Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Performance Management and Governance in Public Universities: Challenges and Opportunities Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2022 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Adopting a Dynamic Performance Governance Approach to Frame Interorganizational Value Generation Processes into a University Third Mission Setting

verfasst von : Federico Cosenz

Erschienen in: Governance and Performance Management in Public Universities

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

In recent years, the literature on Higher Education policy and management emphasized an increasingly entrepreneurial role played by Universities in contributing to the socioeconomic development of their regional and local areas. Besides Education and Research, this crucial role identifies a Third Mission to be fulfilled by Higher Education Institutions (HEIs), which entails social engagement, networking, and collaboration with other stakeholders to generate sustainable community outcomes. This chapter introduces the use of the Dynamic Performance Governance approach to analyze the academic network value generation processes underlying Third Mission activities in Universities. The emerging findings—supported by the exploration of an illustrative example focused on University–Industry–Government partnerships—suggest that this approach is particularly valuable in supporting academic networks to frame and evaluate the outcomes, and associated performance drivers, related to Third Mission activities.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel A Longitudinal Analysis of the Relationship Between Central Government and Universities in France: The Role of Performance Measurement Mechanisms
Nächstes Kapitel The Third Mission Strategies Disclosure Through the Integrated Plan
Fußnoten
1
Powell and Snellman (2004, p. 199) defined the “knowledge economy” as “production and services based on knowledge-intensive activities that contribute to an accelerated pace of technical and scientific advance, as well as rapid obsolescence. The key component of a knowledge economy is a greater reliance on intellectual capabilities than on physical inputs or natural resources.”
 
Literatur
Amaral, A., & Magalhães, A. (2002). The emergent role of external stakeholders in European higher education governance. In A. Amaral, V. L. Meek, & I. M. Larsen (Eds.), Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance (pp. 1–21). Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRef
Angiola, N., Bianchi, P., & Damato, L. (2018). Performance management in public universities: Overcoming bureaucracy. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 67(4), 736–753.CrossRef
Aversano, N., Manes Rossi, F., & Tartaglia Polcini, P. (2018). performance measurement systems in universities: A critical review of the Italian system. In E. Borgonovi, E. Anessi-Pessina, & C. Bianchi (Eds.), Outcome-based performance management in the public sector (pp. 269–288). Springer.CrossRef
Barnabè, F., & Riccaboni, A. (2007). Which role for performance measurement systems in higher education? Focus on quality assurance in Italy. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 33(3–4), 302–319.CrossRef
Bianchi, C. (2010). Improving performance and fostering accountability in the public sector through system dynamics modelling: From an ‘external’ to an ‘internal’ perspective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 27(4), 361–384.CrossRef
Bianchi, C., Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2017). Applying a dynamic performance management framework to wicked issues: How coproduction helps to transform young people’s services in Surrey County Council, UK. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(10), 833–846.CrossRef
Bianchi, C., & Cosenz, F. (2013). Designing performance management systems in academic institutions: A dynamic performance management view. In Proceedings of ASPA 2013 Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA, 19–23 September. ASPA.
Bianchi, C., & Tomaselli, S. (2015). A dynamic performance management approach to support local strategic planning. International Review of Public Administration, 20(4), 370–385.CrossRef
Bianchi, C., & Vignieri, V. (2020). Dealing with “abnormal” business growth by leveraging local area common goods: An outside-in stakeholder collaboration perspective. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJPPM-07-2019-0318
Bianchi, C., & Williams, D. W. (2015). Applying system dynamics modeling to foster a cause-and-effect perspective in dealing with behavioral distortions associated with a city’s performance measurement programs. Public Performance & Management Review, 38(3), 395–425.CrossRef
Bisogno, M., Dumay, J., Manes Rossi, F., & Tartaglia Polcini, P. (2018). Identifying future directions for IC research in education: A literature review. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19, 10–33.CrossRef
Bonollo, E., & Zuccardi Merli, M. (2018). Performance reporting in Italian Public University: Activities in support of research, teaching and the “third mission”. In E. Borgonovi, E. Anessi-Pessina, & C. Bianchi (Eds.), Outcome-based performance management in the public sector (pp. 307–330). Springer.CrossRef
Bornmann, L. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information and Science Technology, 64(2), 217–233.CrossRef
Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860.CrossRef
Broadbent, J. (2007). If you can’t measure it, how can you manage it? Management and governance in higher educational institutions. Public Money and Management, 27(3), 193–198.CrossRef
Business/Higher Education Round Table. (2006). Universities’ third mission: Communities engagement, B-HERT. Position Paper; B-HERT.
Carayannis, E., & Campbell, D. (2012). Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems. Springer Briefs in Business.CrossRef
Carayannis, E., Barth, T., & Campbell, D. (2012). The quintuple helix innovation model: Global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1, 1–12.CrossRef
Cepiku, D., Mussari, R., Poggesi, S., & Reichard, C. (2012). Special issue on governance of networks: Challenges and future issues from a public management perspective editorial. Journal of Management and Governance, 18, 1–7.CrossRef
Coda, V. (2010). Entrepreneurial values and strategic management. Essays in management theory. Palgrave Macmillan.
Cosenz, F. (2011). Sistemi di governo e di valutazione della performance per l’azienda “Università”. Giuffrè.
Cosenz, F. (2013). The “Entrepreneurial University”: A preliminary analysis of the main managerial and organisational features towards the design of planning & control systems in European Academic Institutions. Management Research and Practice, 5(4), 19–36.
Cosenz, F. (2014). A dynamic viewpoint to design performance management systems in academic institutions: Theory and practice. International Journal of Public Administration, 37(13), 955–969.CrossRef
Cosenz, F. (2018). Supporting public sector management through simulation-based methods: A dynamic performance management approach. International Review of Public Administration, 23(1), 20–36.CrossRef
Cosenz, F., & Noto, G. (2016). Applying system dynamics modelling to strategic management: A literature review. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 33(6), 703–741.CrossRef
Cosenz, F., Rodrigues, V. P., & Rosati, F. (2020). Dynamic business modeling for sustainability: Exploring a system dynamics perspective to develop sustainable business models. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(2), 651–664.CrossRef
Dumay, J., & Garanina, T. (2013). Intellectual capital research: A critical examination of the third stage. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(1), 10–25.CrossRef
Elena-Perez, S., Leitner, K. H., Secundo, G., & Martinaitis, Ž. (2014). Shaping new managerial models in European universities: the impact of reporting and managing IC. In P. Ordonez De Pablos & L. Edvinsson (Eds.), Intellectual capital in organizations: Non-financial reports and accounts (pp. 150–165). Routledge.
Esposito, V., De Nito, E., Pezzillo Iacono, M., & Silvestri, L. (2013). Dealing with knowledge in the Italian public universities: The role of performance management systems. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 14(3), 431–450.CrossRef
Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337.CrossRef
Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The Triple Helix: University-industry-government innovation in action. Routledge.CrossRef
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.CrossRef
European Commission and OECD. (2012). A Guiding Framework for Entrepreneurial Universities. OECD.
Frondizi, R., Fantauzzi, C., Colasanti, N., & Fiorani, G. (2019). The evaluation of universities’ third mission and intellectual capital: Theoretical analysis and application to Italy. Sustainability, 11(12), 3455.CrossRef
Fuster, E., Padilla-Meléndez, A., Lockett, N., & del-Aguila-Abra, A. R. (2019). The emerging role of university spin-off companies in developing regional entrepreneurial university ecosystems: The case of Andalusia. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141, 219–231.CrossRef
Graham, R. (2014). Creating university-based entrepreneurial ecosystems: Evidence from emerging world leaders. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J. A., & Urbano, D. (2015). Economic impact of entrepreneurial universities’ activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom. Research Policy, 44(3), 748–764.CrossRef
Guerrero, M., Herrera, F., & Urbano, D. (2019). Strategic knowledge management within subsidised entrepreneurial university-industry partnerships. Management Decision, 57(12), 3280–3300.CrossRef
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Fayolle, A., Klofsten, M., & Mian, S. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities: Emerging models in the new social and economic landscape. Small Business Economics, 47(3), 551–563.CrossRef
Gulbrandsen, M., & Slipersaeter, S. (2007). The third mission and the entrepreneurial university model. In A. Bonaccorsi & C. Daraio (Eds.), Universities and strategic knowledge creation: Specialization and performance in Europe (pp. 112–143). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gunasekara, C. (2006). Refraiming the role of Universities in the development of regional innovation system. Journal of Technological Transfer, 31(1), 101–113.CrossRef
Guthrie, J., & Neumann, R. (2007). Economic and non-financial performance indicators in Universities. Public Management Review, 9(2), 231–252.CrossRef
Hayden, F. G. (2006). The inadequacy of Forrester System dynamics computer programs for institutional principles of hierarchy, feedback, and openness. Journal of Economic Issues, 40(2), 527–535.CrossRef
Hayter, C. S. (2013). Harnessing university entrepreneurship for economic growth factors of success among university spin-offs. Economic Development Quarterly, 27(1), 18–28.CrossRef
HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England). (2008). Strategic plan 2006-11. HEFCE.
Jongbloed, B. (2008). Indicators for mapping University-regional interactions. Paper presented at the ENID-PRIME Indicators Conference, Oslo, Norway, May 26–28.
Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56(3), 303–324.CrossRef
Laredo, P. (2007). Revisiting the third mission of universities: Toward a renewed categorization of university activities? Higher Education Policy, 20(4), 441–456.CrossRef
Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1996). Emergence of a Triple Helix of University-industry-government relations. Science and Public Policy, 23(5), 279–286.
Lubik, S., Garnsey, E., Minshall, T., & Platts, K. (2013). Value creation from the innovation environment: Partnership strategies in university spin-outs. R&D Management, 43(2), 136–150.CrossRef
Manes Rossi, F., Nicolò, G., & Tartaglia Polcini, P. (2018). New trends in intellectual capital reporting: Exploring online intellectual capital disclosure in Italian universities. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 19(4), 814–835.CrossRef
Mastilak, C., Matuszewski, L., Miller, F., & Woods, A. (2012). Evaluating conflicting performance on driver and outcome measures: The effect of strategy maps. Journal of Management Control, 23(2), 97–114.CrossRef
McAdam, M., & Debackere, K. (2018). Beyond “Triple Helix” towards “Quadruple Helix” models in regional innovation systems. R&D Management, 48(1), 3–6.CrossRef
McAdam, M., Miller, K., & McAdam, R. (2016). Situated regional university incubation: A multi-level stakeholder perspective. Technovation, 50–51, 69–78.CrossRef
McAdam, M., Miller, K., & McAdam, R. (2017). University business models in disequilibrium–engaging industry and end users within university technology transfer processes. R&D Management, 47(3), 458–472.CrossRef
Miller, B. A. (2007). Assessing organizational performance in higher education. Jossey-Bass.
Miller, K., McAdam, M., & McAdam, R. (2014). The changing university business model: a stakeholder perspective. R&D Management, 44(3), 265–287.CrossRef
Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Scott, A., & Duran, X. (2002). Measuring third stream activities. Final report to the Russell Group universities. SPRU, University of Sussex.
Morecroft, J. D. W. (2015). Strategic modelling and business dynamics: A feedback systems approach. Wiley.CrossRef
Olcay, G. A., & Bulu, M. (2017). Is measuring the knowledge creation of universities possible? A review of university rankings. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 153–160.CrossRef
Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review, 18(5), 639–653.CrossRef
Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., & Hughes, A. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42, 423–442.CrossRef
Pilbeam, C. (2006). Generating additional revenue streams in UK universities: An analysis of variation between disciplines and institutions. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(3), 297–311.CrossRef
Pinto, H., Cruz, A. R., & de Almeida, H. (2016). Academic entrepreneurship and knowledge transfer networks: Translation process and boundary organizations. In L. Carvalho (Ed.), Handbook of research on entrepreneurial success and its impact on regional development (pp. 315–344). IGI Global.CrossRef
Powell, W. W., & Snellman, K. (2004). The knowledge economy. Annual Review of Sociology, 30(1), 199–220.CrossRef
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1990). Policy networks: A British perspective. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2(3), 293–317.CrossRef
Rhodes, R. A. W. (2017). Network governance and the differentiated polity. Oxford University Press.CrossRef
Ricci, R., Colombelli, A., & Paolucci, E. (2019). Entrepreneurial activities and models of advanced European science and technology universities. Management Decision, 57(12), 3447–3472.CrossRef
Rippa, P., & Secundo, G. (2019). Digital academic entrepreneurship: The potential of digital technologies on academic entrepreneurship. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 900–911.CrossRef
Sanchez, P., & Elena, S. (2006). Intellectual capital in universities. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(4), 529–548.CrossRef
Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M. (2014). Articulating the ‘three-missions’ in Spanish universities. Research Policy, 43(10), 1760–1773.CrossRef
Secundo, G., Massaro, M., Dumay, J., & Bagnoli, C. (2018). Intellectual capital management in the fourth stage of IC research: A critical case study in university settings. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9, 157–177.CrossRef
Secundo, G., Ndou, V., Del Vecchio, P., & De Pascale, G. (2019). Knowledge management in entrepreneurial universities: A structured literature review and avenue for future research Agenda. Management Decision, 57(12), 3226–3257.CrossRef
Secundo, G., Perez, S. E., Martinaitis, Z., & Leitner, K. H. (2015). An intellectual capital maturity model (ICMM) to improve strategic management in European universities. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(2), 419–442.CrossRef
Secundo, G., Perez, S. E., Martinaitis, Z., & Leitner, K. H. (2017). An intellectual capital framework to measure universities’ third mission activities. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 123, 229–239.CrossRef
Sicilia, M. F., Guarini, E., Sancino, A., Andreani, M., & Ruffini, R. (2016). Public services management and co-production in multi-level governance settings. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1), 8–27.CrossRef
Sterman, J. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Thorp, H., & Goldstein, B. (2013). Engines of innovation: The entrepreneurial university in the twenty-first century. UNC Press Books.
Torfing, J., & Ansell, C. (2017). Strengthening political leadership and policy innovation through the expansion of collaborative forms of governance. Public Management Review, 19(1), 37–54.CrossRef
Trencher, G., Yarime, M., McCormick, K. B., Doll, C. N. H., & Kraines, S. B. (2014). Beyond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Science and Public Policy, 41(2), 151–179.CrossRef
Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2013). Entrepreneurial universities: Socioeconomic impacts of academic entrepreneurship in a European context. Economic Development Quarterly, 27, 40–55.CrossRef
Van Looy, B., Debackere, K., & Andries, P. (2003). Policies to stimulate regional innovation capabilities via university-industry collaboration: An analysis and an assessment. R&D Management, 33(2), 209–229.CrossRef
Watson, D., & Hall, L. (2015). Addressing the elephant in the room: Are universities committed to the third stream agenda. International Journal of Academic Research in Management, 4(2), 48–76.
Webber, R., & Jones, K. (2011). Re-positioning as a response to government higher education policy development–an Australian case study. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(1), 17–26.CrossRef
Wolstenholme, E. (1999). Qualitative vs quantitative modelling: The evolving balance. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50, 422–428.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Adopting a Dynamic Performance Governance Approach to Frame Interorganizational Value Generation Processes into a University Third Mission Setting
verfasst von
Federico Cosenz
Copyright-Jahr
2022
Buch
Governance and Performance Management in Public Universities

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-85697-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-85698-4

Copyright-Jahr: 2022

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85698-4_5

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise