1 Innovation U 2.0: Reinventing University Roles in a Knowledge Economy Elaine C. Rideout, Ph.D., NC State University

Problem  Many US Universities have huge impacts on regional economies and communities – they help grow “technology clusters”  Many others, not so much  How can the scope of university-linked innovation be extended?  Book describing “best practices and policies” of exemplary cases and disseminate.

3 Purpose  Identify the top-12 US innovation-producing Universities based on normalized outcomes:  Innovation production  Business/community partnerships  Entrepreneurship education and startups  How can other Universities produce more Innovation and create economic impacts?

4 Methodology  Reviewed Internal/External Reports, Websites, Internal/External Informant Interviews  Selection involved Peer Groupings, Calculating Normalized “batting averages”:  Rate of invention disclosures, patents, fraction of R&D funded by industry, frequency and number of startups, etc.  National Panel of 10 Expert Raters  Raters independently picked up to 3 schools in each tranche; 100% Consensus on Top 12

Innovation U 2.0 Sample  Private Universities  Brigham Young  Cal Tech  Carnegie-Mellon  MIT  Stanford  Public Universities  Arizona State University  Clemson University  University of Florida  Georgia Tech  NC State  Purdue  University of Utah Top Performing Universities: Higher indices of disclosures, licenses, start-ups, and industry research sponsorship Some engineering-focused; others life science; a very diverse group

6 What Works: Leadership & Culture  Leadership at every level – not just “management”  Practitioner-Faculty who have “done it” and can mentor and champion supporting values  Inter-School, and Inter-Generational transfer of “culture stars” help to kick-start  Inherit a culture of innovation or build it (Slower)

7 What Works: Industry Research Partnerships and Tech Transfer  Rich Seedbeds of Innovation occur where multiple disciplines intersect with industry inputs  Centers, institutes and other industry partnership structures may be harder to launch, but last  IU’s excel at identifying, patenting, licensing and commercializing inventions (faculty and student)  IU’s excel at creating innovation communities:  Cultivate Relationships with Alumni, Incubators, Investors, Business and Community Leaders.

Entrepreneurship Education and Student Entrepreneurs  Systemic Economic Changes -Decline in Manufacturing -Economic Crises, Unemployment, Job Insecurity -Small Business Job Creation  Student demand for Courses, Programs, Majors and Minors -24,000 students enrolled in 1996;.5M today ->90% of Universities now offer courses/degrees

Diversity of IU Curricular Approaches  Formal: Courses, Degrees, Majors, and Minors (Arizona State, University of Florida)  Informal: Fewer Degrees, Majors (Stanford, CalTech, NC State, GA Tech)  Scientific (Evidence-based research) (MIT, University of Utah)  Cross-Departmental, Multi-Disciplinary (CMU, Purdue, Stanford)

Diversity of Extra-Curricular Programs  Common Across IU’s  Mentoring, Networking Events, Field Trips  Business Plan Competitions and Prizes  Incubators/Accelerators, Internships  Less Common or Under Development  Fellowships/Innovation Scholars  Alumni/University Venture Funds  Post-Graduation Support and Community Placements

Entre-Ed Modalities  University of Utah – BlockU; “Academic Capitalist” Coaches  Cal Tech – Un-Disciplined  Az State – Freshman Mandate  Carnegie Mellon – MII-PS Program  MIT – Enterprise Forum

12 What Works: Entrepreneurship Education  More entrepreneurial students than faculty  Evidence-based teaching, Team Teaching/Learning, Experiential Curricula  Expanding Co/Extra-curricular offerings  Mentoring, Competitions, Big $ Prizes, Networking Events, Field Trips, Accelerators, Internships, in addition to Courses  Entrepreneurship education integration fosters interdisciplinary mindsets and helps change U culture

The Product  Best Practices Across Five Domains  (Culture, Leadership, E-ed, Boundary Spanning, Tech Transfer)  270 pages, 12 case studies, Introduction, and Summary/Recommendations  Lots and lots of detail on people, policies, practices (assuming 3-4 ideas per page, up to 1000 examples, tips and “tools for change” to consider)  Download at 13

Thank You! Questions? Elaine C. Rideout, MPP, PhD NC State University