Open Access
Subscription Access
Open Access
Subscription Access
Intrapreneurship and Innovation in Engineering Education
Subscribe/Renew Journal
It is observed that around 1- 2 % of the faculty members in autonomous institutes usually take a risk in developing many innovative projects and programs for corporate and International Development Agencies (IDAs) by responding to letters of invitation or advertisements through abiding process. They utilize their talents, expertise and prepare high quality and cost effective projects which meet the stringent terms of references (TORs). These faculties needs empowerment and a delegation of administrators of the institutes but they are usually neglected in many institutes. Usually, there is an inordinate delay in forwarding the bid documents and providing with sufficient technical staff even though the revenue generated would meet all expenditures. Most of the innovations are due to Intrapreneurship who are risk-taking faculty members, and also think out of the box and provide creative solutions. There is a need for supporting policy from the Chief Executing Officers (CEOs),Board of Governors, and government to encourage such outstanding ventures. Even though these institutes enjoy all types of autonomy but it is not passed on to the departments and to the faculty members. Institutes have to plan project specific policies, maintain separate accounts and distribute the gains as per the approved norms. Also,the fear of failing has to be removed from other faculty members besides giving the needed resources. Such initiatives would encourage more risk takers to undertake development activities, outreach programs and sponsored projects. Since the institutes have to contribute to the economy through providing a conducive environment for creating new and innovative products; the management has to take a lead.
Keywords
Intrapreneurship–Development Policies-Internal Revenue Generation and Utilization.
Subscription
Login to verify subscription
User
Font Size
Information
- Bergquist and Pawlak (2006) Engaging the Six Cultures of the Academy: Revised and Expanded Edition of the four Cultures of the Academy, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
- EmilyAbbott et al (2011).“Five Essential Elements of a Successful Twenty-First Century University Corporate Relation Program”, Network of Academic Corporate Relations Officers Bench marking Committee, USA.
- Hower A. Mark (2012). Faculty Work: Moving Beyond the Paradox of Autonomy and Collaboration, Ph.D. Thesis in Leadership and Change, Aura Antioch University, http://aura.antioch.edu/etds/117
- The institution of Engineers Australia (1996).“Changing the Culture: Engineering Education into the Future”,Report of the Review of Engineering Education, p 16.
- Dr.James Gover and Dr. PaulHurvay. “Educating 21st Century Engineers”, IEEE-USA E-BOOKS, Washington DC, www.ieeeusa.org
- Julio A.Pertuze et al. (2010). “Best Practices for Industry- University Collaboration”, MIT Sloan ManagementReview,Summer-2010, 51(4), 82-90.
- Katherine Chudoba, Mary Beth Watson and Kevin Crowston (2012). “Innovation inAcademic- Industry Partnerships: Measuring Challenges to Effective Performance”, TIM Submission-ID 17445, Boston, MA: Technology and Innovation Management Division, Annual Meeting of Academy of Management.
- Kezaral and Lester(2009). “Organizing Higher Education for Collaboration: A Guide for Campus Leaders”, San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass
- Mark L. Gorden. University Controlled or Owned Technology: “The State of Commercialization and Recommendations”, http://www.gbkecbaiigmenfmgj fcdgdpimamgkj/views/app.html
- Merrill Schwartz,Richard Skinner and Zeddie Bowen (2009)“ Faculty, Governing Boards, and Institutional Governance”, TIAA-CREF Institute
- Paul Lingenfelter, Richard Novak, and Richard Legon (2008).“Excellence at Scale- What is required of public leadership and governance in higher education?”Virginia, Charlottesville: Miller Center of Public Affairs, Association of Governing Boards of Universities andColleges.
- Pierre Gurdjian, Thomas Halbeisen and Kevin Lane (2014)“Why leadership-development programs fail ?”McKinseyQuarterly, www.mckinsey.com/insights/ leding- in_the21s t_century/why_leadershipdevelopment_ programs-fail
- Randy L Conyers. “A Review of Leadership Theories and Possible Changes to Police Leadership”, http://www.chroome-extension//gbkeegbaigmenfmjfeledpimmgkj/views/app.html
- Renu Khater (2013). “Forging Strategic Business Partnership to Develop the 21st Century Workforce,A Case Study of the University of Houston's Undergraduate Petroleum Engineering Program”, The Business-Higher Education Forum. www.bhef.com
- Roger L.Geiger. “Corporate Sponsored Research at Penn State: Report to the Office of the Vice President for Research”, Center for the Study of Higher Education, the Pennsylvania State University. http://www.edpsu/eshe/working- papers/wp-1
- Senate Task Force on University-Industry Partnerships.“Principles and guidelines for Large –Scale Collaborations between the University and Industry,Government and Foundations,” USA.
- Stephanie Bertels, James Gray, Omar Romoero Hemandez and Stave Hahn. “Six Challenges to Collaborative Research and Solutions for Addressing them”. Network for Business sustainability,Ontario,Canada:Western University
- UIDP Projects (2013) “10 Case Studies of High Return University-Industry Collaborations”, USA
- University of Newcastle (2004). “Bench Marks in Cultural Change in Engineering Education”
- U.S Department of Commerce (2013) “The Innovative and Entrepreneurial University, Higher Education, Innovation and Entrepreneurship in Focus”, Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Development , Off ice of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Development.
Abstract Views: 298
PDF Views: 0