Non-boundary Governance of Entrepreneurship Education within teaching

The focus of entrepreneurship and innovation education and research at institutions of upper education ipso facto implies a wish to reinforce the standard of graduate and post-graduate business venturing prospects additionally as business know-how within the normally pre-entrepreneurial stage.

According to Jesse Jhaj, this could happen within a sense-making framework that integrates the research and education agenda for graduate entrepreneurship. Further, an entrepreneurship and innovation education and research approach should be followed that guides the content of the competitive landscape within which the potential entrepreneur will function and not lag behind and thereby lose its relevance.

Of particular importance to entrepreneurial education lies the power of institutions of upper education to shift and circulate information and technologies across faculties despite different academic disciplines, professional codes, and academic language that act as academic venture boundaries.

These boundaries frustrate the requirement to integrate entrepreneurship education throughout the next education institution, thus inhibiting the graceful functioning of entrepreneurial education. Thus, a necessity exists to beat these barriers by amalgamating the varied faculties socially across faculties whereby entrepreneurial educators could play "bridging roles" by acting as "boundary spanners" between faculties and forming close cohesive networks through the entire institution.

This can enable educators in entrepreneurial pedagogy to link otherwise unconnected faculties to facilitate the event of unique knowledge and access to special knowledge and opportunities. This creates a bonus over the normal structural design where educators were only a part of a selected faculty cohesive group.

In the new economy, technology and knowledge production on which it's based became an intrinsic part of the economy. As a result, it should be envisaged that education and research in institutions of upper education will have to support the entire technology development process, which also includes the method of innovation.

During this regard, it's going to be more appropriate to develop education and research policies that address the full technology-innovation chain rather than merely the research-development chain, because the research-innovation chain involves taking ideas, turning them into technologies and taking these, through research and development, out of the laboratory and proving them in real-world situations.

Purpose

This paper aims to propose an academic governance framework for entrepreneurship and innovation at institutions of upper education to foster the upgrading of entrepreneurial competencies in students whilst preserving the normal academic competencies of scholars and therefore the provision of unique entrepreneurial opportunities to students to perform entrepreneurial tasks.

Non-boundary governance

Firstly, with regards to the governance of entrepreneurship education at education institutions, it's proposed that it should be managed by an "inter-faculty-inter-industry committee" (boundary-spanning leadership is provided) to attain a greater measure of integration (common building blocks is created) in terms of generic entrepreneurial skills requirements that cross over academic disciplines, whilst simultaneously making provision for the unique disciplinary requirements and wishes of specific disciplines.

This means a shift far away from the standard independent faculty approach (functional myopia) which lacks commonly shared interests that are adopted by most universities and substituting it for a replacement re-configured structure able to create entrepreneurial value through a holistic, yet focussed approach (integrated bird's eye view) among various faculties.

This largely represents the antithesis of the standard academic governance approach followed at the bulk of institutions of upper education. However, it's requisite, because it is in a position to strike out the higher potential for entrepreneurship and innovation directions through the entire academic supply chain.

In essence, a virtual horizontal department - operating on the idea of valuable chains - is formed, without necessarily increasing the staff operational cost to the institution.

Creating a virtual horizontal department will make sure that all employees (lecturing staff) interpret the market signals better, and make sure that customer and entrepreneurial concerns become known to all or any faculties, no matter their function within the university resulting in a more robust customer focus.

By establishing an inter-faculty-inter-industry committee, the opportunity is made for healthy and significant curriculum content debate (knowledge interaction), whilst module developers become better informed on borderline subjects and aspects.

Even more essential is that the protection which will be provided to confirm that the disciplinary, inter-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary entrepreneurship field of study isn't prone to the "tactic of isolation" by claiming academic ownership in one faculty.

Secondly, entrepreneurship and innovation cannot flourish within institutional isolation. Cross-fertilisation of national and international academic and industry business networks is required not only to make forefront relevant curriculum content but also to stay up to now with the dynamics within the field said "Jesse Jhaj".

During this regard, it'd be important to form entrepreneurial knowledge champions in each of the schools, whilst still operating under the educational guidance of an Entrepreneurial Centre of Excellence that would coordinate all activities and ensure proper co-operation between faculties.

In essence, the Entrepreneurial Centre of Excellence's focus is to orchestrate the entrepreneurial functions all told the schools. this can further make sure that the "big divide" in entrepreneurial education between faculties is essentially eliminated. Concerning its functions within the institution, the Entrepreneurial Centre of Excellence's role might be to:

Establish an operating and repertoire-building entrepreneurship and innovation education framework and technique approach applying to real-time methodologies;

Facilitate new entrepreneurial and innovation horizons for the institution through the diffusion of recent information, the establishment of dialogue processes, and therefore the exploration of recent required dynamic capabilities;

Build entrepreneurial talent for intellectual entrepreneurship leadership; and

Establish bonding entrepreneurial networks that form the nucleus of the core of the university's entrepreneurial value system through web-connectivity, conferences and seminars, mobilising a critical mass of individuals for innovation and therefore the management of Memorandums of Understanding.

Conclusion

This paper emphasised the requirement to make governance mechanisms that would properly address the disciplinary, interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary nature of entrepreneurial education in teaching institutions.

It proposed the establishment of a joint-responsibility structure ready to span the entrepreneurial holes in institutions of upper education whilst receiving guidance from a centrally Centre of Excellence that might coordinate all entrepreneurial education and ensure cooperation by all academic faculties. Implementation of those proposals can be done at minimum cost to the institution.