M. Pertusa-Ortega, E. C.-C., José F. Molina-Azorín. (2008). Strategy, structure, environment and performance in Spanish firms. EuroMed Journal of Business, 3(2), pp. 223 – 239, 2008.
45- Gavin M. Schwarz, A. D. S. The patterning of limited structural change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(6), pp. 829 – 846, 2007.
46- Jabnoun, N. Organizational structure for customer-oriented TQM: an empirical investigation. The TQM Magazine, 17(3), pp. 226 – 236, 2005.
47- Garrido-Samaniego, M. José, J. G.-C. Determinants of influence and participation in the buying center. An analysis of Spanish industrial companies. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 19(5), pp. 320 – 336, 2004.
48- Edward R. Maguire, Y. S., Jihong "Solomon" Zhao, Kimberly D. Hassell. Structural change in large police agencies during the 1990s. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 26(2), pp. 251 – 275, 2003.
49- Eugene A. Paoline III, J. J. S. I. Variability in the organizational structure of contemporary campus law enforcement agencies: A national-level analysis. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 26(4), pp. 612 – 639, 2003.
50- Wilson, J. M. Measurement and association in the structure of municipal police organizations. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 26(2), pp. 276 – 297, 2003.
51- Kimberly D. Hassell, J. S. Z., Edward R. Maguire. Structural arrangements in large municipal police organizations: revisiting Wilson's theory of local political culture. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 26(2), pp. 231 – 250, 2003.
52- Donde P. Ashmos, D. D., Reuben R. McDaniel, Jr. Organizational responses to complexity: the effect on organizational performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(6), pp. 577 – 595, 2000.
53- Richard Germain, N. S. Quality management and its relationship with organizational context and design. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 16(4), pp. 371 – 392, 1999.
54- Todeva, E. Conceptualizing the dynamics of organizations: foundations for situational analysis. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 18(2), pp. 99 – 107, 1997.
55- Abby Ghobadian, D. G. TQM and organization size. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 17(2), pp. 121 – 163, 1997.
56- Yoram Mitki, A. B. R. S., Zvi Meiri. Organizational learning mechanisms and continuous improvement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 10(5), pp. 426 – 446, 1998.
57- Steven Lysonski, M. L., Noel Lavenka Environmental uncertainty and organizational structure: a product management perspective. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 4(3), pp. 7- 18, 1995.