As tecnologias radicalmente novas geram lucros por meio da conversão eficiente em processos, produtos e serviços. Entretanto, para esta conversão, empresas necessitam desenvolver novas capacidades e aprimorar as existentes para tornarem-se empresas aptas ao desenvolvimento e comercialização de novos produtos. Esta tese apresenta uma sistemática para a avaliação da evolução e (re)configuração das capacidades para a gestão do Processo de Conversão de Tecnologia em Produtos e Serviços (PCTPS). Este tipo de avaliação adequa-se no contexto de projetos de desenvolvimento radicais, como o que ocorre em novas empresas de base tecnológica, com destaque às empresas do tipo spin-off acadêmico. A sistemática foi representada por meio de um framework de forma a atender as premissas identificadas a partir da literatura. Para fins de avaliação das capacidades, foram elaborados constructos de níveis de desenvolvimento e de ajuste de capacidades e, a partir destes, foram propostas métricas para avaliação. A sistemática e seus componentes foram validados através da avaliação junto a especialistas, análise experimental e simulação e aplicação em um estudo de caso de um empreendimento liderado por uma spin-off acadêmica para análise de usabilidade. Para operacionalizar a sistemática proposta, métodos, formulários e índices foram incorporados em uma ferramenta. Esta ferramenta apresenta-se como um método de decisão multicriterial, com uma estrutura de combinação dos índices e de elaboração de relatórios. A sistemática auxilia as empresas a avaliarem suas capacidades e identificar como combiná-las e desenvolve-las para criar uma estrutura organizacional com políticas e rotinas definidas para coordenar e (re)configurar suas capacidades na condução do PCTPS. / Radically new technologies only generate returns by their efficient conversion into processes, products and services. However, enterprises need to develop new capabilities and improve the existing ones to become able to the development and commercialization of new products. This thesis presents, in the context of process of technology conversion to products and services, a model for performance measurement through the capabilities evolution and (re)configuration. This kind of evaluation is adequate in the context of radical development projects, as ones occurring in new technology based companies, with distinction to academic spin-off companies. The model was initially composed by a framework that incorporated and attended the promises identified from the literature. This framework was then embodied with tools and practices. To enable the capabilities evaluation, were defined the constructs for measurement of capabilities adjustment and development levels. From these constructs, the metrics for evaluation were proposed. The model was validated by evaluation with specialists, experimental and simulation analysis and usability test in a case. Methods, forms, and indexes were incorporated in a tool to enable the model operationalization. This tool was designed as a multi-criteria decision method that presents a structure for index combining and for report elaboration. The model supports the companies to evaluate their capabilities and identify how to combine them and develop them to create an organizational structure. This evaluation is understood as a guide for policies and routines definition in the process of coordination and (re)configuration of capabilities during the conduction of the new technologies conversion into processes, products and services.

As tecnologias radicalmente novas geram lucros por meio da conversão eficiente em processos, produtos e serviços. Entretanto, para esta conversão, empresas necessitam desenvolver novas capacidades e aprimorar as existentes para tornarem-se empresas aptas ao desenvolvimento e comercialização de novos produtos. Esta tese apresenta uma sistemática para a avaliação da evolução e (re)configuração das capacidades para a gestão do Processo de Conversão de Tecnologia em Produtos e Serviços (PCTPS). Este tipo de avaliação adequa-se no contexto de projetos de desenvolvimento radicais, como o que ocorre em novas empresas de base tecnológica, com destaque às empresas do tipo spin-off acadêmico. A sistemática foi representada por meio de um framework de forma a atender as premissas identificadas a partir da literatura. Para fins de avaliação das capacidades, foram elaborados constructos de níveis de desenvolvimento e de ajuste de capacidades e, a partir destes, foram propostas métricas para avaliação. A sistemática e seus componentes foram validados através da avaliação junto a especialistas, análise experimental e simulação e aplicação em um estudo de caso de um empreendimento liderado por uma spin-off acadêmica para análise de usabilidade. Para operacionalizar a sistemática proposta, métodos, formulários e índices foram incorporados em uma ferramenta. Esta ferramenta apresenta-se como um método de decisão multicriterial, com uma estrutura de combinação dos índices e de elaboração de relatórios. A sistemática auxilia as empresas a avaliarem suas capacidades e identificar como combiná-las e desenvolve-las para criar uma estrutura organizacional com políticas e rotinas definidas para coordenar e (re)configurar suas capacidades na condução do PCTPS. / Radically new technologies only generate returns by their efficient conversion into processes, products and services. However, enterprises need to develop new capabilities and improve the existing ones to become able to the development and commercialization of new products. This thesis presents, in the context of process of technology conversion to products and services, a model for performance measurement through the capabilities evolution and (re)configuration. This kind of evaluation is adequate in the context of radical development projects, as ones occurring in new technology based companies, with distinction to academic spin-off companies. The model was initially composed by a framework that incorporated and attended the promises identified from the literature. This framework was then embodied with tools and practices. To enable the capabilities evaluation, were defined the constructs for measurement of capabilities adjustment and development levels. From these constructs, the metrics for evaluation were proposed. The model was validated by evaluation with specialists, experimental and simulation analysis and usability test in a case. Methods, forms, and indexes were incorporated in a tool to enable the model operationalization. This tool was designed as a multi-criteria decision method that presents a structure for index combining and for report elaboration. The model supports the companies to evaluate their capabilities and identify how to combine them and develop them to create an organizational structure. This evaluation is understood as a guide for policies and routines definition in the process of coordination and (re)configuration of capabilities during the conduction of the new technologies conversion into processes, products and services.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-06-02T19:52:16Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 DissLBC.pdf: 757320 bytes, checksum: ac46c58fc642c6337262637abfef3a65 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2006-02-21 / Universidade Federal de Sao Carlos / Nowadays, the countrys development is based on science, tecnology and inovation. Because of this, the society is demanding that the university, one of the most important sources of that resources, acts transfering the results of its researches to the market. There are several ways to transfer the tecnology from university to the industry. One of them, that is emerging as an important mechanism, is the creation of firms from results of researches generated in the university (the academic spin-offs). Therefore, in Brasil there are few studies about this mechanism of university-company cooperation. Indenting to improve this situation, the present study mains to exihibit the profile of academic spin-offs from Brazil, showing its characteristics, motivations, difficulties and the opinion of spin-off owners. The methodology used was the quantitative research and the data was collected through questionnaires sent to 33 spin-offs companies from 9 universities. One important result obtained shows that just three companies have university s patents. / Atualmente, o desenvolvimento dos países é baseado na ciência, tecnologia e inovação.Por causa disto, a sociedade está demandando que a universidade, uma das mais importante fonte destes recursos, aja transferindo os resultados de suas pesquisas para o mercado. Existem diversas maneiras de transferi-los para o setor empresarial. Uma delas, que está emergindo com um destaque relevante, é a criação de empresas a partir de resultados de pesquisas geradas nas universidades (spin-offs acadêmicos). Entretanto, no Brasil há poucos estudos sobre este tipo de mecanismo de cooperação universidade-empresa. Buscando melhorar esta situação, o presente estudo objetiva apresentar o perfil dos spin-offs acadêmicos brasileiros, mostrando suas características, motivações, dificuldades e a opinião dos sócios destas empresas. A metodologia usada foi a pesquisa quantitativa e os dados foram coletados através de questionários enviados a 33 spin-offs de 9 universidades. Um importante resultado obtido mostra que, apesar de serem oriundas do meio acadêmico, somente três empresas têm patentes licenciadas pelas universidades.

As tecnologias radicalmente novas geram lucros por meio da conversão eficiente em processos, produtos e serviços. Entretanto, para esta conversão, empresas necessitam desenvolver novas capacidades e aprimorar as existentes para tornarem-se empresas aptas ao desenvolvimento e comercialização de novos produtos. Esta tese apresenta uma sistemática para a avaliação da evolução e (re)configuração das capacidades para a gestão do Processo de Conversão de Tecnologia em Produtos e Serviços (PCTPS). Este tipo de avaliação adequa-se no contexto de projetos de desenvolvimento radicais, como o que ocorre em novas empresas de base tecnológica, com destaque às empresas do tipo spin-off acadêmico. A sistemática foi representada por meio de um framework de forma a atender as premissas identificadas a partir da literatura. Para fins de avaliação das capacidades, foram elaborados constructos de níveis de desenvolvimento e de ajuste de capacidades e, a partir destes, foram propostas métricas para avaliação. A sistemática e seus componentes foram validados através da avaliação junto a especialistas, análise experimental e simulação e aplicação em um estudo de caso de um empreendimento liderado por uma spin-off acadêmica para análise de usabilidade. Para operacionalizar a sistemática proposta, métodos, formulários e índices foram incorporados em uma ferramenta. Esta ferramenta apresenta-se como um método de decisão multicriterial, com uma estrutura de combinação dos índices e de elaboração de relatórios. A sistemática auxilia as empresas a avaliarem suas capacidades e identificar como combiná-las e desenvolve-las para criar uma estrutura organizacional com políticas e rotinas definidas para coordenar e (re)configurar suas capacidades na condução do PCTPS. / Radically new technologies only generate returns by their efficient conversion into processes, products and services. However, enterprises need to develop new capabilities and improve the existing ones to become able to the development and commercialization of new products. This thesis presents, in the context of process of technology conversion to products and services, a model for performance measurement through the capabilities evolution and (re)configuration. This kind of evaluation is adequate in the context of radical development projects, as ones occurring in new technology based companies, with distinction to academic spin-off companies. The model was initially composed by a framework that incorporated and attended the promises identified from the literature. This framework was then embodied with tools and practices. To enable the capabilities evaluation, were defined the constructs for measurement of capabilities adjustment and development levels. From these constructs, the metrics for evaluation were proposed. The model was validated by evaluation with specialists, experimental and simulation analysis and usability test in a case. Methods, forms, and indexes were incorporated in a tool to enable the model operationalization. This tool was designed as a multi-criteria decision method that presents a structure for index combining and for report elaboration. The model supports the companies to evaluate their capabilities and identify how to combine them and develop them to create an organizational structure. This evaluation is understood as a guide for policies and routines definition in the process of coordination and (re)configuration of capabilities during the conduction of the new technologies conversion into processes, products and services.

National innovative performance is a key driver for sustainable growth (Pavitt, 1980). National innovative capacity may be improved by fostering industrial Research and Development (R&D), by funding academic research and by effectively supporting university-industry interactions in order to strengthen the linkage between R&D and product development. In a context of growing relevance of external sources of innovation, where the industry, rather than relying on internal R&D, increasingly engages in ‘open innovation’ (Chesbrough, 2006), the role played by universities is crucial. The essays presented in this thesis focus mainly on academic R&D and knowledge transfer mechanisms from the university viewpoint, as opposed to government or industry perspectives. These essays contribute to our understanding of how universities organise themselves to adapt to this changing context. In other words, the thesis looks at the ‘reflexivity’ norm of the system associated with the entrepreneurial university, as established by Etzkowitz (2004); or “a continuing renovation of the internal structure of the university as its relation to industry and government changes, and of industry and government as their relationship to the university is revised”. <p>Universities play a major role in the national innovative capacity of a country as producers and transmitters of new knowledge (see for instance, Adams, 1990; Mansfield, 1991; Klevorick et al. 1995; Zucker et al. 1998; Cohen et al. 2002; Arundel and Geuna, 2004; Guellec and van Pottelsberghe, 2004). While European countries play a leading global role in terms of scientific output, they lag behind in the ability to convert this strength into wealth-generating innovations (this is known as the ‘European paradox’, see for instance Tijssen and van Wijk, 1999; and Dosi et al. 2005). This level of innovation may be improved by different factors; for instance, by fostering an entrepreneurial culture, or by increasing industry’s willingness to develop new products, new processes. One of these factors relies on the notion of an ‘entrepreneurial university’. Universities, in addition to the two traditional missions of research and teaching, foster their third mission of contribution to society, by improving the transfer of knowledge to the industry. New tools and regulations have been established to support universities in this process. Since the early 80’s, academic technology transfer offices (TTOs) have been created, dedicated employees have been trained and hired, incubators for the launch of new academic ventures have been set up, academic or independent pre-seed investment funds have been founded and laws related to the ownerships by university of their invented-patents have been promulgated. <p>But what exactly stands behind the notion of ‘entrepreneurial university’? There exist more different descriptions of a similar concept or of a similar evolution than a general agreed definition. Indeed, "(…) There is high heterogeneity, there is no such thing as a typical university, and there is no typical way to be or become an entrepreneurial university" (Martinelli et al. 2008, p.260). However some similar patterns of what is or should be an entrepreneurial university may be identified.<p>First, there is this notion of a revolution experienced by universities that now have to integrate a third mission of contributing to economic development aside of their traditional academic missions. “(…) But in the most advanced segments of the worldwide university system, a ‘second revolution’ takes off. The entrepreneurial university integrates economic development into the university as an academic function along with teaching and research. It is this ‘capitalisation of knowledge’ that is the heart of a new mission for the university, linking universities to users of knowledge more tightly and establishing the university as an economic actor in its own right” (Etzkowitz, 1998, p.833). <p>This revolution finds its origin in a necessary adaptation of universities to an external changing environment where modern societies put a strong emphasis on knowledge. “The concept of the entrepreneurial university envisions an academic structure and function that is revised through the alignment of economic development with research and teaching as academic missions. The transformation of academia from a ‘secondary’ to a ‘primary’ institution is a heretofore unexpected outcome of the institutional development of modern society (Mills, 1958). In consequence, the knowledge industry in modern societies is no longer a minor affair run by an intellectual elite, an activity that might be considered by pragmatic leaders as expendable; it is a mammoth enterprise on a par with heavy industry, and just as necessary to the country in which it is situated (Graham, 1998, p.129)”, quoted by Etzkowitz et al. (2000, p.329).<p>The notion of an ‘entrepreneurial university’ also exceeds the simple idea of the protection of academic intellectual property by patents owned by universities and their out-licensing as well as the launch of new ventures. It encompasses an overall change of how the university is organised. “In the gruesome and heady world of changing external environments, organizations – including universities – will need to seek opportunities beyond their existing competences (Hamel and Prahalad, 1989, 1994), which suggests the need for an entrepreneurial orientation (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996)”, quoted by Glassman et al. (2003, p.356). This entrepreneurial orientation will only be possible if the overall organisation of the university changes. “An entrepreneurial university, on its own, actively seeks to innovate how it goes about its business. It seeks to work out a substantial shift in organizational character so as to arrive at a more promising posture for the future. Entrepreneurial universities seek to become 'stand-up' universities that are significant actors on their own terms” (Clark, 1998, p.4). <p>The notion of entrepreneurial university also encompasses the concept of academic entrepreneurship in its broad sense. For a university to become entrepreneurial, individual academics also have to adapt and to behave in an entrepreneurial way. This concept is not solely conceived here as the launching of new ventures by academics (a view embraced by Shane, 2004, for instance). It relates more to the view of Stevenson, Roberts and Grousbeck (1989), referenced by Glassman et al. (2003, p.354) or “the process of creating and seizing an opportunity and pursuing it to create something of value regardless of current available resources.”<p>The difficulty facing universities is then to adapt to their external environment while preserving the integrity of their two traditional academic missions. However, some conceive this challenge as precisely an ability that characterise the very intrinsic university’s nature. "The uniqueness of the university,(…) lies in its protean capacity to change its shape and function to suit its temporal and sociopolitical environment while retaining enough continuity to deserve its unchanging name” (Perkin, 1984, p.18). <p>Furthermore, others perceive this challenge as a tension that has always been at the root of the university’s character. “The cherished view of some academics that higher education started out on the Acropolis of scholarship and was desecrated by descent into the Agora of materialistic pursuit led by ungodly commercial interests and scheming public officials and venal academic leaders is just not true for the university systems that have developed at least since 1200 A.D. If anything, higher education started in the Agora, the market place, at the bottom of the hill and ascended to the Acropolis on the top of the hill… Mostly it has lived in tension, at one and the same time at the bottom of the hill, at the top of the hill, and on many paths in between” (Kerr, 1988, p.4; quoted by Glassman, 2003, p.353).<p>Nevertheless, it appears that some institutions, the ones integrating the best their different missions and being the most ‘complete’ in terms of the activities they perform, will be better positioned to overcome this second revolution than other institutions. “Since science-based innovations increasingly have a multidisciplinary character and build on "difficult-to-codify" people-centred interactions, university-based systems of industry science links, which combine basic and applied research with a broader education mission, are seen as enjoying a comparative advantage relative to research institutes” (OECD, 2001 quoted by Debackere and Veugeleers, 2005, p.324). Or as stated by Geuna (1998, p.266), in his analysis of the way the different historical trajectories of European universities are influencing their ability to adapt to the current changing environment, “ (…) the renowned institutions of Cluster IV (pre-war institutions, large in size, with high research output and productivity) are in a strong position both scientifically and politically, and can exercise bargaining power in their relations with government and industry. (…) On the other side, universities in the other two clusters (new postwar universities, characterised by small size, low research output and low research orientation and productivity, whether involved in technological research or in teaching), with very low research grants from government, are pushed to rely more heavily on industrial funding. Being in a weak financial position, they may find themselves in an asymmetric bargaining relationship with industry that they may be unable to manage effectively.”<p>To summarize, one could attempt to define the broad notion of an ‘entrepreneurial university’ as follows. An entrepreneurial university is a university that adapts to the current changing environment that puts a stronger emphasis on knowledge, by properly integrating the third mission or the capitalisation of knowledge aside of its two traditional missions. This adaptation requires a radical change in the way the university is organised. It will require important strategic reorientation from the top but also, and mainly, it will require from the individual academics to better seize new opportunities to generate value (not only financial but also scientific or academic) given scarcer resources. Renowned and complete universities (with teaching, basic and applied research) have an edge over other institutions to overcome this second revolution.<p>This notion of ‘entrepreneurial university’ has drawn criticisms. For example, academics’ interactions with industry could impact negatively on research activities by reorienting fundamental research towards more applied research projects (Cohen and Randazzese, 1996; David, 2000), by restricting academic freedom (Cohen et al. 1994; Blumenthal et al. 1996; Blumenthal et al. 1997), or by potentially reducing scientific productivity (see for instance van Zeebroeck et al. 2008 for a review on this issue). The present work does not address the issue of the impact of increased interactions with the business sector on traditional academic missions nor the question of whether universities should become entrepreneurial or not. Instead, the essays start from the idea that the ‘entrepreneurial university’ notion is part of the intrinsic nature of modern universities, or at least, is a part of its evolution. Industry-university relationships are not a new phenomenon; it can be traced at least to the mid- to late-1800s in Europe and to at least the industrial revolution in the USA (Hall et al. 2001). What is evolving is the nature of such relationships that become more formal. The present analysis starts then from the general observation that some universities (and researchers) are more entrepreneurially-oriented and better accept this mission than others. From that stems the primary research question addressed in this thesis: are there characteristics or conditions leading to a smooth coexistence of traditional and new academic missions inside an entrepreneurial university? And if so, what are they?<p>Existing work on the entrepreneurial university is a nascent but already well developed field of research. The aimed contribution of this thesis is to analyse the topic under three specific but complementary angles. These three perspectives are explored into the four main chapters of this work, structured as follows. Chapter 1 is titled “Turning science into business: A case study of a traditional European research university”. It introduces the topic by investigating the dynamics at play that may explain the propensity of a traditional, research-oriented university to start generate entrepreneurial outputs, while being not full-fledge entrepreneurially organised. Exploring the importance of “new” entrepreneurial outputs, as defined as patents and spin-off companies, compared to other ways of transferring new knowledge to the industry, Chapter 2 reviews the literature on the variety of knowledge transfer mechanisms (KTMs) used in university-industry interactions. It is titled “University-Industry interactions and knowledge transfer mechanisms: a critical survey”. Given scarcer structural funds for academic research and increasing pressure on academics to diversify their activities in terms of being involved in patenting or spin-off launching, Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 investigate the role played by individual characteristics of researchers in attracting competitive, external funding. Chapter 3 presents stylised facts related to external fundraising at ULB and characteristics of researchers who attracted these funds over the period 1998-2008. The empirical analysis on associations between individual characteristics of researchers (intrinsic, scientific and entrepreneurial) and the extent of funds attracted from different sources (national, regional and business) is presented in Chapter 4, titled “The determinants of academic fundraising.” Chapter 5 concludes and suggests ideas for future investigation on this topic. Chapter 6, in appendix of the present work, titled “A note on the drivers of R&D intensity”, is not directly linked to the issue of the entrepreneurial university. It has been included to complement the studied topic and to put in perspective the present work. Academic research and university-industry interactions constitute important drivers of a national R&D and innovation system. Other factors are at play as well. Looking at this issue at the macroeconomic level, Chapter 6 investigates to what extent the industrial structure of a country influences the observed R&D intensity, and hence would bias the well-known country rankings based on aggregate R&D intensity.<p> / Doctorat en Sciences économiques et de gestion / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Thesis (MBA)--Stellenbosch University, 2005. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Constant and aggressive change is a characteristic that has shaped our present day life and occurs at all levels of society. In a new South Africa, an entrepreneurial approach has become a means of survival. Modern day South Africans have been compelled to adopt an innovative and entrepreneurial mindset in order to function optimally. For the higher education sector, this has meant the commercialisation of many aspects of their operations due to yearly cuts in subsidy allocations. Stellenbosch University is not exempt from this and is also affected by these cuts. The goal of this study is therefore to provide an internationally researched conceptual model and process for commercialising academic research at Stellenbosch University. This will require the adoption of an entrepreneurial mindset which views research differently from its traditional mode. By moving away from an academic view of research, new partnerships, opportunities and outcomes become possible, from which new revenue avenues could be opened. The question arises as to what technological innovations are likely to result in commercial success and what route should a university then take to successfully commercialise their research findings? Finding practical answers to these questions could provide a platform from which a university can make accurate and timely decisions with regards to the commercialisation of its academic research. Accurate decision-making is therefore an essential tool in the management of this process. Commercialisation is not viable without first creating an innovative mindset and platform. These cannot be created without first understanding the concept of newness. Consistent newness requires continuous innovation, from which academic entrepreneurship then stems. The successful commercialisation of this entrepreneurship can then be understood by considering the various concepts and basic components involved in commercialisation. A broad look at literature provided the basis for this platform from which a model could then be constructed. In constructing the model, the key components were first identified. Secondly, a brief look at four different commercialsiation models provided an overview of the thought pattems involved in such a process. The synthesis of these components and models culminated in a conceptual model for commercialisation within the Stellenbosch University environment. This model included the tangible and intangible side of commercialisation, incorporating organisational mindset, attitudes and culture. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Konstante en omvattende verandering is 'n kenmerk van die eietydse samelewing en raak alle sosiale vlakke. 'n Entrepreneuriese benadering het in die nuwe Suid-Afrika 'n middel tot oorlewing geword. Eietydse Suid-Afrikaners word genoodsaak om innoverend en ondernemend te wees ten einde optimaal te kan funksioneer. Dit impliseer dat tersiere instellings byvoorbeeld baie van hul bedrywighede moet kommersialiseer, weens toenemende besnoeiings in subsidiering. Die Universiteit van Stellenbosch word insgelyks deur hierdie besnoeiings geraak. Die doel van hierdie studie is die ontwerp van 'n konsepsuele model en proses vir kommersialisering van akademiese navorsing vir die Universiteit van Stellenbosch, gebaseer op internasionale navorsing. Dit vereis 'n entrepreneuriese denkwyse wat navorsing anders benader as in die verlede. Deur weg te beweeg van 'n suiwer akademiese siening van navorsing, word nuwe vennootskappe, geleenthede en uitkomste moontlik, en skep sodoende ook nuwe bronne van inkomste. Tegniese innoverings wat prakties en uitvoerbaar is kan moontlik as platform dien vir hierdie kommersialisering. Dit veronderstel toepaslike besluitneming as noodsaaklike middel in die bestuur van die proses. 'n Nadere deurskouing van konsepte onderliggend aan suksesvolle kommersialisering van entrepreneurskap, tesame met 'n bree oorsig van navorsing in hierdie verband, het die basis gevorm vir die ontwerp van 'n model. Kernkomponente is eerstens identifiseer. Bestaande modelle het tweedens 'n oorsig van denkpatrone oor die ontwerp van so 'n proses gebied. 'n Sintese van hierdie komponente en modelle het kulmineer in 'n konsepsuele model vir kommersialisering binne die Universiteit van Stellenbosch omgewing. Hierdie model sluit die praktiese deel van kommersialisering, sowel as die ontasbare deel, naamlik organisatoriese denkwyses, houdings en kultuur in.

Thesis (MPhil (Sociology and Social Anthropology))--University of Stellenbosch, 2009. / This study focuses on academic entrepreneurship. It commences with a literature review on international trends in academic entrepreneurship, with a particular focus on incentive schemes used by selected countries to encourage innovativeness in academic institutions. Linkages between these incentives schemes and the improvement in the level of innovations made are demonstrated. This study will also show that in some countries, such as Brazil and Finland, these innovation incentives have led to the formation of start-up companies and an increased number of patents. The international scenario in academic entrepreneurship is linked to the South African scenario, as presented in the chapter on the science and technology landscape in South Africa. The main focus of the South African scenario will be on the National Innovation Competition (NIC), which is an instrument of the Innovation Fund specifically aimed at encouraging and providing innovation incentives at the level of higher education institutions. This research report also provide findings of interviews with different people within the academic entrepreneurship fraternity as well as an assessment of the differences between the winning and the non-winning business plans, which are used as a basis of providing incentives to the winners of the NIC. Recommendations are made in an attempt to provide solutions to the challenges encountered in the NIC at both institutional levels, as participants, and at government level, as funders of the NIC. This will hopefully improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the NIC. Although the NIC was only started in 2004, it is envisaged that areas of improvement can be identified at this early stage. This, coupled with the lessons learnt from the international literature review, will provide a mechanism that will make the NIC a powerful instrument to encourage innovation at HEI (Higher Education Institution) level. The conclusions drawn from this report include lessons learnt from the international literature review.