2. Exponential growth of entrepreneurship courses…
300 universities in the 1980s
 over 1,050 institutions in the 1990s
(Solomon et al. 1994)
by 2005, over 2,200 courses in entrepreneurship
at over 1,600 universities throughout the United
States (Kuratko 2005; Katz
2003)
Concomitant increase in the number of academic
institution-based entrepreneurship centers
(Kuratko 2005)

3. Despite this growth, Katz (2008) and Kuratko
(2005) maintain that complete academic
legitimacy of entrepreneurship has not yet
been reached.
While funds continue to flow to develop and
promote entrepreneurship education,
outcome objectives for the use of these
dollars are often poorly defined (Cope et al.
2005).

4. Opportunity for new entrepreneurial
programs to paint a clear picture from their
inception.
Opportunity to learn from entrepreneurship
programs, both at small colleges and large
universities, that have already sprouted up
and experienced growth, challenges, failures
and ultimate successes.

5. An
Insider’s
Perspec.ve
on
Entrepreneurial
Program
Development
at
a
Small
and
a
Large
Ins.tu.on
Michael
S.
Lehman,
MD,
MBA
Published
in:
Annals
of
Biomedical
Engineering
The
Journal
of
the
Biomedical
Engineering
Society
ISSN
0090-­‐6964
Ann
Biomed
Eng
DOI
10.1007/s10439-­‐013-­‐0778-­‐6
hRp://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=ar.cle&id=doi:10.1007/s10439-­‐013-­‐0778-­‐6

6. 4-year undergraduate private liberal arts
1,400 students and 14,000 alumni

7. Sill Business Student Seed
Incubator Capital Fund
Academic Economic
Services Development

8. The
University
of
PiRsburgh
15
schools
25,000
undergraduates
(2,000
in
business)
10,000
graduate
students
(900
in
business)

9. quiet
culture
of
entrepreneurship
no
formal
student
degree
program
emerging
entrepreneurial
ini4a4ves

10. Lessons Learned

11. I
Institutional
Champions

12. When change in higher education is not the
result of a major crisis or outside pressure, a
vigorous and farsighted leader not only gets the
ball rolling, but also helps to provide momentum
as the team is built (Rosser and Penrod 1991).
The champion considers the resource pipeline to
pay for any new programs or programmatic
changes (Rowley et al. 1997).

13. Faculty champions appear to be more successful
when resources are stable or expanding and
issues are seated in one department with little
connection across other academic units or
outside the university setting.
Administrative champions are key when resource
building is in the growth phase and issues cut
across departments or are not related to one
primary unit. (Shmidtlein 1990)

14. Economic
Education Development

15. Secure a triad of institutional champions:
• a political champion
• a course champion
• an administrative champion
(Hills 1988)

16. II
Supply Chain

17. A key part of implanting the new
entrepreneurship program on campus is
integration with the ‘student supply chain’.

18. A key part of implanting the new
entrepreneurship program on campus is
integration with the ‘student supply chain’.
?

19. A key part of implanting the new
entrepreneurship program on campus is
integration with the ‘student supply chain’.
Supply chain…set of three or more entities
directly involved in flows of services to a
customer (Mentzer et al. 2001).
The management of this supply chain should
include integrated behavior (Bowersox and Closs
1996) and cooperation among its members,
mutually sharing information (Mentzer et al.
2001).

20. Supply chain:
 admissions
 academic
advising
 career
services
 alumni office
 development
office

21. The findings of Petersen et al. (2005) suggest the
value of seeking and utilizing input from select
suppliers during the development of new
products; the result is not only a better final
product design but also improved financial
performance.
Supply chain members should work together on
new product development (Drozdowski 1986),
recognizing that a “supply chain succeeds if all
the members of the supply chain have the same
goal and the same focus on serving
customers.” (LaLonde and Masters 1994, in
Mentzer et al. 2001, p.9).

22. Develop a formal organizational structure or
mechanism for communication with
enrollment, advising, career services and
alumni development.
Involve key members in the supply chain
during the planning and implementation
phases when looking to create new
programs, or even refine existing ones.

23. Develop a formal organizational structure or
mechanism for communication with
enrollment, advising, career services and
alumni development.
Involve key members in the supply chain
during the planning and implementation
phases when looking to create new
programs, or even refine existing ones.

24. III
Diverse
Non-Credit,
Experience-Based
Opportunities

25. Participation in experience-based activities has a
low barrier to entry, affording students with
opportunities to sample the entrepreneurial
culture.
These activities increase awareness of
entrepreneurial career opportunities through
practical, real-life scenarios, provide an
opportunity to facilitate interdisciplinary teams,
and often increases confidence and interest in
starting a business (Collins and Robertson 2003).
Finally, these activities serve as an entrée to
deciding to enroll in a more formal course of
entrepreneurial study.

26. Leverage the excitement generated by
students participating in these non-credit,
experience-based activities
Schedule interviews upon the
completion of these activities for print or
strong,
video pieces can capture
powerful messaging for use
along the supply chain.

27. Exposure of students to entrepreneurship
stimulates a desire to start one’s own business,
according to Peterman and Kennedy (2003), this
exposure does not necessarily impact the
participants’ perceptions of the feasibility of
starting a business.
This supports the model of launching experience-
based opportunities to stimulate initial interest,
while offering for-credit courses to provide the
rigorous academic exercises necessary to
evaluate feasibility as the next step in the
process.

28. IV
Dynamic
For-Credit Courses

29. Entrepreneurs relish independence, flexibility and
innovative ways of doing things.
Students in entrepreneurial classes are no
different.
They thrive on learning followed by immediate
application to either their own ventures or a live
case study.

30. Gartner and Vesper (1994) presented a summary
of successes and failures in entrepreneurship
courses (survey of entrepreneurship faculty
teaching 445 entrepreneurship courses at 177
institutions)
+ bringing to class former students and other
alumni with a proven track record in
entrepreneurship
- bringing in guest speakers without providing an
outline of assigned topics and goals for the
visit

31. + early feedback on a business plan to allow for
refocusing and refining
+ dynamic teaching methods, such as ‘living
cases’ followed by networking dinners
+ having students present their own
entrepreneurial experiences
+ creating in-class ‘right-brained’ exercises to
examine barriers to creativity
- simply using films, videos, and straight
lecturing by the instructor
(Gartner and Vesper
1994)

32. Include a guest lecture from an entrepreneur
whose business failed and a third party such as
an accountant or lawyer who witnessed the
entrepreneur’s distress (Shepherd 2004).
A contingency-based model for teaching
entrepreneurship is also useful, whereby
students either implement solutions from either
actual business activities they may be involved in
or assist firms they are consulting (Honig 2004).

33. Many smaller schools have one faculty member
teaching all of the entrepreneurship courses
+ coordination among the syllabi and course
content as the students progress through course
sequence
- limited perspective on the field
 leverage a rich variety of coordinated live
case studies and guest lecturers
 arrange for periodic external reviews by
entrepreneurial faculty from peer and aspirant
schools

34. At a large university a number of faculty members
may teach different entrepreneurship courses:
+ breadth of styles and research experience
- lacks a coordinated effort to provide progression
from course to course with little redundancy
 identify a faculty member to lead the charge
in coordination of content, particularly
during periods of new course and curriculum
development

35. V
Faculty
Partnerships

36. Leverage the liberal arts environment to
tailor and deliver mini-curricula on
entrepreneurship in non-business classes.
Cross-list courses across different schools.
Develop advisory boards for student
ventures with faculty experts from business
and non-business.

37. VI
Designated
Advisory Boards

38. Inclusion of trustees, faculty, students
and a robust contingency of regional and
alumni entrepreneurs provides an
effective balance of theory and practice.
A focus on student entrepreneurship in the
context of regional economic
development provides specific financial
resources and connections for the
student entrepreneurs.

39. Tap into university-developed
technologies by faculty, even in the
absence of an office of technology
management.
Connect to alumni
with venture-
backed, scalable companies, even if it
appears that the local portfolio of companies is
adequate.
Encourage interdisciplinary team
formation.

40. VII
Bootstrapping
Skills

41. Bootstrapping, a necessary process for most
start-ups, can bridge the gap until the
venture develops a market-valued product or
service (Auken 2004; Windborg and
Lanstrom 2000).
Much like the new business venture, new
entrepreneurship programs go through a
bootstrapping phase in the start-up and
growth stages.

42. Ensure accrued interest from seed
capital funds or capital project accounts is
reinvested back into the student
entrepreneurship program.
Designate gift and pledge payments
specifically to student entrepreneurship
activities.

43. Hills
(1988)
countered
an
argument
made
by
naysayers
that
entrepreneurship
educa4on
was
a
passing
fad;
this
‘fad’
not
only
has
become
a
mainstay
in
business
educa4on
but
also
a
driving
factor
for
job
crea4on
and
economic
growth.

44. I. Institutional Champions
II. Supply Chain
III. Diverse Non-Credit,
Experience-Based Opportunities
IV. Dynamic For-Credit Courses
V. Faculty Partnerships
VI. Designated Advisory Boards
VII. Bootstrapping Skills

45. Lehigh.edu/innovate

46. An
Insider’s
Perspec.ve
on
Entrepreneurial
Program
Development
at
a
Small
and
a
Large
Ins.tu.on
Michael
S.
Lehman
Published
in:
Annals
of
Biomedical
Engineering
The
Journal
of
the
Biomedical
Engineering
Society
ISSN
0090-­‐6964
Ann
Biomed
Eng
DOI
10.1007/s10439-­‐013-­‐0778-­‐6
hRp://www.springerlink.com/openurl.asp?genre=ar.cle&id=doi:10.1007/s10439-­‐013-­‐0778-­‐6